diff --git "a/CASEDATA-1.json" "b/CASEDATA-1.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/CASEDATA-1.json" @@ -0,0 +1,65002 @@ +[ + { + "Case No.": "1", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clE9PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1 = 2006 SLD 1 = 2006 PTD 499 = (2005) 92 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clE9PQ", + "Key Words:": "Tax Treatment of Interest Income and Business Income\nDetails:\nThe appellant, a private limited company, appealed against the order of the CIT(A), which confirmed the Assessing Officer’s decisions regarding tax treatment of the company’s interest income, sale of assets, and depreciation claims for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000. The appellant contended that its interest income from PECO, along with other incomes like scrap sales and gains on asset sales, should be considered part of the company’s business income and not income from other sources under section 30 of the Income Tax Ordinance. Additionally, the company challenged the disallowance of depreciation claims and the order passed under section 52 concerning non-deduction of tax at source.\nHeld:\nThe interest income from PECO was correctly classified as income from other sources under section 30, not as business income. Past treatment of such income as business income did not set a binding precedent, as each year’s assessment is independent.\nThe company's alternate argument regarding the accrual basis of income was rejected, as under the mercantile system, all income, regardless of how it arises, must be included in the computation of total income.\nThe CIT(A)'s remand for further examination of depreciation claims was upheld, with instructions for a thorough reappraisal in line with statutory provisions.\nThe order under section 52 regarding tax withholding was directed for reappraisal, ensuring the company was given full opportunity to explain its position before a final order.\nCitations:\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 708\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 3179\n2002 PTD (Trib.) 250\n2000 PTD 363", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=25,25(c),30,50,50(1),50(7b),52,62,86,136,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 843/LB to 846/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner by: Saeed Chaudhry, FCA", + "Party Name:": "AL KARAM CNG AND OTHERS\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmc9PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 1 = 2011 SLD 1 = (2011) 103 TAX 216 = 2011 PTCL 467 = 2011 PTD 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmc9PQ", + "Key Words:": "1.\nTax Under S.234-A(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\no\nThe tax collected under Section 234-A(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is considered the final tax on the income of CNG stations.\no\nNo additional tax can be levied on the consumption of electricity under Section 235 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as it would result in double taxation.\n2.\nApplication of Sections 234-A(3) and 235:\no\nSection 234-A(3) relates to tax on income, while Section 235 concerns tax on electricity consumption. These provisions deal with different subjects, each establishing tax collection under separate schedules and rates.\no\nThe two sections are not in conflict or contradictory with each other.\n3.\nLegality and Competence:\no\nSections 234-A(3) and 235 are neither discriminatory nor confiscatory, and their application is within the legislative competence.\n4.\nSales Tax on Value Addition:\no\nThe tax on value addition is imposed under Section 7A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which is prefaced by a non-obstante clause, overriding other provisions.\n5.\nCourt Decision:\no\nThe petitions challenging these provisions were dismissed for lacking substance.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 2004 Pesh. 263\n•\n2009 PTD 1473\n•\nPLD 1997 SC 582", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=80D,234,80,235,234(A)(3),80CC,80C, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,7,7A ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 282, 1364, 1829, 1995, 2773, 3003, 3008, 3014, 3015, 3024 of 2009 and 81, 82, 83, 84 of 2010, decision dated: 28-10-2010, hearing DATE : 28-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE, YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner by: Hidayat Ullah Khattak", + "Party Name:": "M/S DELTA CNG STATION, PESHAWAR\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH SECRETARY LAW, ISLAMABAD & 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cnc9PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 2 = 2006 SLD 2 = 2006 PTD 521 = 2009 PTCL 341 = (2006) 93 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cnc9PQ", + "Key Words:": "1.\nReopening of Assessment:\no\nThe Tribunal's findings regarding the reopening of the assessment, based on the same material already available on record when the original assessment was made, were not disputed by any party.\no\nNo legal question arose from the Tribunal's order, leading the High Court to dismiss the reference.\n2.\nIncome Escaping Assessment After Two Years:\no\nThe Tribunal did not consider the limitation objection regarding the reopening of the assessment after the expiry of two years.\no\nThe Revenue did not challenge the Tribunal's finding on reopening the assessment based on the same material in their reference application.\n3.\nFailure to Provide Complete Facts:\no\nThe Tribunal failed to provide complete facts of the case to the High Court.\no\nThe High Court noted the absence of clear identification and evaluation of the material and documents available on record by the Tribunal, particularly in light of the assessee's objection regarding a change of opinion.\n4.\nHigh Court’s Decision:\no\nIn the absence of clear evaluation of the material and documents, the High Court declined to answer the questions referred to it.\nReference:\n•\n(1990) 182 ITR 455", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136(1),136,50(4)(b)(1) Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 50 of 1995, decision dated: 8-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE AND JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nMessrs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUE9PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 2 = 2011 SLD 2 = (2011) 103 TAX 1 = 2011 PTCL 438 = 2011 PTD 159 = 2011 PTR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUE9PQ", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption from Withholding Tax on National Saving Schemes:\no\nNational Saving Schemes have been granted exemption from withholding tax on profits paid under these schemes, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), specifically Clause 77-C of Part-I of the Second Schedule.\n2.\nContinuation of Exemption Under the Income Tax Ordinance (2001):\no\nThe exemption from withholding tax on profits in National Saving Schemes continued with the enforcement of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 due to Section 239(14), which preserved the application of Clause 77-C of the 1979 Ordinance.\n3.\nRestriction on the Exemption:\no\nThe only restriction is that the exemption applies only to investments made on or before June 30, 2001.\n4.\nInability to Withdraw Exemption:\no\nThe exemption provided by the law for National Saving Schemes cannot be withdrawn, altered, or negated by a sub-legislative instrument issued by the Federal Government, even if the instrument attempts to interpret or clarify the provisions of the law. The exemption is a right based on the express provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nKey Reference:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Second Schedule, Part-I, Clause 77-C and 77-C(A).\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), Section 239(14).\n•\nS.R.O. 100(1)/93, dated 2-2-1993, Rule 9.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Part-I of Second Schedule,Cl.77C,77C(A) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=239(14) ", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 640 to 643 of 2006, C. P. No. 1001-L of 2006 and C.M.As. Nos. 2398 to 2401 of 2009, decision dated: 26-10-2010, W.Ps. Nos. 1803, 4993, 5486, 6183 of 2004, 18903 of 2005 respectively)", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR UL MULK, JUSTICE, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE, MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner by: M. Ilyas Khan, Sr. Adv. SC and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Adv. on-Record/Adv. S.C.\nRespondent by: Saghir Ahsan Farooqui, Siraj Khalid, Adv. S. C. and Dr. Ikram ul Haq, Adv. SC.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nVs.\nM/s PROSPERITY WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. & OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVE9PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 3 = 2011 SLD 3 = (2010) 102 TAX 13 = 2011 PTD 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVE9PQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) and Amendments to Assessments:\nAmendment of Assessment (Sections 122, 121 & 120 - Income Tax Ordinance, 2001):\nAssessment orders issued under Section 120 or Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, or under similar sections of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (e.g., Sections 59, 59A, 62, 63, 65), could be amended before the substitution of subsections (5) and (5A) in Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (through Finance Ordinance, 2003).\nDefinite Information for Amendment (Section 122 - Income Tax Ordinance, 2001):\nAn assessment can be amended under Section 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 based on definite information regarding concealment of income.\nSurvey Team Information: Information obtained from a survey team is insufficient if it doesn't constitute definite information to establish concealment of income.\nScope of Information for Amendment (Section 122(1)):\nInformation like the estimation of sales by a survey team is not considered definite information under Section 122(1).\nThe amendment of assessment cannot occur under Section 122(1) if the information's existence has not been undoubtedly established.\nRe-assessment Restrictions (Section 122(1) - Income Tax Ordinance, 2001):\nDe novo reassessment of total income is not allowed under Section 122(1). The amendment process is restricted to altering the existing assessment order, not re-assessing the entire income as under Sections 65 & 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nScope of Amendments (Section 122 - Income Tax Ordinance, 2001):\nUnlike under Sections 65 & 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, where full reassessment was possible, Section 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is more limited. It allows amendments to existing orders to include concealed income.\nThe exercise of powers to make amendments is at the discretion of the Commissioner, but is subject to conditions as laid out in subsections (5) and (5A).\nJurisdiction of Authorities (Sections 209 & 210 - Income Tax Ordinance, 2001):\nAmendments under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 can only be made by the same authority that issued the original assessment order, which is usually a senior officer like the Commissioner.\nThis power can be delegated or exercised by an officer on behalf of the Commissioner under Section 209(2) or as delegated by Section 210.\nIn contrast, under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, amendments under Sections 65 & 66A required approval from higher authorities like the Inspecting Additional Commissioner.\nProperty Income and Vacancy Allowance (Sections 19 & 20 - Income Tax Ordinance, 1979):\nProration of rental income was applied by the Assessing Officer instead of providing a vacancy allowance under Section 20 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. This method was not in line with the provisions of Sections 19 & 20.\nThe amended order under Section 122(1) based on non-declaration of property income was found to be invalid by the Appellate Tribunal.\nKey References:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001): Sections 122, 121, 120, 209, 210\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979): Sections 59, 59A, 62, 63, 65, 66A, 19, 20", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121,122,122(1),122(5),122(5A),209,210 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,20,20(1)(a),59,59A,62,63,65,65A,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1367-A/IB and 1227/IB of 2004, decision dated: 7-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner by: Yasmeen Sardar \nRespondent by: Amjad Khan Khattak", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWc9PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 4 = 2011 SLD 4 = (2010) 102 TAX 1 = 2011 PTD 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWc9PQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Best Assessment and Validity:\nEx Parte Assessment (Sections 63, 56, & 61 - Income Tax Ordinance, 1979):\nEx parte assessment (assessments made in the absence of the taxpayer) can only be framed if a notice under Section 56 or Section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 has been issued to the assessee.\nNotice under Section 61 is mandatory before framing the assessment under Sections 62 or 63. Without this notice, the assessment is invalid and cannot be maintained.\nIf no notice is issued under Section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the assessment is illegal and liable to be annulled.\nPenalty and prosecution: Failure to issue notice under Section 61 could also lead to penalty under Section 110 and prosecution under Section 117.\nThe Appellate Tribunal annulled the assessment because no proof of the notice issuance under Section 61 was found in the records.\nKey References:\n2000 PTD 2872, 1960 PTD 727, 1987 PTD (Trib.) 335.\nGain on Sale of Property and Agricultural Land (Sections 63, 135 & 61 - Income Tax Ordinance, 1979):\nThe gain on the sale of property and agricultural land was added to the assessee's income without proper documentation and notice under Section 61.\nThere was no evidence of notice issuance under Section 61 or the proper carrying out of proceedings under Sections 135/63.\nThe only evidence provided by the Department was a copy of the notice under Section 62, but no proof of service was available, and no dispatch register or DCR was produced, despite Tribunal directions.\nThe Appellate Tribunal annulled the assessment, noting that the benefit of doubt favored the assessee due to the Department's failure to prove the issuance of the notice and other procedural deficiencies.\nAdditionally, the assessment was not maintainable on the basis of limitation.\nKey References:\n2000 PTD 2872, 1960 PTD 727, (1960) 2 Tax (III-474) = 1960 PTD 727.\nFinal Outcome:\nThe Tribunal modified the order of the First Appellate Authority, annulled the assessment, and directed that the gain on the sale of property and agricultural land should not be added to the income of the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,63,34,110,62,117,22(4),61,22,23(2),56,72,23,135,81,134,134(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 498/IB of 2004, decision dated: 19-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER and MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner by: Muhammad Aslam Anwar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cXc9PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 5 = 2011 SLD 5 = (2010) 102 TAX 45 = 2011 PTD 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cXc9PQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sale of Land/Plots – Non-Confrontation Under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979:\nIssue: The assessee argued that the addition to income from the sale of land/plots to individual customers should have been deleted by the First Appellate Authority rather than set aside because the notice under Section 62 was not issued.\nRuling: Statutory notices under Section 61 were issued, and adjournments were granted on the assessee's request. However, the assessments reopened under Section 65 were time-barred after 30-6-2001. The assessee's filing of returns and supporting documents on 25-6-2001 and 26-6-2001 left no room for further notices. The Tribunal held that the assessee, by filing documents on the last possible dates, prevented the issuance of any further notices. Thus, the claim for annulment was not upheld, as the delay in proceedings was attributable to the assessee's actions.\nKey References: 1971 SCMR 681; PLD 2002 SC Pak 408; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1956.\n(b) Claim for Exemption on Sale of Inherited Land (S.62 and Evidence Production):\nIssue: The assessee claimed income from the sale of inherited land as exempt, but failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate the exemption.\nRuling: The onus was on the assessee to provide evidence for the claimed exemption. The absence of such evidence allowed the Assessing Officer to reject the claim. Even though the assessee was not specifically confronted under Section 62, the First Appellate Authority had already provided an opportunity to present the evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal maintained the First Appellate Authority's decision to set aside the assessment.\nKey References: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 242, 1993 PTD (Trib.) 266.\n(c) Taxability of Sale of Land/Plots as Business Income (S.13(1)):\nIssue: The assessee declared receipts from the sale of inherited land, which the Assessing Officer treated as taxable income from business activities without proper deduction of sales cost.\nRuling: The Assessing Officer's approach was deemed careless for failing to deduct the cost of sales before adopting the total receipts as business income. The Tribunal emphasized that proper income calculation was necessary under Section 13(1).\nKey References: 1985 PTD (Trib.) 178.\n(d) Setting Aside of Assessment on Sale of Land (S.62 and Verification):\nIssue: The assessee argued that there was no profit from the sale of land, but the First Appellate Authority set aside the assessment for de novo consideration.\nRuling: The Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the assessment because the issue required further fact verification. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment after proper fact-checking.\nKey References: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 242.\n(e) Accommodation Allowance and Taxability (Member of Provincial Assembly):\nIssue: The assessee, as a Member of the Provincial Assembly, received accommodation allowance, which the Assessing Officer treated as house rent allowance (HRA), adding the excess to taxable salary.\nRuling: The Tribunal found the First Appellate Authority's reasoning for confirming the treatment of allowance as HRA to be unjustified. The issue required further verification, and the assessment was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision, considering the legal entitlement and the facts of the case.\nKey References: 2000 PTD 2872.\n(f) Investment in Land Purchase – Notice under S.13(1) (Investments Made by Assessee):\nIssue: The assessee contended that additions for the purchase of land should have been deleted rather than set aside because the notice under Section 13(1) was not issued after filing the return.\nRuling: The Tribunal dismissed the contention, stating that the notice under Section 13(1) had indeed been issued, and the assessee had been provided an opportunity to explain the sources of investment. The assessment order was not interfered with, as the procedural requirements had been met.\nKey References: 2000 PTD 2872.\n(g) Reconciliation of Wealth and Investment Source (S.13(1)(aa)):\nIssue: The assessee argued that the addition was incorrect due to discrepancies between the amount confronted and the actual amount of investment explained in the wealth statement.\nRuling: The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided an explanation for the amount of Rs.66,31,200 and was given an opportunity to explain the sources, there was no legal defect. The matter was not considered void as the provision under Section 13(1) did not mandate confrontation with a specific amount, especially after the assessee’s own explanation.\nKey References: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 242.\n(h) Accretion in Wealth and Setting Aside of Addition (S.13(1)(aa)):\nIssue: The assessee argued that accretion in wealth, linked to the previous year, should not be added to the current year's income.\nRuling: The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision to set aside the assessment, noting that further verification of the facts and period of investment was required. The matter was remanded for further scrutiny, as the issue needed factual clarification.\nKey References: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 242.\nConclusion:\nThese cases highlight important procedural and substantive requirements in tax assessment, particularly focusing on the issuance of notices, evidence production, the onus of proof on the assessee, and opportunities for confrontation and explanation of tax positions. The courts and tribunals emphasized the need for accurate and timely submission of returns and documents and upheld the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),13(1)(aa),61,62,65,Cl.39 of Second Schedule ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 623/IB to 628/IB of 2003, decision DATE : 06-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner by: Muhammad Aslam Anwar and Masoom Akhtar, FCA\nRespondent by: Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEE9PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 715 = 1979 SLD 715 = 1979 PLD 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEE9PQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Applicability of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act (VI of 1937) and Arbitration Act (X of 1940):\nIssue: The trial court prejudged the applicability of Act VI of 1937 (Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act) and Act X of 1940 (Arbitration Act) in a case where the main issues were still pending. The trial court, in response to a miscellaneous application, made findings on the applicability of Act X of 1940, which could have implications on whether Act VI of 1937 applies to the arbitration matter.\nRuling: The court held that the trial court should not have made a decision regarding the applicability of Act X of 1940 based solely on a miscellaneous application. Since the trial court had yet to decide the main case, it was premature to make a definitive ruling. If Act X of 1940 were found inapplicable, it would inevitably lead to the application of Act VI of 1937. However, the opinion expressed by the trial court on this matter was tentative, and therefore, it was not barred from reconsidering the issue when hearing the entire case.\nKey Takeaway: The trial court should refrain from prejudging substantive issues, particularly when the main case is still pending and the applicability of the relevant statutes is yet to be determined.\n(b) Shutting Out Evidence in Civil Suit – Misconduct and Illegalities of Arbitrators:\nIssue: In a civil suit concerning misconduct by arbitrators and alleged illegalities committed by a Board of Appeal, the trial court had framed issues but, without any objection from the respondent, chose to shut out the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner was instructed to produce evidence under Sections 7 and 8 of Act VI of 1937 (Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act).\nRuling: The trial court was found to have acted unjustifiably by shutting out the petitioner's evidence. Despite the respondent’s failure to raise any objections, the trial court was still bound to decide the issues related to misconduct and illegalities. In the absence of evidence, the trial court could not rightfully proceed to make a decision, as it had an obligation to consider the evidence before it and make a determination. Thus, the trial court's action of barring evidence was deemed improper.\nKey Takeaway: A court is required to consider all relevant evidence in a case, especially where issues such as misconduct and illegalities of arbitrators are at stake. Shutting out evidence without justifiable cause undermines the proceedings and may lead to improper rulings.\nConclusion:\nThese rulings emphasize the importance of proper procedural conduct and the role of the court in ensuring fairness in arbitration-related disputes. Courts are cautioned against prejudging issues before all evidence and arguments have been presented and are reminded of their duty to allow evidence to be heard when relevant issues are at stake.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 1173 of 1978, decision dated: 22-11-1978. dates of hearing: 31st October; 6th, 7th and 8-11-1978.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ILYAS, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aitzaz Ahsan for Petitioner.\nNaim-ur-Rehman and Malik Muhammad Qayyum for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SARGROH OIL INDUSTRIES LTD.\nVS\nMESSRS EUROPEAN GRAIN AND SHIPPING LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "9", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFE9PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 6 = 2011 SLD 6 = (2011) 103 TAX 172 = 2011 PTD 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFE9PQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Set-off of Losses and Admissibility of Expenditure:\nIssue: The Assessing Officer contended that the loss of the assessee could only be determined after adjusting expenses against business revenue. The Revenue argued that since there was no business revenue earned by the assessee, the expenses claimed could not be considered as admissible deductions under Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the finding that even in the absence of income, the expenditure incurred by the taxpayer could still be deducted as it was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Court emphasized that expenditures incurred for business purposes do not lose their character as valid deductions simply because no income was generated during the period in question. According to Section 57(iii), the deduction of expenditure is not conditional on earning income in the same year. The business loss was correctly calculated by the taxpayer and allowed to be set off against income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, with any remaining loss available for carry-forward to future periods under Section 57.\nKey Takeaway: The Tribunal confirmed that expenses that are incurred for business purposes are deductible, even if there is no income earned during the relevant period. The Revenue's contention that no business revenue must be earned for expenses to be deductible was rejected.\n(b) Admissibility of Expenses Under Section 21:\nIssue: The main question here was whether expenses incurred by the assessee could be admissible for deduction under Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, even if no income was earned during the tax year.\nRuling: The Tribunal affirmed that for an expense to be admissible under Section 21, it must be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that the earning of income during the tax year was not a prerequisite for the admissibility of expenses. The expenses incurred for the purpose of business, such as administrative, selling, and financial expenses, were therefore allowed as deductions, even if no income was generated during the relevant periods.\nKey Takeaway: Section 21 allows deductions for business expenses that are incurred exclusively for business purposes, regardless of whether the business generated income in the same period.\n(c) Pre-Commencement Expenditure:\nIssue: The definition of pre-commencement expenditure and its classification for deduction purposes was examined. Pre-commencement expenses generally include costs related to feasibility studies, prototypes, and trial production activities, but exclude expenses like depreciation, initial allowance, amortization, and expenses incurred for acquiring land.\nRuling: The Tribunal noted that pre-commencement expenditure, by definition, pertains to certain preparatory costs. The expenses in question were not classified as pre-commencement expenditures, as they related directly to the ongoing business activities of the assessee.\nKey Takeaway: Pre-commencement expenditure generally includes costs associated with preparing for business operations, such as feasibility studies and prototype construction, but does not cover regular business expenses like depreciation or land acquisition costs.\n(d) Classification of Expenses and Business Loss:\nIssue: The Assessing Officer initially argued that certain expenses should be classified as unallocated expenses, which could potentially render them non-deductible. This could undermine the assessees' claim for those expenses as they were incurred for business purposes.\nRuling: The Tribunal rejected the classification of the expenses as unallocated. It stated that such an approach would improperly disqualify the expenses and render them lost or non-deductible. The court emphasized that expenses incurred for the purposes of the business should be allowable, regardless of their classification as allocated or unallocated, provided they meet the criteria of being incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.\nKey Takeaway: Expenses that are wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes cannot be denied merely based on their classification, such as unallocated. They remain valid deductions under the law, irrespective of the classification given to them.\nConclusion:\nThese rulings reinforce the principle that business expenses incurred for the purpose of carrying on business should be allowed as deductions, even if no income is generated during the period in question. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of interpreting the law in a way that does not penalize businesses for incurring legitimate expenses while they are in the early stages of operation or not yet generating income. The rulings also provide clarity on the distinction between pre-commencement expenses and operational business expenses, ensuring that businesses are not unfairly disadvantaged by technical classifications.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=56,57,57(iii),21,39 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 562/IB, 563/IB and 813/IB of 2010, decision dated: 25-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER and IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Zafar Mehmood, D.R. for Appellant \nFaisal Banday, FCA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. (LEGAL), LTU, ISLAMABAD\nvs.\nM/S AL GHURAIR GIGA PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "10", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVVPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 7 = 2011 SLD 7 = (2010) 102 TAX 405 = 2011 PTD 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVVPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Cooperative Society - Taxation and Status:\nIssue: Whether a cooperative society, despite being granted the status of a company under Section 80(2)(b)(v) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, can be taxed at a lower rate in order to encourage its growth, and whether there is any conflict between the provisions of Section 80(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nRuling: The Tribunal confirmed that there was no conflict between Section 80(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and Paragraph (ii) of Division-II of Part-I of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Both provisions could apply simultaneously. A cooperative society, despite being classified as a company, was entitled to be taxed at a lower rate to promote its expansion and growth.\nKey Takeaway: The provisions regarding cooperative societies under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, were consistent, and the society’s income was taxed at a lower rate to support its growth.\n(b) Subcontracting and Presumptive Tax Regime:\nIssue: Whether payments made for goods and services under a contract that was sublet to various subcontractors should be taxed under the Presumptive Tax Regime or treated as regular income under normal law.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal held that assessing the receipts from the execution of the contract under the Presumptive Tax Regime in the hands of the assessee would result in double taxation—once in the hands of the assessee and again in the hands of the subcontractors. Since tax was already deducted from payments made to subcontractors under Section 153(1)(c), the Tribunal ruled that the assessee’s income should be assessed as normal law income, not under the Presumptive Tax Regime.\nKey Takeaway: Double taxation in the hands of both the assessee and the subcontractors was avoided, and the receipts were assessed under normal law income.\n(c) Nature of Receipts and Determination Method:\nIssue: The method of determining the nature of receipts and whether they should be treated as income under the Presumptive Tax Regime or under normal law.\nRuling: The Tribunal emphasized that the transactions between the assessee and subcontractors should be examined based on their substance rather than their form. The method of assessing the receipts was clarified in line with the nature of the business operations.\nKey Takeaway: The nature of receipts is determined by looking at the underlying substance of the transaction, ensuring that the correct tax regime is applied.\n(d) Proration of Administrative and General Expenses:\nIssue: Whether administrative and general expenses incurred by the assessee should be prorated between Presumptive Tax Regime income and normal law income, and how to treat the expenses when the receipts were treated differently.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the taxation officer’s approach of prorating administrative and general expenses between the two regimes. The Tribunal directed that all administrative and general expenses should be treated as part of the normal law income, as per the audited statements, and not allocated between the two regimes.\nKey Takeaway: Administrative and general expenses should not be prorated but treated as normal law expenses, in line with the audited accounts.\n(e) Admissibility of Expenses - Rent Payments and Non-Deduction of Tax:\nIssue: Whether rent payments, where tax was not deducted at source, should be admissible as a deduction under Section 21(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nRuling: The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of rent payments as a deduction due to the failure of the assessee to comply with the withholding tax provisions under Section 155. Even though the assessee adjusted the payments in inter-company transactions, the Tribunal found that the absence of tax deduction at source rendered the rent payments inadmissible under Section 21(c).\nKey Takeaway: The failure to deduct tax at source, even through book entries, led to the disallowance of the rent expense under Section 21(c).\n(f) Excess Perquisites - Disallowance:\nIssue: Whether excess perquisites provided to employees should be disallowed, and whether the method of calculating the excess perquisites was appropriate.\nRuling: The Tribunal found that the method used by the taxation officer, which aggregated the total payments to employees to calculate excess perquisites, was incorrect. The Tribunal required a detailed analysis, identifying excess perquisites on a case-by-case basis, before making an adjustment to the income.\nKey Takeaway: The method of calculating excess perquisites should involve a case-by-case assessment of each employee’s perquisites rather than using a consolidated figure for all employees.\nConclusion:\nThese rulings illustrate key issues in interpreting and applying provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), particularly concerning the treatment of cooperative societies, subcontracting income, administrative expenses, and the treatment of rent and perquisites. The Appellate Tribunal stressed the importance of adhering to the substance of transactions, ensuring fair treatment in the assessment of income, and the need for compliance with tax deduction at source rules to avoid disallowances. The rulings provided clarity on how income from subcontracts, expenses, and perquisites should be treated under both Presumptive Tax Regime and normal law income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=80,80(2)(b)(v),153,80(2),169,16(2)(b),21,21(c),155,21(k),153(1)(c),16 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 369/LB, 295/LB, 1485/LB to 1488/LB of 2009, decision dated: 30-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Anwar and Masoom Akhtar, FCA for Appellant. \nDr. Muhammad Iqbal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NESPAK FOUNDATION, LAHORE\nVs\nC.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "11", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVRPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 8 = 2011 SLD 8 = (2011) 103 TAX 168 = 2011 PTD 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVRPQ", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nThe key issue revolves around the Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) failing to discharge its statutory responsibility of deducting withholding tax on payments released to Citizen Community Boards (CCBs) for development projects, as mandated under Section 153(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The TMA was treated as a taxpayer in default for not deducting the tax and was subsequently assessed for the amount it failed to deduct. The TMA contended that the District Government should bear the responsibility for withholding the tax and argued that the Assessment Officer had wrongly imposed the liability on it. Additionally, the TMA raised an issue about the time limitation for filing the appeal.\nRuling:\nFailure to Deduct Tax (Section 153(1)(c)):\nValidity of Taxpayer in Default: The Appellate Tribunal affirmed that the TMA violated Section 153(1)(c) by not deducting the withholding tax on payments made to the Citizen Community Boards (CCBs), as required under the law.\nThe fact that the District Government allocated funds for development projects did not absolve the TMA of its responsibility to ensure that withholding tax was deducted and deposited into the government treasury.\nThe Appellate Tribunal noted that the TMA could not escape liability for non-compliance based on the argument that the District Government should have deducted the tax. Since the TMA was the entity making the payments, it was held accountable for the failure to deduct the tax.\nAccountability of the District Government (EDO):\nThe TMA contended that the tax should have been recovered from the District Government (through the Executive District Officer (EDO)), but the Appellate Tribunal found this argument unconvincing.\nThe Tehsil Municipal Administration, after the dissolution of the elected Tehsil administrations, was an integral part of the district administration and functioned under the District Coordination Officer (DCO). Therefore, it was part of the same administrative structure as the District Government and responsible for fulfilling tax obligations within that structure.\nThe Appellate Tribunal clarified that any tax liability, even if it originated within the Tehsil, would be considered part of the district administration’s internal affairs, and thus the TMA was responsible for the withholding tax deduction.\nLimitation on Filing Appeals:\nAppeal Barred by Limitation: The First Appellate Authority had dismissed the TMA's appeal on the grounds that it was filed beyond the statutory time limit. The TMA did not provide any plausible reason for the delay in filing the appeal.\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority, emphasizing that the appeal was barred by limitation. No convincing justification for condoning the delay was provided by the TMA, and thus, the appeal could not proceed.\nKey Takeaways:\nTaxpayer’s Responsibility: The Tehsil Municipal Administration was found liable for non-deduction of withholding tax, even though funds for the development projects were allocated by the District Government.\nInternal Affairs of District Administration: The TMA, being a part of the district administration, could not shift the responsibility of withholding tax to the District Government (EDO). It was responsible for fulfilling the legal obligation.\nTimely Filing of Appeals: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the TMA's failure to meet the filing deadline. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to time limitations for legal remedies.\nLegal Consequences for Default: The TMA was treated as a taxpayer in default for not deducting the tax at the time of payment, and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessment against it, rejecting the claim that the liability lay with the District Government.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal affirmed the First Appellate Authority’s decision, which had ruled that the Tehsil Municipal Administration was liable for the failure to deduct withholding tax on payments made to Citizen Community Boards, and that the TMA’s appeal was time-barred. The ruling emphasized the responsibility of the TMA to comply with the withholding tax provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and reinforced the importance of adhering to time limits for filing appeals in tax matters.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,153(1)(c),161 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 956/IB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd December, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bilal Ahmed for Taxpayer. Zia Ullah Khan, D.R. for Department", + "Party Name:": "TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, BHAKKAR\nVS\nC.I.R. (APPEALS), R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "12", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVjPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 9 = 2011 SLD 9 = (2011) 103 TAX 200 = 2011 PTD 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVjPQ", + "Key Words:": "1. Section 122 - Amendment of Assessment Without Approval from Commissioner of Income Tax\nIssue:\n•\nA Taxation Officer amended an assessment under Section 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, but did so without obtaining the necessary approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax. This raised the question of whether the amendment was legally valid.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Taxation Officer was found to have acted without lawful authority. According to the Income Tax Ordinance, any amendment of an assessment under Section 122(1) requires approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax. As the approval was not sought, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the amendment was invalid and lacked legal basis, thereby referencing previous case laws like 2006 PTD 2607 (Trib.).\n________________________________________\n2. Section 122 - Amendment of Assessment Without Fresh Information\nIssue:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer amended a deemed assessment based solely on materials that were already available on record, without any new information or documents. The question was whether such an amendment was permissible under the law.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that there was no justification for amending the assessment under Section 122 when no new evidence or information had come into possession of the department. Section 122 only allows for amendments based on fresh information, so the amendment was deemed invalid based on the lack of new materials or data.\n________________________________________\n3. Section 122 - Combined Notice under Section 122(9) & 176\nIssue:\n•\nA combined notice under Section 122(9) and Section 176 was issued, which is not explicitly provided for in the law. The question was whether this was legally valid.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that issuing a combined notice under Section 122(9) and Section 176 was not sustainable under the law. Previous rulings, such as 1987 PTD (Trib.) 1914 and 1998 PTD (Trib.) 973, supported this interpretation, asserting that such a combination does not comply with legal requirements and thus cannot be upheld.\n________________________________________\n4. Section 111(1)(b) - Unexplained Income or Assets - Year of Discovery\nIssue:\n•\nA notice under Section 111(1)(b) was issued on 17-5-2007, seeking compliance by 26-5-2007, to address unexplained income. The issue was whether this addition could only be made in the 2007 tax year or the 2006 year, as the income was discovered in 2007 but pertains to the 2006 financial year.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that, under Section 111(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the addition could only be made in the 2006 tax year. The Taxation Officer was required to take cognizance of the discovery in the year 2006, not in 2007 when the notice was issued. This interpretation ensured compliance with the correct tax year for the addition.\n________________________________________\n5. Section 111(1)(b) & Section 122 - Unexplained Income or Assets & Amendment of Assessment\nIssue:\n•\nThe Taxation Officer amended the assessment and added income under Section 111(1)(b) for unexplained wealth, but the amendment was made without issuing the necessary statutory notice under Section 122. The matter involved questioning whether the additions were justified without confronting the taxpayer on the material already available.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision. The Taxation Officer had made the additions under Section 111(1)(b) without issuing a proper notice under Section 122, and this failure led to the dismissal of the amendment.\n________________________________________\n6. Section 111(1)(b) - Accretion in Wealth & Natural Justice\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the Taxation Officer properly followed the principles of natural justice by giving the taxpayer an opportunity to explain the sources of an accretion in wealth, before making an addition under Section 111(1)(b) for unexplained income or assets.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal confirmed that the Taxation Officer had complied with the natural justice principles by giving the taxpayer ample opportunity to explain the accretion in wealth. When the taxpayer failed to respond, the Taxation Officer was justified in making the addition without further delay. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in this process under Section 111(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n________________________________________\n7. Section 122(1) - Amendment of Assessment Based on Definite Information\nIssue:\n•\nThe Taxation Officer amended an assessment based on definite information concerning the taxpayer's accretion in wealth. The taxpayer's income from year to year was inconsistent with its declared wealth, which the officer used as the basis for the amendment.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal vacated the First Appellate Authority's order and restored the Taxation Officer’s decision under Section 122(1). The definite information regarding the accretion in wealth was based on the taxpayer's income records, which were inconsistent with declared assets, justifying action under Section 122(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,176,122(9),111,111(1)(b),210,122(1) Income Tax Rules, 2002=FirstSchedule ", + "Case #": "I.T.A.s Nos. 1197/LB, to 1199/LB of 2007, decision dated: 3rd October, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant\nKh. Khalid Feroze, FCA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T./W.T., GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA\nVs.\nDr. AKMAL HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "13", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVZPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 10 = 2011 SLD 10 = (2010) 102 TAX 97 = 2011 PTD 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVZPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Section 66-A - Limitation Period for Revising Orders\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the limitation period for initiating proceedings under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 should be reckoned from the date of the original order or from the date of the rectification order. The rectification order only allowed the credit of the tax paid without changing the assessment itself.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the limitation period should be counted from the date of the relevant original order, where the issue was discussed and decided, rather than from the date of the rectification order. The Department's contention that the limitation should be calculated from the date of the rectification was rejected. The order under Section 66-A was vacated as it was passed after the expiration of the limitation period, and the original assessment under Section 62 was restored.\n________________________________________\n(b) & (c) Section 66-A & Third Schedule Rule 8(5)(j) - Depreciation Allowance for Sub-Contractors in the Petroleum Industry\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the benefit of depreciation allowance under Rule 8(5)(j) of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is available to sub-contractors involved in petroleum exploration, or is it restricted to the original contractors granted the license for exploration and production.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal found that the benefit of Rule 8(5)(j), which provides concessions on depreciation allowances, is only available to the original contractors granted licenses for the exploration and production of petroleum in Pakistan, not to sub-contractors. Even though the assessee (a sub-contractor) performed geophysical surveys under contracts with oil companies, the benefit was not extended to sub-contractors who did not have a direct agreement with the Government of Pakistan. The claim of the assessee was rejected as it did not meet the requirements of the regulations for the concession.\n________________________________________\n(d) & (e) Section 66-A & Third Schedule Rule 8(5)(j) - Exemption on Re-export of Equipment\nIssue:\n•\nWhether sub-contractors of licensee companies in the petroleum sector are exempt from income tax on the re-export of equipment used for exploration and production of petroleum in Pakistan, under the Petroleum Concession Agreement and Mining Concession Rules.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that exemption from tax on the re-export of equipment applies to contractors and sub-contractors of licensee companies, as stipulated under the Petroleum Concession Agreement. The tax exemption in this context includes income tax, as tax under Article XIII, Para 13.2 of the Concession Agreement encompasses income tax. The Concession Agreement, executed by the President of Pakistan, was specific in nature and took precedence over the general provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance. Therefore, no tax could be charged on the re-export of such equipment. The order under Section 66-A by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was not maintainable, as the assessments were not prejudicial to the revenue's interests, given that no tax was due on the re-export of equipment. The original assessment was restored, and the order under Section 66-A was vacated.\n________________________________________\nKey Takeaways:\n1.\nLimitation Period for Revision: The limitation period for initiating revision proceedings under Section 66-A starts from the date of the original order, not from any subsequent rectification orders.\n2.\nDepreciation Benefits: Sub-contractors involved in petroleum exploration and production are not entitled to the depreciation allowances provided under Rule 8(5)(j) of the Third Schedule, which is reserved for the original contractors.\n3.\nExemption on Re-export of Equipment: Sub-contractors of licensees in the petroleum industry are exempt from income tax on the re-export of equipment used for exploration and production, in accordance with the Petroleum Concession Agreement and relevant government policies.\n4.\nAuthority of Inspecting Additional Commissioner: Section 66-A proceedings initiated by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner were invalid as the assessments were not detrimental to the revenue, especially considering the exemptions for re-exported equipment.\nThis reinforces the application of specific agreements, such as the Petroleum Concession Agreement, over general provisions in the tax law, particularly for the petroleum sector.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=R.8(5)(j),66,66A,66(a),5,8,8(5)(j),Third Schedule Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, (XXIV of 1948)=2,3B,4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1495/KB to 1497/KB of 2002, decision dated: 27-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED AND SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Majid, F.C.A. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "14", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVFPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 11 = 2011 SLD 11 = (2011) 103 TAX 14 = 2011 PTD 352 = 2011 PTR 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVFPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Tax on Dividends under Section 5\nIssue:\n•\nThe taxability of dividends received by companies under Section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nThe question arose whether dividends received from resident and non-resident companies should be taxed under Section 5, and if there is any inconsistency between Section 5 and Section 94(3), which deals with the taxation of dividends.\nRuling:\n•\nSection 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 clearly states that dividends received by a person (including a company) are subject to a tax of 10%. The term person under Section 2(42) includes a company, and this applies whether the company is resident or non-resident.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority, which deleted the demand raised by the Additional Commissioner on the dividend income, asserting that Section 5 prevails over Section 94(3) as it is the charging section.\n________________________________________\n(b) Taxation of Resident and Non-Resident Companies (Sections 5 and 94(2))\nIssue:\n•\nThe principles of taxation for resident and non-resident companies under Sections 5 and 94(2) were examined.\nRuling:\n•\nThe taxation of dividend income depends on whether the company paying the dividend is resident or non-resident, but the general rule under Section 5 applies equally to both categories, with 10% tax on the dividends being levied.\n________________________________________\n(c) Taxation of Dividend Income under Sections 5, 8, and 4(5)\nIssue:\n•\nThe tax treatment of dividend income under various provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nRuling:\n•\nDividend income is typically subject to tax under the head Income from Other Sources but is taxed at a reduced rate as per the provisions of Section 5. This highlights the beneficial nature of the provision to encourage investment in dividend-paying entities.\n________________________________________\n(d) Tax on Dividends: C.B.R. Circulars and Amendments\nIssue:\n•\nThe impact of C.B.R. Circulars on the taxability of dividends, especially following the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2007.\nRuling:\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 3 of 2009, C.B.R. Circular No. 5 of 2008, and subsequent circular letters clarified that dividend income is taxable under Section 5. These circulars confirm that dividends received from both resident and non-resident companies are taxed at 10% under Section 5, even if the dividend is treated as dividend under Clause 19 of Section 2 (which includes remittances of after-tax profits from a branch of a foreign company).\n________________________________________\n(e) Dividend Paid by Non-Resident Companies: Taxation under Section 5\nIssue:\n•\nWhether dividend income received from a non-resident company is taxable under Section 5 or requires separate treatment.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Finance Act, 2008 inserted new wording into Section 5 to include dividends from non-resident companies, as well as dividends treated as such under Clause 19 of Section 2. This ensured that dividends from non-resident companies are also subject to tax at 10% under Section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n________________________________________\n(f) Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\nIssue:\n•\nHow to interpret provisions in fiscal statutes such as the Income Tax Ordinance, especially when there is ambiguity.\nRuling:\n•\nFiscal statutes should be strictly construed, and where substantial doubt exists, it should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer. Additionally, provisions that allow for the taxation of income at a reduced rate (such as dividend income) are considered beneficial and should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer, following the principle established in PLD 1997 SC 700.\n________________________________________\n(g) Dividend Income and Taxation under Income from Other Sources \nIssue:\n•\nThe tax treatment of dividend income under the head Income from Other Sources. \nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal affirmed that dividend income, although chargeable under the head income from other sources, is subject to a reduced rate of taxation (10%) under Section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, regardless of the head under which it is taxed.\n________________________________________\n(h) Exchange Loss under Mercantile Accounting System\nIssue:\n•\nThe deductibility of exchange loss under the mercantile accounting system, which was previously accepted by the Department.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal allowed the exchange loss under the mercantile system of accounting, noting that it had been previously accepted by the Department in past assessments. The Appeal Tribunal modified the First Appellate Authority's order and deleted the addition made by the Additional Commissioner regarding this issue.\n________________________________________\n(i) Amendment of Assessment under Section 122(5A)\nIssue:\n•\nThe jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to amend an assessment under Section 122(5A) if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner was within his jurisdiction to amend the assessment under Section 122(5A) as he found the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. This power allows for the correction of assessments where necessary.\n________________________________________\nKey Takeaways:\n1.\nDividend Taxation: Dividends, both from resident and non-resident companies, are subject to a 10% tax under Section 5.\n2.\nCirculars' Clarification: C.B.R. Circulars have provided clarity on the taxation of dividends, reinforcing that both resident and non-resident companies are covered under Section 5.\n3.\nBeneficial Interpretation: Provisions related to taxation at reduced rates should be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer.\n4.\nExchange Loss: The mercantile accounting system was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal for deducting exchange losses.\n5.\nAssessment Amendments: The Additional Commissioner has the authority to amend an assessment if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.\nThis summary consolidates the taxation rules related to dividends, exchange losses, and assessment amendments under the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,4,5,8,19,30,39,80,94,122,124,150,122(5A),124(5),19(2),2(19)(f),2(42),2(63),94(2),94(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 689/IB and 686/IB of 2010, decision dated: 29-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Iqbal, L.A. for Appellant. M. Rashid Qureshi, FCA for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY LTD\nVs.\nC.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) L.T.O., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "15", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVBPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 427 = 1979 SLD 427 = 1979 PLD 349", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVBPQ", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) - Section 403(1) and Legal Principles of Double Jeopardy\n________________________________________\nIssue:\n•\nThe principle of autrefois acquit (previously acquitted) and autrefois convict (previously convicted), commonly referred to as the principle of double jeopardy, was discussed in the context of Section 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), and Section 132 of the Evidence Act (I of 1872).\n•\nThis principle ensures that an accused person who has been acquitted or convicted for a specific offence cannot be tried again for the same offence.\n________________________________________\nKey Provisions:\n1.\nSection 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC):\no\nDouble Jeopardy: Prohibits a person from being tried again for an offence for which they have already been acquitted or convicted. It states that no person shall be tried twice for the same offence, unless there has been an appeal or revision and the matter is still pending.\n2.\nGeneral Clauses Act (X of 1897), Section 26:\no\nThis provision clarifies that the term person under laws like Section 403(1) includes both individuals and corporations.\n3.\nConstitution of Pakistan, Article 13:\no\nProtection against Double Jeopardy: This constitutional provision guarantees the fundamental right of individuals against being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offence. This upholds the principle of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict at the constitutional level.\n4.\nEvidence Act (I of 1872), Section 132:\no\nThis section deals with the protection of witnesses who may have given evidence in the previous trial. The protection against double jeopardy ensures that witnesses are not exposed to the risks of re-trial in cases where the accused has already been acquitted or convicted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 749/Q of 1978, heard on 12th December 1978, hearing DATE : 12th December 1978.", + "Judge Name:": "KHALILUR RAHMAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN and 2 others\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "16", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVNPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 12 = 2011 SLD 12 = (2011) 103 TAX 25 = 2011 PTD 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVNPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 62(1) and Non-Issuance of Notice\n________________________________________\nIssue:\nThe case revolves around the non-issuance of notice under Section 62(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and its impact on the assessment of the taxpayer. The Appellate Tribunal canceled the proceedings, emphasizing that the proviso to Section 62(1) mandates the issuance of a formal notice, and merely noting the matter in the order sheet did not suffice as a valid notice.\n________________________________________\nKey Provisions:\n1.\nSection 62(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979:\no\nThis section deals with assessment proceedings on the basis of the production of accounts, evidence, etc. It allows the tax authorities to assess the taxpayer based on the documents and evidence provided.\no\nThe proviso to Section 62(1) explicitly requires the issuance of a formal notice to the taxpayer before the rejection or adjustment of the accounts submitted. The notice is a mandatory requirement to provide the taxpayer with an opportunity to respond.\n2.\nProviso to Section 62(1):\no\nMandatory Requirement: It mandates that the assessing authority must issue a written notice to the taxpayer in case of any rejection of the accounts or any modification in the assessment, giving the taxpayer an opportunity to present their case.\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Findings:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal concluded that the confrontation of the taxpayer’s accounts, or any action taken under Section 62(1), could not be valid without a formal written notice. Simply entering the issue in the order sheet did not fulfill the statutory requirement for notice.\n•\nIn this case, the Appellate Tribunal held that non-issuance of a formal notice resulted in the assessment proceedings being invalid, and the proceedings were therefore canceled. This decision was made based on the clear language of Section 62(1) and the proviso, which mandates that the notice is a pre-condition for initiating any action under this section.\n________________________________________\nCase Law References:\nThe Appellate Tribunal relied on several previous rulings:\n•\n2007 PTD (Trib.) 345\n•\n2006 PTD (Trib.) 2179\n•\n2003 PTD (Trib.) 2157\n•\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 1480\n•\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 2938\nThese cases supported the view that the issuance of notice under Section 62(1) was a mandatory requirement and could not be substituted by an order sheet entry.\n________________________________________\nJudicial Views:\n•\nPer Amjid Ikram Ali, Accountant Member (Minority view):\no\nHe emphasized that the absence of a formal notice under Section 62(1) and the reliance on an order-sheet entry was not a valid substitute. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal's decision to cancel the assessment proceedings was correct.\n•\nPer Javaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Judicial Member (Agreeing with the Chairperson):\no\nHe concurred with the view expressed by the Chairperson, Khawaja Farooq Saeed, that the mandatory nature of the notice could not be circumvented by informal actions such as an order sheet entry.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal's decision to cancel the assessment was correct because the proviso to Section 62(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, mandates a formal written notice to the taxpayer before rejecting accounts or making adjustments.\n•\nOrder sheet entries do not fulfill the legal requirement of a formal notice, and any failure to issue the notice renders the assessment proceedings invalid.\n•\nThis case reiterates the principle that tax authorities must adhere to statutory requirements, particularly regarding the issuance of notices, to ensure the fairness of the assessment process.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1),proviso ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 861/LB of 2009, decision dated: 18-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Munir Hussain for Appellant\nCh. Karamat Ullah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALI RAZA TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVs.\nC.I.T., R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "17", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVJPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 13 = 2011 SLD 13 = (2011) 103 TAX 28 = 2011 PTD 372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVJPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 177, 122(1), 122(9)\nKey Issues and Findings:\n________________________________________\n(a) Audit, Sales Estimation, and Non-Compliance:\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer, engaged in the construction and sale of plazas, declared certain sales figures that were not supported by attested, registered sale-deeds. The Taxation Officer (TO) discovered discrepancies in the declared sale prices based on agreements executed between the purchasers and the assessee.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe Taxation Officer uncovered that the actual sale price of the properties was higher than the disclosed amount, using sale agreements and other records. Despite this, the taxpayer attempted to extricate itself by claiming that the buyers had purchased properties from third parties, not related to the assessee.\no\nThe taxpayer’s defense was contradicted by the fact that the names of these buyers had already been disclosed in lists provided by the taxpayer. The taxpayer had also failed to provide necessary documents, such as bank statements and schedules of payments, which were essential for verifying the transaction details.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the TO's estimation of sales, emphasizing that the understatement of the declared sale price was proven using the taxpayer’s own records. The non-compliance of the taxpayer in providing complete information was a key factor in this ruling.\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the addition based on the discovered actual sales, reinforcing the notion that the taxpayer's non-compliance and selective document submission contributed to the accurate estimation of sales.\n________________________________________\n(b) Amendment of Assessment (Cost of Construction):\n•\nIssue: The Taxation Officer issued a notice under Section 122(9), confronting the taxpayer with an addition based on a revised estimation of the cost of construction, arguing that the declared cost was unverifiable.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe taxpayer had justified that the declared cost of construction was reasonable, referencing the rates used by the Public Works Department (PWD) of Pakistan for similar construction projects. The TO had initially agreed that the declared costs were reasonable based on these rates.\no\nHowever, later, without valid reason, the Taxation Officer reduced the declared cost by 20%, which was deemed arbitrary and unprofessional.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal criticized this sudden change of stance, especially since the taxpayer had already demonstrated that the declared cost of construction was reasonable and aligned with PWD rates. The Tribunal also found that the method of calculating the reduction in construction costs was careless, and the additions did not accurately reflect a 20% reduction.\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition related to the cost of construction, asserting that the Taxation Officer’s actions were not substantiated by credible reasons and lacked professionalism.\n________________________________________\n(c) Change of Opinion:\n•\nIssue: The principle of change of opinion relates to whether a tax officer can amend an assessment after forming an opinion based on available facts and records.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe Taxation Officer’s opinion about the facts in the case evolved during the audit proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal held that when audit proceedings culminate in an assessment order, the officer cannot revisit a fact or finding already recorded in that order without new evidence or a compelling reason.\no\nThe change of opinion was discussed in relation to the fact that while the officer can revise their stance before finalizing the assessment, it should not be arbitrary or inconsistent with the facts on record. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that the change of opinion must be based on convincing and plausible reasons.\nConclusion: The change of opinion by the taxation officer, although permissible, was not justified in this case, as the officer failed to provide valid reasoning for altering his position on the construction costs.\n________________________________________\n(d) Addition to Income (Reduction in Cost of Construction):\n•\nIssue: The Taxation Officer revised the cost of construction, leading to an addition in the income of the taxpayer, as the cost was reduced arbitrarily without sufficient justification.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe taxpayer had provided reasonable justification for the declared cost, including comparisons with the PWD rates, which the officer had initially accepted.\no\nHowever, the Taxation Officer's decision to reduce the cost was arbitrary and without sound reasoning. The Appellate Tribunal found this reduction to be unwarranted and ordered the deletion of the addition made to the taxpayer’s income.\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the addition made due to the reduction in cost of construction was incorrect and should be deleted, as it lacked valid reasoning and was inconsistent with the taxpayer's evidence.\n________________________________________\n(e) Profit & Loss Expenses - Additions:\n•\nIssue: Additions were made by the Taxation Officer due to unverifiability of certain expenses, as the taxpayer did not provide the required supporting documentation.\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe taxpayer admitted that certain records were not produced, leading to the rejection of the declared version of the expenses. However, in some cases, the disallowed expenses were deemed excessive.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal confirmed the reasonable add-backs but curtailed the excessive disallowances, ensuring fairness in the treatment of the expenses.\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal modified the disallowances, confirming some add-backs while reducing the excessive amounts, ensuring a balanced and reasonable assessment.\n________________________________________\nGeneral Conclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal's decisions demonstrate the importance of adhering to proper procedures and providing substantiated evidence when justifying declared income and expenses. Arbitrary actions by the Taxation Officer and lack of professionalism in amending assessments without convincing reasons were not upheld. The Tribunal’s ruling underscores the principle that tax assessments must be based on clear and verified evidence, and any arbitrary decisions are subject to review and reversal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,177,122(1),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 593/IB and 594/IB of 2001, decision dated: 3rd August, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ishfaq Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant\nZahid Hussain, ACMA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) LTU, ISLAMABAD\nVs.\nMessrs AHMED ENTERPRISES, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "18", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUwPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1 = 2000 SLD 1 = 2000 PTD 3635 = (1999) 238 ITR 568", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUwPQ", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 64: Inclusion of Spouse or Minor Child's Income in Total Income\nKey Issue:\nSection 64 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the inclusion of the income of a spouse or minor child in the total income of one of the spouses or the parent of the minor child. The explanation to Section 64 clarifies when and how this inclusion can be made and under what circumstances it may be shifted from one spouse or parent to the other.\nProvisions of Section 64:\n•\nGeneral Rule: The income of a spouse or minor child is included in the total income of the spouse or parent whose income is greater.\n•\nExplanation to Section 64: If the Income-tax Officer (ITO) believes it is necessary to include the income in the other spouse or parent’s income, he can change the inclusion, but only after giving the affected parties a chance to be heard.\n•\nOnce the income of the spouse or minor child is included in the total income of one spouse or parent, it shall continue to be included in subsequent years unless the ITO finds it necessary to alter the inclusion.\nInterpretation of “Necessary”:\nThe explanation to Section 64 uses the term “necessary”, which is crucial in deciding whether the inclusion of income should be shifted from one spouse or parent to another. The meaning of “necessary” is explored as follows:\n•\nMeaning of Necessary: The term “necessary” implies that there should be compelling circumstances that justify the change in the assessment. It is not enough to simply argue that there would be a benefit to the Revenue. The change must be essential or unavoidable due to specific and significant reasons.\n•\nNot merely for Revenue Benefit: The legislature's intention behind the use of necessary is to prevent changes based on revenue considerations alone. Instead, the change should only occur when compelling circumstances warrant it.\nApplication to the Case:\n•\nIn this case, the Tribunal held that the mere fact that the income of the other parent was higher in a particular year, compared to the parent in whose assessment the minor’s income had been included in previous years, did not automatically lead to the conclusion that it was necessary to change the assessment.\n•\nThe Tribunal’s view was that a mere change in the income of the parents would not meet the standard of “necessity” outlined in the Explanation. The necessity for such a change requires something more than just a benefit to the Revenue; it must be based on compelling circumstances.\nThus, the Tribunal correctly concluded that, despite the higher income of one parent, there were no compelling circumstances to necessitate a shift in the inclusion of the minor’s income in this case.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe view taken by the Tribunal is correct. A mere change in the income of the spouses or parents is insufficient to justify a change in the mode of inclusion of the minor’s income in the assessment. The change must be based on compelling circumstances, not merely on revenue considerations. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent behind Section 64, ensuring that changes in the assessment process are made only when truly necessary, rather than as a result of temporary fluctuations in income.\nRelated Legal Principles:\n•\nInterpretation of Necessary : The word “necessary” implies that a compelling reason exists beyond a mere benefit to the Revenue. It involves determining whether the shift is essential due to specific circumstances, not just based on changes in the income levels of the parents.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos.1050 and 1051 of 1985 (References Nos.557 and 558 of 1985), decision dated: 19-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nA. VAIRAPRAKASAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "19", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV3PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 1314 = 2011 SLD 1314 = (2011) 103 TAX 74 = 2011 PTD 382", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV3PQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Section 156: Prizes and Winnings – Sales Promotion Expenses\nOverview of Section 156:\nSection 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 deals with withholding tax on prizes and winnings, specifically focusing on sales promotion expenses incurred by companies. These expenses include rewards or incentives offered to employees, retailers, and distributors for achieving certain sales targets.\nKey Issues and Judgments:\n1.\nNature of Sales Promotion Expenses:\no\nThe assessees argued that the expenses incurred for sales promotion—such as quarterly cycle meetings, annual sales conferences, training, promotional literature, advertisements, and trade incentives—were not prizes and winnings and hence, not subject to withholding tax under Section 156.\no\nThe Taxation Officer could not determine the exact nature of certain expenses due to the lack of supporting evidence and documentation. The case was remanded for reconsideration to evaluate whether these expenses truly fell within the scope of prizes and winnings. \no\nThe Appellate Tribunal annulled the First Appellate Authority's decision and remanded the case to the Taxation Officer for de novo proceedings to assess whether such expenses were subject to withholding tax based on detailed evidence and their nature.\n2.\nSales Incentives to Employees:\no\nThe assessee argued that sales incentives paid to employees were intended for motivating them to achieve sales targets and that tax was already deducted under Section 149 (salary income).\no\nHowever, the Appellate Tribunal disagreed, holding that sales incentives paid to employees were indeed covered under the definition of prizes for promotion of sales and, therefore, subject to withholding tax under Section 156, not Section 149.\n3.\nInterpretation of the Term Prize :\no\nThe term prize is defined in common dictionaries as a reward offered in a competition or for some achievement, which may be earned through performance or won by chance.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal noted that prize could include sales incentives that are earned for achieving specific targets, thus fitting within the definition under Section 156.\n4.\nSales Promotion to Employees vs. Public:\no\nThe First Appellate Authority noted that the sales promotion scheme was extended only to employees, retailers, distributors, and doctors—not the public at large. However, the Appellate Tribunal clarified that Section 156 does not differentiate between promotion schemes extended to the general public or specific groups (like employees or distributors). Therefore, such rewards, even if given only to employees or specific groups, would still fall under the definition of prizes for promotion purposes.\n5.\nTax Rates and Timing:\no\nTax year applicability: The Finance Act, 2003 introduced an amendment to Section 156, applying it to prizes offered for promotion of sales starting from July 1, 2003. The assessee's accounting period ended on December 31, 2002, and the applicable provisions of Section 156 would not be retrospective for tax years 2003 and part of 2004. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Taxation Officer to recalculate withholding tax accordingly.\no\nTax rate: The Taxation Officer had erroneously imposed a 20% withholding tax on some expenses, despite accepting that the applicable rate was less than 20%. The First Appellate Authority ruled that the tax should not have been charged at 20% on the disputed expenses and ordered the deletion of tax charged at that rate. The Appellate Tribunal did not uphold this approach, emphasizing that the Taxation Officer's agreement with the First Appellate Authority’s action was invalid.\n6.\nGeneral Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes:\no\nWhen interpreting fiscal statutes, courts have emphasized that interpretations should not be based on overly technical or scholarly readings of the law, as this could lead to unintended results. Interpretations should focus on the clear legislative intent and the practical application of the statute.\nKey Takeaways:\n•\nSales Promotion Expenses like quarterly meetings, training, and incentives are likely to fall under the definition of prizes for promotion of sales under Section 156, subject to withholding tax.\n•\nThe interpretation of prize in tax law is broad enough to include rewards or incentives provided for achieving sales targets.\n•\nTaxation based on incorrect classifications or failure to apply correct withholding tax rates can lead to remands for recalculations and reconsideration of the evidence presented.\n•\nStatutory provisions are not always applied retrospectively, and the timing of amendments can affect their applicability to specific cases.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nCalcutta High Court (CIT v. Santosh Agencies 78 ITR 210) and other cases were referenced, distinguishing between different types of expenses and clarifying the proper application of the law.\n•\nPLD 2001 SC 111 and 2002 PTD 1 (SC Pakistan) were also referenced to highlight principles of tax law interpretation in similar contexts.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal emphasized that sales promotion expenses should be reconsidered based on their specific nature and supported by proper evidence. Additionally, the tribunal held that sales incentives, although typically classified as employee benefits, were indeed subject to withholding tax under Section 156 as prizes offered for sales promotion. ", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=149,156,161,205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 180/KB to 184/KB of 2010, decision dated: 8-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Ali, D.R. for Appellant\nAmin Malik, FCA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER LEGAL DIVISION, KARACHI\nVS.\nMessrs MERCK (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "20", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtVPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 14 = 2011 SLD 14 = (2011) 103 TAX 74 = 2011 PTD 438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtVPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 2(40), 11(6), 101(3), and 105: Taxation of Interest/Profit on Debt Involving Non-Resident Banking Companies' Pakistan Branch\nKey Provisions:\n1.\nSection 2(40): Defines person to include any entity such as a company, corporation, or partnership. In the context of a non-resident banking company, this provision clarifies that the Pakistan branch is treated as a separate entity from the head office and other branches located outside Pakistan.\n2.\nSection 11(6): Deals with the taxation of income of a non-resident person attributable to a permanent establishment (PE) in Pakistan. Any income generated by the PE in Pakistan is regarded as Pakistan-source income, subject to taxation in Pakistan.\n3.\nSection 101(3): Provides rules regarding the taxation of profits or income from dealings between a non-resident company's permanent establishment in Pakistan and the head office or other branches located outside Pakistan. The profits or losses arising from such dealings are taxable under this provision.\n4.\nSection 105: Specifically addresses the taxation of income and expenses arising from business transactions involving non-resident companies with permanent establishments in Pakistan. It stipulates that profits or interest on debts paid to or received by the permanent establishment will be treated as taxable income or deductible expenses.\n________________________________________\nKey Points of the Judgment:\n1.\nDoctrine of Mutuality:\no\nThe doctrine of mutuality (where transactions between different parts of the same entity are not taxed) does not apply in this case because the taxation provisions under Section 105 and Section 101(3) specifically govern the taxation of income arising from dealings between a non-resident company’s permanent establishment (PE) in Pakistan and its head office or other branches located outside Pakistan.\no\nSince Section 105 addresses the treatment of income and expenses in such transactions, the mutuality doctrine would not alter the taxability of interest or profits from dealings between the Pakistan branch and the head office or other branches.\n2.\nPermanent Establishment (PE):\no\nThe Pakistan branch of a non-resident banking company is considered a permanent establishment (PE) in Pakistan, which is treated as a distinct and separate entity from its head office and other branches outside Pakistan.\no\nThis separate treatment means that when the Pakistan branch engages in transactions with its head office or other branches, these dealings are considered as transactions between independent entities. As such, any profits or interest generated from these transactions will be taxable in Pakistan.\n3.\nTaxation of Income and Expenses:\no\nAccording to Section 105(1)(a) and Section 101(3), profits earned by the Pakistan branch, including interest or profit on debt between the branch and its head office or other branches outside Pakistan, are considered Pakistan-source income.\no\nSimilarly, debts owed by the Pakistan branch to the head office or other branches are regarded as deductible expenses for the Pakistan branch, as they are part of the branch’s business operations in Pakistan.\n4.\nTax Treatment of Interest and Profit on Debt:\no\nProfit on debt paid to or receivable by the Pakistan branch in respect of its dealings with the head office and other branches is treated as taxable income for the Pakistan branch.\no\nConversely, any interest or profit on debt payable by the Pakistan branch to the head office or other branches is treated as a deductible expense for the Pakistan branch.\no\nThese transactions, therefore, are subject to the taxation rules set forth under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, with appropriate tax liabilities or deductions applied depending on whether the income is received or expense incurred by the Pakistan branch.\n________________________________________\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nSharkey (Inspector of Taxes) v. Wernher (1956) AC 58: This case helps to establish that when an entity operates through multiple branches, the branches are treated as separate persons for tax purposes.\n•\nCIT v. The Lyallpur Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1959 PTD 639): Clarifies the application of tax rules regarding the income of branches and permanent establishments of a non-resident company.\n•\nNational Westminster Bank PLC v. United States (2008) 512 F. 3d 1347: Discusses the treatment of interest and profits on transactions between branches of a non-resident banking company in the context of U.S. tax law, which aligns with similar provisions under the Pakistani tax system.\n•\nNational Westminster Bank PLC v. United States (1999) 44 Fed. Cl. 120: A case that reinforces the principle of treating branches of a non-resident entity as distinct for tax purposes.\n________________________________________\nConclusions:\n•\nPakistan Branch as a Separate Entity: The Pakistan branch of a non-resident banking company is treated as a distinct entity for tax purposes, separate from the head office and other foreign branches. This implies that the transactions between the Pakistan branch and the head office or other branches are treated as independent business dealings, subject to tax.\n•\nTaxation of Profits and Interest on Debt: Any profits or interest on debts paid to or received by the Pakistan branch from its head office or other branches are regarded as Pakistan-source income and are subject to tax under Pakistani tax law. Similarly, the interest or profit on debts payable by the Pakistan branch to other parts of the company are considered deductible expenses.\n•\nNo Application of the Doctrine of Mutuality: The doctrine of mutuality does not apply in this scenario because the statutory provisions under Sections 101(3) and 105 take precedence over mutuality principles in determining the taxability of profits or interest from transactions between the Pakistan branch and the head office or other branches.\nThis judgment reinforces the view that the permanent establishment (PE) in Pakistan of a non-resident banking company must comply with the specific tax provisions regarding income and expenses from dealings with its head office or other branches.\nGet smarter responses, uploa", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,2(40),11,11(6),101,101(3),105,105(1),105(1)(a),105(1)(c),(105(1)(d),101(3), ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 1232 of 2008, decision dated: 2-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikramul Haq for Applicant.\nJawaid Farooqui for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "ABN AMRO BANK (ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND)\nVS.\nTAXATION OFFICER III, AUDIT DIVISION LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "21", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtRPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 15 = 2011 SLD 15 = 2011 PTD 473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtRPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 170(4), 115(4), 114(6), and 153(1)(b): Refund and Revision of Return\nKey Provisions:\n1.\nSection 170(4): This section addresses the procedure for refund of excess tax paid by a taxpayer. It allows taxpayers to apply for a refund of tax when they believe that they have paid more tax than required. Refund applications must be processed in a timely manner, and the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to be heard.\n2.\nSection 115(4): This provision deals with the taxation of income from services under the Income Tax Ordinance. It sets the criteria for taxation of income from services, including the deduction of tax at source on services under Section 153(1)(b).\n3.\nSection 114(6): This section allows for the revision of income tax returns. A taxpayer may file a revised return, which will replace the original return, under specific conditions such as errors or omissions. This provision ensures that taxpayers have the opportunity to correct any discrepancies in their filed returns.\n4.\nSection 153(1)(b): This section governs the deduction of tax at source on income from services. It specifies that tax must be deducted by the payer on certain services, such as contracts and professional fees, at the prescribed rate. The taxpayer can apply for a refund if the tax deducted exceeds the actual liability.\n________________________________________\nKey Judgment Points:\n1.\nRefund and Adjustment of Tax:\no\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly concluded that the Taxation Officer's order rejecting the refund application was not sustainable in law. The tax deducted under Section 153(1)(b) was subject to adjustment, starting from July 1, 2002, when the law came into effect. As such, the taxpayer was entitled to the refund of the excess tax paid.\no\nThe Taxation Officer had wrongly rejected the refund application without considering the nature of services and the adjustment of tax under the applicable provisions of the law. The taxpayer’s argument that excess tax was deducted under the services tax provisions was valid, and thus a refund was due.\n2.\nFailure to Serve Order and Deny Opportunity to Be Heard:\no\nThe First Appellate Authority rightly pointed out that the Taxation Officer failed to serve the order within the prescribed time. Additionally, the Taxation Officer did not afford the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard, which is a fundamental requirement of fair procedure under tax law.\no\nThe failure to serve the order on time and the failure to allow the taxpayer an opportunity to present their case made the Taxation Officer’s decision invalid. This procedural error contributed to the invalidity of the Taxation Officer’s order, supporting the First Appellate Authority's decision.\n3.\nRevised Return and Refund of Excess Tax:\no\nTax returns filed by the taxpayer were considered as an assessment under Section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance. If the tax deduction exceeds the actual tax liability, the excess amount must be refunded to the taxpayer. This rule ensures that taxpayers are not penalized for overpayment due to excess tax deductions at source.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's findings and dismissed the department’s appeal, indicating that the refund due to the taxpayer must be processed according to the law, particularly when excess deductions are made.\n4.\nRelevant Case Law:\no\nI.T.A. Nos. 181 and 182/KB of 2007, I.T.A. Nos. 1285 and 1286/KB/2006, 2009 PTD (Trib.) 173, 2008 PTD (Trib.) 1897, and other case references like I.T.A. Nos. 134 to 136/IP of 2009, and 2010 PTD (Trib.) 927 establish precedents where the principles outlined in these provisions were applied, particularly with regard to refunds, tax deductions, and the rights of the taxpayer in revision of returns.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly found that the Taxation Officer’s rejection of the refund application was not justified. The nature of services and the adjustments allowed under Section 153(1)(b) had been clearly established.\n•\nThe taxpayer's entitlement to a refund of excess tax deducted under the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was recognized, with the Appellate Tribunal agreeing with the findings of the First Appellate Authority.\n•\nThe failure of the Taxation Officer to serve the order in time and the failure to provide an opportunity to the taxpayer for a hearing were key factors leading to the invalidation of the Taxation Officer’s decision.\n•\nThe refund process should be handled according to the law, ensuring the taxpayer receives the correct refund if tax has been deducted in excess of the actual liability.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,115,120,170,114(6),153(1)b),115(4),170(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 525/KB to 527/KB of 2007, decision dated: 15-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SAEED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Siddiqui, D.R. for Appellant\nA.S. Jafry for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD\nVs\nM/S NEW MALIK GOODS, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "22", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtjPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 16 = 2011 SLD 16 = (2011) 103 TAX 157 = 2011 PTCL 508 = 2011 PTD 476", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtjPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 147 & 205: Corporate Taxpayer - Liability to Pay Advance Tax\nKey Provisions:\n1.\nSection 147: This section deals with the liability of a corporate taxpayer to pay advance tax. Corporate taxpayers are required to estimate their income for the year and pay advance tax based on this estimate. If no estimate is filed, or if the estimate is inadequate, the tax authorities may determine the amount of advance tax payable by the taxpayer.\no\nSection 147(1) requires the corporate taxpayer to file an estimate of income and pay the advance tax accordingly. If the estimate is not filed or the tax is not paid, the tax authorities can calculate the advance tax and impose penalties if applicable.\no\nSection 147(2) provides the manner and the schedule for payment of the advance tax by the taxpayer.\n2.\nSection 205: This section relates to the payment of tax and the consequences for not paying the required advance tax. If the taxpayer fails to pay the advance tax as per the estimate or as calculated by the tax authorities, they may be subject to additional charges or penalties.\n________________________________________\nKey Principles:\n1.\nCorporate Taxpayer's Liability to Pay Advance Tax:\no\nA corporate taxpayer is obligated to pay advance tax based on an estimate of income for the year. However, if the taxpayer fails to file such an estimate, the tax authorities have the right to compute the tax payable and demand payment.\no\nThe payment of advance tax under Section 147 is a mandatory obligation. The tax authorities can use their discretion to calculate the amount of advance tax payable if the corporate taxpayer fails to file the required estimate.\no\nThe failure to file an estimate of tax may lead to the authorities determining the amount of advance tax due, and such a decision is binding unless revised.\n2.\nNo Estimate or Inadequate Estimate of Tax:\no\nIf a corporate taxpayer fails to file an estimate of tax or provides an inadequate estimate, the tax authorities are empowered under Section 147 to assess and collect the tax accordingly.\no\nIf the estimate does not match the actual liability, additional tax may be payable, and penalties could be imposed.\n3.\nInterpretation of Statutes:\no\nThe principle of strict interpretation applies to fiscal statutes, meaning that no word can be added or deleted from the statute. The intent of the legislature must be followed, and the statute should be applied as written.\no\nThe court must adhere to the exact wording of the statute and cannot introduce modifications or interpret the law in a way that alters the clear intention of the legislature.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=53,147,147(1),147(4A),147(4B),147(6),147(7),18,149,155,168,205,205(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 21 and 22 of 2010, decision dated: 23rd November, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE AND MUNIB AKHTER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Mumtaz Shaikh for Applicant. Ali Almani for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER (LEGAL) INLAND REVENUE\nVS.\nE.N.I. PAKISTAN (M) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "23", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtZPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 17 = 2011 SLD 17 = (2011) 103 TAX 140 = 2011 PTD 505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtZPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 130(8), 130(8AA), 131(2)(d), and 131(4)\nSection 130(8) & 130(8AA) - Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal\n1.\nSection 130(8): This section grants powers to the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal to issue office circulars regarding the procedure for appeals and the delegation of powers to various benches within the Tribunal. It ensures efficient handling of cases by the Appellate Tribunal.\n2.\nSection 130(8AA): This section allows the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal to delegate the authority to Single Benches for hearing cases that involve lesser amounts of assessed income, specifically in cases where the assessed income does not exceed ten million rupees. This modification allows for more streamlined and efficient hearings by Single Benches, ensuring that smaller cases are not delayed or overloaded by larger cases.\no\nIn exercise of powers under Section 130(8AA), the Chairman authorized all Single Benches in the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue to hear and dispose of cases involving assessed income under ten million rupees. This move was partially in modification of the office circular dated 12-12-2009.\n3.\nAppellate Tribunal's Decision: The Appellate Tribunal correctly followed this delegation of authority in its decision-making process, and there was no error or mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal regarding the distribution of cases based on the assessed income thresholds.\no\nThe Chairman’s order and the modification were valid, and the Appellate Tribunal's order was rightly passed.\no\nReference: 2007 SCMR 459 is cited as precedent.\n________________________________________\nSection 131(2)(d) & 131(4) - Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal - Condonation of Delay\n1.\nSection 131(2)(d): This section grants the Appellate Tribunal the authority to hear and dispose of appeals. It allows the Tribunal to exercise its discretion in handling appeals, including cases where there is a delay in filing an appeal.\n2.\nSection 131(4): This provision specifically deals with the condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Tribunal may, under special circumstances, allow the delay to be condoned if the party filing the appeal provides sufficient cause or justification for not adhering to the prescribed timelines.\no\nIn this case, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay because the taxpayer (or department) failed to file a separate application that clearly specified the reasons for the delay and provided sufficient cause as required by Section 131(4).\no\nThe absence of a separate application detailing the reasons for the delay was deemed insufficient for the Tribunal to consider condoning the delay.\n________________________________________\nKey Principles and Conclusion:\n1.\nDelegation of Powers: The Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal is authorized under Section 130(8AA) to delegate cases involving smaller amounts of assessed income (under ten million rupees) to Single Benches, which facilitates quicker resolutions and optimizes Tribunal resources.\n2.\nNo Error in Tribunal's Order: The Appellate Tribunal acted correctly in following the Chairman's order, and there was no error or mistake in the Tribunal's decision-making process.\n3.\nCondonation of Delay: Under Section 131(4), the Tribunal may allow condonation of delay only if a separate application with sufficient cause is submitted. The failure to provide such an application led to the rejection of the request for condonation in this case.\n4.\nInterpretation of Statutes: The principle of strict interpretation of statutes applies, meaning that the Tribunal must adhere to the literal wording of the law, especially in procedural matters like condoning delays and appeal processes.\nIn conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal acted in accordance with the law, and the dismissal of the condonation of delay was consistent with the procedural requirements under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=130,131,130(8),130(8)(AA),131(2)(d),131(4) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 245/LB of 2010 in S.T.A. No.1484/LB of 2009, decision dated: 4-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Adnan Ahmad Khan, D.R. for Applicant and Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, MULTAN\nVS.\nMUHAMMAD SIDDIQ TEXTILE MILLS, BUREWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "24", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtFPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 18 = 2011 SLD 18 = (2011) 103 TAX 253 = 2011 PTD 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtFPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 12(5), 80AA, 62, 55 and Double Taxation Agreement between Pakistan and USA\nSummary of the Case:\nThe case involves an assessment of a taxpayer's claim for exemption from tax on reimbursement of marketing costs and reservation costs. The taxpayer contended that these reimbursements were exempt under Article III of the Pakistan-US Double Taxation Agreement. However, the Assessing Officer disputed this claim, arguing that the amounts were fees for technical services taxable under Section 80-AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nKey Provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979) and Double Taxation Agreement:\n1.\nSection 80-AA - This section deals with fees for technical services and establishes that fees for such services provided by non-residents are subject to taxation in Pakistan.\n2.\nSection 12(5) - Defines certain receipts as deemed income in Pakistan, and addresses issues related to income that accrues or arises within the country.\n3.\nSection 62 & 55 - Relate to the assessment of income and the general provisions under which the Assessing Officer determines the taxability of receipts.\n4.\nArticle III of the Pak-US Double Taxation Agreement - This article governs the taxation of income between Pakistan and the United States, and typically exempts certain types of income, such as technical services fees, from taxation in the country where the service is rendered.\nDispute Overview:\nThe taxpayer had declared reimbursement of marketing and reservation costs as exempt from tax. These reimbursements were claimed as part of a hotel services agreement, where the taxpayer received a percentage of room reservation receipts. The Assessing Officer challenged this claim, asserting that the receipts constituted fees for technical services taxable under Section 80-AA of the Income Tax Ordinance. The reason for this objection was that the agreement between the parties specified certain services such as marketing, use of reservation systems, and property management, which the department viewed as technical services.\nAssessment and Appeal Process:\n•\nAssessing Officer's View: The department based its objection on the terms of the agreement, interpreting the reimbursement as fees for technical services. It argued that marketing and reservation system use were integral parts of providing technical services and thus subject to taxation under Section 80-AA of the Ordinance.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal's Initial View: The First Appellate Authority and Appellate Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, emphasizing that the receipts were connected to the agreement's terms and thus could be categorized as technical services. However, there was a difference of opinion among the judicial members.\nKey Points from the Judgment:\n1.\nMarketing and Reservation Costs Not Technical Services: The reimbursement of marketing and reservation costs was not considered a payment for technical or managerial services. The amounts reimbursed were merely fair and equitable shares of the costs, calculated as a percentage of room revenue.\n2.\nNature of the Receipts: The court found that marketing and reservation services were advertising and sales promotion activities, which did not involve any technical expertise. The taxpayer did not render any technical or managerial services but was only reimbursed for the costs incurred.\n3.\nTaxability under Section 80-AA: The department failed to justify that the reimbursed amounts should be taxed under Section 80-AA as fees for technical services. There was no technology transfer, use of trademarks, or technical expertise involved in the transaction, which would normally warrant taxation as fees for technical services.\n4.\nExemption under the Pak-US Double Taxation Agreement: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the amounts reimbursed to the taxpayer were not taxable under Section 80-AA because they were exempt under Article III of the Pakistan-US Double Taxation Agreement. This article provides an exemption for certain fees, including those for technical services, if the income is derived from cross-border transactions.\n5.\nLegal Validity of the Assessing Officer’s Actions: The Assessing Officer had incorrectly applied both normal income provisions and presumptive income provisions simultaneously, which was a procedural error. Under Section 143B, statements related to presumptive income must be filed, but since the taxpayer claimed an exemption, no such statement was required. Thus, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to apply Section 80-AA.\nFinal Decision:\n•\nFirst Appellate Authority's Decision: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, which had ruled that the reimbursement of marketing and reservation costs was not taxable under Section 80-AA. These receipts were not deemed to be fees for technical services, and they were exempt under the Pak-US Double Taxation Agreement.\n•\nDisagreement Between Members: There was a difference of opinion within the Tribunal regarding the interpretation of the agreement and the taxability of the reimbursements. However, the majority view was that the reimbursements did not constitute technical services fees and were thus exempt from tax.\nConclusion:\nThe reimbursement of marketing and reservation costs was found to be exempt from tax under the Pak-US Double Taxation Agreement. The taxpayer's receipts were not classified as fees for technical services, and the Assessing Officer's application of Section 80-AA was ruled to be incorrect. The Appellate Tribunal's ruling was upheld, and the case was decided in favor of the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(5),55,62,80,143,143B,143(b),80AA ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1472/KB to 1475/KB of 2004, 348/KB and 1681/KB of 2005, decision dated: 14-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Saadat Khan and Arshad Siraj for Appellant. and Basharat Qureshi, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MARRIOT WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, KARACHI\nvs\nTAXATION OFFICER, CIRCLE C-8, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "25", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtBPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 713 = 1979 SLD 713 = 1979 PLD 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtBPQ", + "Key Words:": "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) - Legal Principles\nThe West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) provides a framework for the regulation of tenant-landlord relationships and the procedures for eviction and rent disputes in urban areas of Pakistan. The case discussed involves various interpretations of provisions under the ordinance, specifically Section 13 (Application for Eviction), Section 15(4), and the implications of civil procedural rules.\nKey Legal Points and Interpretations:\n1.\nSection 13 and Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Impleading of Legal Representatives:\no\nSection 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (1959) pertains to eviction applications and the process by which landlords seek to evict tenants.\no\nThe Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXII, Rule 3(2) typically governs the substitution of legal representatives in civil proceedings. However, it was clarified that while the CPC does not directly apply to Rent Controller proceedings, the principles underlying certain provisions of the CPC can be applied in such cases.\no\nSpecifically, the case ruled that a landlord's widow, as one of his legal representatives, could actively pursue eviction proceedings even without all other legal representatives being impleaded. It was held that the impleading of all other legal representatives is not a sine qua non (essential condition) for the Rent Controller to pronounce a valid executable order in eviction proceedings.\n2.\nSection 13 - Application for Eviction by One Landlord:\no\nUnder Section 13, eviction applications can be made by one of several owners or landlords. The court emphasized that it is not necessary for all co-owners or co-landlords to jointly make an eviction application.\no\nThis ruling highlights the right of individual landlords to pursue eviction actions independently, without needing the consent or participation of other co-owners or co-landlords, as long as the legal requirements under the Ordinance are met.\n3.\nSection 15(4) and Locus Standi - Denial of Landlord-Tenant Relationship:\no\nSection 15(4) addresses the relationship between tenants and landlords and the legal obligations and defenses that tenants may raise in response to eviction applications.\no\nThe ruling discussed a scenario where a tenant wrongly denied the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, falsely claimed non-receipt of notices, and attempted to deny his identity in a contumacious (defiant and obstructive) manner. In such cases, the court held that the tenant has no locus standi (standing or legal right) to object to the proceedings, especially when legal representatives of the landlord had not been impleaded in the case.\no\nLocus standi is critical in determining whether a party has the right to be heard in a legal matter. Here, the court ruled that a tenant attempting to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant, as well as evading the responsibilities and notices under the law, could not challenge the eviction process on procedural grounds.\nConclusion:\nThe West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) provides a structured approach to handling disputes between landlords and tenants, including eviction proceedings. Key takeaways from this ruling include:\n•\nLegal representatives of a landlord can pursue eviction applications even if not all legal heirs are impleaded, as long as one legal representative is actively involved.\n•\nEviction applications can be filed by a single landlord even if there are multiple co-owners or co-landlords.\n•\nTenants who deny their legal identity or the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, or obstruct the process, lose the right to object on technical procedural grounds, particularly in relation to the impleading of all legal representatives.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S. A. O. No. 561 and Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 5835 and 5836 of 1978, decision dated: 24th October 1978.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Tanseer Asghar for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM SADI\nVS\nZAINAB BIBI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "26", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtNPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 19 = 2011 SLD 19 = (2011) 103 TAX 62 = 2011 PTCL 727 = 2011 PTD 549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtNPQ", + "Key Words:": "The Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), particularly Sections 133 and 153(1)(b)(c), (9), deals with taxation procedures and clarificatory amendments within fiscal statutes. Here's a breakdown of the legal principles surrounding these sections and the context of their amendment:\n1. Clarificatory Amendment in Fiscal Statute - Scope and Purpose:\nFiscal Statutes and Clarifications: A clarificatory amendment is made to clarify or explain a provision of law, often to remove doubts or confusion over its interpretation. These amendments do not typically change the law substantively but rather provide clear guidance on how the law should be applied.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: The provisions related to Section 133 and Section 153(1)(b)(c), (9) were amended to address ambiguities or practical issues in their application. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the tax obligations and procedures for businesses or individuals, especially in areas such as deduction of tax at source, income reporting, and payment of taxes.\n2. Sections Referenced:\nSection 133 (Enforcement of Tax Collection): This section typically deals with the enforcement and collection of taxes, including actions that tax authorities can take to ensure compliance from taxpayers. Amendments to this section might clarify how tax authorities are to act when there is non-compliance, setting out procedures for enforcement.\n**Section 153(1)(b)(c) - Deduction of Tax at Source: This section deals with the deduction of tax at source for specific types of income. In particular:\nSection 153(1)(b) relates to tax deductions on payments to contractors and subcontractors.\nSection 153(1)(c) pertains to tax deductions on payments for services, particularly those made by businesses to service providers.\nThe amendment here might clarify the application of these deductions, ensuring that the rules are uniformly applied and correctly understood by businesses, contractors, and service providers.\n**Section 153(9) - Adjustment of Tax: This section typically addresses the adjustment of tax liabilities, particularly in cases where taxpayers may have overpaid or underpaid taxes due to errors, amendments in assessments, or other procedural issues.\nA clarificatory amendment in Section 153(9) would likely aim to address mechanisms for adjusting such discrepancies and ensuring taxpayers are treated fairly when discrepancies in payments occur.\n3. Purpose of the Amendment:\nTo Remove Ambiguities: The amendment clarifies specific provisions in the Income Tax Ordinance to avoid confusion in implementation. This is particularly important in complex taxation systems where different types of transactions may have specific tax obligations, and ensuring proper application is key.\nEnsuring Compliance: By amending and clarifying these provisions, the law aims to ensure that taxpayers and tax authorities are aligned in their understanding of their obligations, particularly regarding tax deductions at source, income recognition, and tax enforcement procedures.\nStreamlining Processes: The amendments streamline the tax process, particularly for businesses and tax officials. It helps reduce disputes and litigation, as taxpayers will have a clearer understanding of their rights and responsibilities.\n4. Reference to Previous Case Law:\nThe 2008 PTD (Trib.) 1897 case is referenced here, likely to illustrate how such clarifications are applied in practice, providing judicial interpretations that reflect the intent and practical application of these provisions.\nConclusion:\nThe clarificatory amendment to Sections 133 and 153(1)(b)(c), (9) of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) is designed to ensure that both taxpayers and authorities have clear guidelines on the procedures for tax deductions at source, enforcement of tax collection, and adjustment of tax liabilities. The scope of such amendments is typically to remove confusion, clarify tax procedures, and ensure compliance in a fair and predictable manner, minimizing disputes and facilitating smoother tax administration.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133,153,153(1)(b)(c),153(9) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 401/2010, decided 19-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, JUSTICE AND IMTIAZ ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehman Ullah for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (LEGAL) INLAND REVENUE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, PESHAWAR\nVs.\nM/S EVER GREEN TRADING COMPANY, CARRIAGE CONTRACTOR, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "27", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtJPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 20 = 2011 SLD 20 = (2011) 103 TAX 99 = 2011 PTD 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtJPQ", + "Key Words:": "The case involves a dispute concerning the amendment of assessment and the application of certain provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) and the Income Tax Ordinance (1979), specifically regarding a construction agreement for a plaza, the assessment of construction costs, and related issues. Here’s a breakdown of the key points and legal principles:\n1. Relevant Legal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), Sections 122(5), 111, 177: These sections deal with the amendment of assessments (Section 122(5)), the discovery of concealed income (Section 111), and the audit proceedings (Section 177), respectively. They provide the framework for revisiting an assessment if discrepancies are found or if information comes to light that may affect the tax liability.\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979), Sections 62 & 13: These sections relate to the assessment and re-assessment of income, specifically procedures for auditing and determining taxable income.\n•\nContract Act (1872), Sections 10 & 11: These sections deal with the validity of agreements, stating that contracts are only valid if made with free consent and not influenced by coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation.\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2007: This circular may relate to the audit procedures or the standards for determining construction costs and tax assessments related to construction projects.\n2. Factual Background:\n•\nThe taxpayer (assessee) entered into an agreement for the construction of a plaza, and the related tax assessment for the tax years 2001-2003 and 2004-2007 was disputed.\n•\nThe Taxation Officer (Audit) disregarded the agreement for construction and the correspondence during the assessment process, particularly the contractor's affidavit and the construction cost agreement.\n•\nConstruction rates were applied based on a PWD (Public Works Department) letter from November 2007, which was considered irrelevant for the period under review (2001-2003) because the proceedings were started much later, in 2009. The audit and information were also said to be irrelevant to the specific assessment years in question.\n3. Key Issues and Arguments:\n•\nValidity of the Agreement and Affidavit: The taxpayer argued that the agreement for construction and the affidavit of the contractor should be considered valid evidence of the cost of construction, as the contractor had certified the costs involved. The Taxation Officer disbelieved this evidence without adequate justification, and it was pointed out that the contractor's profit, which was claimed to be 20%, was not included in the assessment.\n•\nRelevance of Construction Rates: The Taxation Officer applied construction rates from a 2007 PWD letter, but the taxpayer contended that these rates were not applicable to the earlier tax years (2001-2003), as the construction was completed before 2003. Therefore, the assessment of construction costs using later rates was unjustified.\n•\nAudit and Assessment Discrepancies: The Audit Officer started the proceedings in 2009, while the assessments for the earlier years (2001-2003) were already completed, and the cost of construction was declared by the taxpayer as Rs. 83,00,000. The Taxation Officer had accepted this amount initially but later amended the cost based on arbitrary adjustments.\n4. Tribunal's Decision:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority had reduced the construction cost, but it did not consider the contractor's affidavit and the agreement that had been provided by the taxpayer. The Appellate Tribunal held that these documents had not been rebutted by the Taxation Officer and should have been accepted.\n•\nThe Tribunal emphasized that the contractual agreement between the parties was genuine and executed with the free and fair consent of both parties, and the Taxation Officer could not change the nature of the contract based on fiscal law considerations alone.\n•\nThe Tribunal also noted that construction rates from later years were not relevant to the assessment for the years in question, as the plaza was completed before June 30, 2003 and part of it was rented out by June 19, 2003. The Tribunal therefore cancelled the order of the Taxation Officer and vacated the First Appellate Authority's order, allowing the taxpayer’s appeal.\n5. Conclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, stating that the agreement and contractor's affidavit were valid and should have been accepted. The Taxation Officer's actions, such as using construction rates from a later period and disregarding the evidence provided by the taxpayer, were deemed unjustified. Therefore, the taxpayer's original declaration of construction costs was upheld, and the assessment order was cancelled.\nCase Law References:\n•\n1991 PTD 488 and 2005 PTD (Trib.) 745 are cited to support the Tribunal's stance on the validity of agreements and the relevant documentation in tax assessments. These cases establish precedents regarding the treatment of agreements and the need for tax authorities to properly consider the evidence presented by the taxpayer.\nThis decision underscores the importance of properly considering agreements and affidavits in tax proceedings and ensuring that fiscal laws do not override the legitimate contracts between parties, provided that the agreements are made with free consent and are legally sound.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=13,62,111,122,177,122(5),13(1)(d),177(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 231/LB of 2010, decision dated: 30-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Bashir, Advocate/A.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR, FAISALABAD\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "28", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmswPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 21 = 2011 SLD 21 = 2011 PTD 565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmswPQ", + "Key Words:": "The case concerns a dispute over the tax assessment of a society that is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and operates as a non-profit educational organization. The primary issue was whether the taxpayer, being a registered society, could be treated as a company for tax purposes and whether it qualified for exemption under the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nRelevant Legal Provisions:\n1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), Section 80(2)(b)(v): This provision outlines exemptions applicable to non-profit organizations.\n2.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), Section 113: This section deals with the minimum tax imposed on companies and other entities.\n3.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), Section 122(5A): This section concerns the amendment of assessments in case of incorrect returns or filings.\n4.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (2001), Second Schedule, Clause (92): This clause provides exemptions for certain organizations, including societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.\nFactual Background:\n•\nThe taxpayer, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is a non-profit organization that operates on a no profit, no gain basis, providing education.\n•\nThe society filed its income tax return claiming an exemption under Clause (92) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which pertains to exemptions for non-profit organizations.\n•\nThe Taxation Officer, however, treated the society as a company under the Income Tax Ordinance, arguing that the taxpayer's claim for exemption under Clause (92) implied that it fell within the definition of a company. Consequently, the Taxation Officer passed an ex parte order and charged the taxpayer the minimum tax under Section 113 of the Ordinance.\nLegal Arguments and Findings:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority annulled the Taxation Officer’s order after reviewing the facts and the legal framework. The Appellate Authority concluded that the society, being a registered entity under the Societies Registration Act, did not fall within the definition of a company. The law explicitly excludes such societies from being categorized as companies.\n•\nThe Appellate Authority emphasized that the society was not established under a specific company law (like the Companies Ordinance, 1984), but rather under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Therefore, it was not subject to the minimum tax provisions applicable to companies.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority, agreeing that the Taxation Officer had made an incorrect interpretation of the law.\nKey Legal Principles:\n•\nExemption Status of Societies: Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 that operate on a non-profit basis are typically exempt from taxation under certain conditions. This exemption is explicitly provided for in the Second Schedule, Clause (92) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nDefinition of 'Company': The definition of a company under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 does not include societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Therefore, a society cannot be treated as a company unless it has been specifically established under company law.\n•\nMinimum Tax: The minimum tax under Section 113 applies to companies and certain other entities but does not apply to societies that fall under the exempted category.\nPrecedents Cited:\n•\n1998 PTD 2017: This case may have dealt with the exemption of non-profit organizations and reinforced the idea that societies registered under the Societies Registration Act are not companies.\n•\nCIT v. Messrs Engineering Cooperative Housing Society Lahore, 2000 PTD 388: This case likely dealt with the status of cooperative housing societies and their tax liability, affirming the exemption status of non-profit entities.\n•\nCIT v. Messrs Spring Field Secondary School Karachi, 2003 PTD 1264: This case may have addressed the tax exemption of educational societies or schools, reinforcing the idea that societies meeting the conditions for exemption under the Income Tax Ordinance are not liable for certain taxes.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, agreeing that the society in question, being a non-profit educational organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was not a company and therefore was not subject to the minimum tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The society's claim for exemption under Clause 92 of the Second Schedule was valid, and the Taxation Officer's order charging the minimum tax was annulled.\nThe ruling reflects the importance of properly interpreting the legal definitions and the exemption status of organizations registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=80,113,122,122(5A),80(2)(b)(v),SecondSched.,Cl.(92) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 286/KB and 287/KB of 2010, decision dated: 9-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Shah Bani, G.M. Khan, D.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER, LEGAL DIVISION, RTO, HYDERABAD\nVS.\nM/S LATIF NIAZI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "29", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt3PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 22 = 2011 SLD 22 = (2011) 103 TAX 96 = 2011 PTCL 192 = 2011 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt3PQ", + "Key Words:": "Summary of Key Provisions and Interpretation\nThis section of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 discusses the taxation of businesses involved in the sale of petroleum products (like petrol pumps) and the operation of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) stations. The primary focus is on the deduction of tax at source and how certain taxes are treated as final tax, as well as the advance tax implications.\nKey Provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001):\n1.\nSection 156A - Tax Deduction on Sale of Petroleum Products:\no\nAny person selling petroleum products to petrol pump operators must deduct tax from the commission at the prescribed rate.\no\nThis deducted tax is considered the final tax on the income derived from the sale of petroleum products.\n2.\nSection 234A - Tax Deduction on CNG Gas Bills:\no\nSimilarly, advance tax is deducted on the amount of the gas bill for CNG stations.\no\nThis tax is also considered final tax on the income of the CNG station arising from the consumption of gas.\n3.\nSection 169(2)(a) - Non-Refundable Tax:\no\nOnce the tax is deducted or collected under Sections 156A or 234A, it is treated as the final discharge of tax. The taxpayer is not entitled to any adjustments or claims for deductions under other heads of income.\n4.\nSection 235 - Electricity Consumption:\no\nSection 235 relates to advance tax on electricity bills for commercial or industrial consumers.\no\nHowever, the tax should not be charged from a taxpayer who produces a certificate of exemption from the Commissioner.\no\nFor companies, the tax collected under this provision is adjustable against their final tax liability.\nLegal Analysis and Application:\nFinal Tax vs. Advance Tax:\n•\nFinal Tax under Sections 156A and 234A is specifically intended to be the complete discharge of tax liability for the income arising from the sale of petroleum products or the operation of a CNG station. Once this tax is paid, no further tax should be due on this income, making it exempt from further taxation.\n•\nAdvance Tax (such as under Section 235) is an estimated tax that is required to be paid in advance during the tax year, based on the expected income of the taxpayer. However, this provision conflicts with the final tax provisions under Sections 156A and 234A, as the taxpayer is already deemed to have paid all tax liabilities through the final tax deductions.\nConstitutional Issues:\n•\nArticle 23 and Article 24 of the Constitution protect individuals' property rights. Charging advance tax after the final tax has been paid would violate these constitutional rights.\n•\nArticle 4 and Article 10A provide due process rights, ensuring that tax collection is lawful and fair. The demand for advance tax despite the final discharge of tax would be contrary to these rights.\n•\nThe conflict between final tax and advance tax provisions has been noted as a poor legislative arrangement that causes unnecessary hardship for taxpayers.\nInterpretation of Tax Provisions:\n•\nThe reading down rule is invoked to resolve the conflict between final tax provisions and advance tax provisions. This rule suggests that tax provisions should be interpreted in a way that aligns with the legislative intent and does not cause hardship or violate constitutional rights.\n•\nExemption certificates can be issued to taxpayers who have fully discharged their final tax liability under Sections 156A and 234A. If a taxpayer's income is solely derived from such sources, they can be exempted from further advance tax under Section 235.\nTaxpayer's Rights:\n•\nOnce the final tax has been paid under Sections 156A and 234A, the taxpayer should not be subject to advance tax under Section 235, as the tax liability has been fully discharged.\n•\nThe exemption certificate (issued under Section 159(1)) can validate this exemption, ensuring that the taxpayer is not subjected to further tax on their income.\nCourt's Role:\n•\nThe courts have the responsibility to interpret the tax law in a way that promotes justice and aligns with the legislative intent.\n•\nThe principle of reading down is used to ensure that conflicting provisions are harmonized, so that final tax provisions are considered equivalent to exemption clauses for the purpose of avoiding double taxation.\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provides specific provisions for final tax on the sale of petroleum products and the operation of CNG stations. Once this final tax is deducted under Sections 156A and 234A, taxpayers are not liable for additional taxation on this income. However, the imposition of advance tax under Section 235 on the same income creates a conflict, as it effectively doubles the tax burden on the taxpayer.\nThe Constitutional issues related to property rights and due process are invoked to challenge the unfairness of charging advance tax after the final tax has been paid. The courts apply the reading down technique to harmonize the conflicting provisions and ensure that the taxpayer is not subjected to further taxation once their final tax liability has been fully discharged. Taxpayers may be entitled to exemption certificates that validate their discharge of tax liability, ensuring they are not taxed again under Section 235.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=156,147,159,169,170,234,235,147(1)(d),156(a),159(1),169(2)(a),234(a),235(3) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3253 of 2010, decision dated: 15-06-2010. dates of hearing: 9th, 14th and 15-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwar ul Haq for Petitioners.", + "Party Name:": "AL KARAM CNG AND OTHERS\nVS.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "30", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBVPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 23 = 2011 SLD 23 = (2011) 103 TAX 289 = 2011 PTCL 757 = 2011 PTD 625", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBVPQ", + "Key Words:": "Case Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 79 – Transfer Pricing and Remittances\nIn this case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the issue of whether certain remittances received by a subsidiary from its parent company constituted income subject to taxation or could be considered as windfall or gifts exempt from tax.\nKey Facts:\n•\nThe assessee was a subsidiary of a non-resident foreign company.\n•\nDuring the relevant assessment years, the subsidiary received certain remittances from its parent company. These remittances were described by the assessee as voluntary payments by way of gifts and subsidies to help improve its financial position, which had deteriorated due to accumulated losses.\n•\nThe parent company argued that the payments were made to help the subsidiary with its losses and were voluntary remittances, not income.\nTribunal's Findings:\n•\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concluded that the remittances could be regarded as periodical monetary returns from a definite source and came in with expected regularity.\n•\nThe Tribunal also noted that the parent company had charged the subsidiary a higher price than international prices for certain transactions, which resulted in funds being siphoned off from the subsidiary. Therefore, the Tribunal reasoned that these remittances were partially used to replenish funds being drained by the higher charges imposed by the parent company.\n•\nBased on this, the Tribunal concluded that the remittances were income and subject to taxation.\nLegal Issue:\n•\nWhether the amounts received by the assessee were income or a windfall from the parent company.\nCourt's Conclusion:\n•\nThe court found the Tribunal's reasoning to be fundamentally flawed and unsustainable. The conclusion that the remittances were income, derived from the actions of the parent company, was described as conjectural.\n•\nThe court held that the remittances were exactly what the assessee claimed: windfall payments or gifts, which did not constitute taxable income.\n•\nTherefore, the court ruled that these payments were not taxable as income, but rather, they should be treated as windfalls from the parent company, with no direct connection to the assessee’s business activities.\n•\nThe case was decided in favor of the assessee.\nReference to Precedents:\n•\nThe court referred to the case of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1975 PTD 219; PLD 1975 Kar. 924 and 1991 PTD 999) to support its conclusion that voluntary remittances or gifts from a parent company were not considered taxable income.\n•\nThe PLD 1975 Kar. 924 was distinguished on the basis that the remittances in that case were structured differently and were not analogous to the case at hand.\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nWindfall vs. Income: A key issue in the case was the classification of the remittances as either income or a windfall. The court held that windfalls, which are unexpected gains not derived from regular business activities, are not taxable as income.\n2.\nTribunal's Conjectural Reasoning: The court criticized the Tribunal’s reasoning, which was based on assumptions about the parent's pricing strategy and the flow of funds between the companies. The court emphasized the importance of proof and evidence in determining whether remittances are income.\n3.\nGifts and Subsidies: The court also reinforced the distinction between voluntary gifts or subsidies from a parent company and income arising from business activities, noting that voluntary payments meant to assist a subsidiary’s financial position should not automatically be treated as taxable income.\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled in favor of the assessee, deciding that the remittances received were not income but rather a windfall from the parent company. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the remittances were not subject to tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=79 Income Tax Act, 1922=42(4) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 324 of 1997, decision dated: 24-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HARMONE LABORATORIES PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "31", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBRPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1 = 2009 SLD 1 = (2009) 100 TAX 174 = 2009 PTD 536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBRPQ", + "Key Words:": "Case Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Sections 133(4) & 136 – Reference to High Court Against Tribunal's Order\nKey Points:\n1.\nIssue at Hand: The case involves an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Tribunal that refused to rectify a claimed mistake in its decision. The question raised was whether a reference could be made to the High Court against the Tribunal's decision to reject the application for rectification.\n2.\nLegal Provisions:\no\nSection 133(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 deals with the powers of the Tribunal to rectify any mistakes in its orders.\no\nSection 136 allows a reference to the High Court if there is a question of law arising from the Tribunal’s decision.\nCourt's Ruling:\n•\nReference Not Maintainable: The court ruled that a reference to the High Court is not maintainable when the Tribunal refuses to rectify a mistake in its order. The refusal of the Tribunal to correct its own order does not create a new ground for filing a reference to the High Court.\n•\nLimitation and Rectification: If the Tribunal either accepts a rectification application or amends its original order on its own (suo motu), then the rectified order becomes part of the original order. This means that a reference can only be filed against the original order of the Tribunal if it gives rise to a question of law.\n•\nRejection of Rectification Application: The rejection of the rectification application does not reset the clock for the limitation period for filing a reference. The time limit for a reference against the original order of the Tribunal remains the same, even if the rectification application is rejected.\nPrecedents Cited:\n1.\nMessrs Hong Kong Chinese Restaurant Main Boulevard Gulberg, Lahore v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6 Lahore and another (2002 PTD 1878) – This case was referred to in support of the principle that a reference to the High Court is not permissible just because a rectification application was rejected.\n2.\nCommissioner of Income Tax Madras v. V.O. RM. SV Sevugan (1948 Vol. XVI ITR 59) – This case was also referenced to reinforce the idea that the Tribunal’s original order remains the central point for filing a reference, not the rejection of a rectification application.\n3.\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Ateeq Riaz (2002 PTD 570) – This case was cited to emphasize that when the Tribunal issues a rectification order, the original order (as amended) is what can give rise to a reference to the High Court if it raises a question of law.\nLegal Principle:\n•\nRectification and Reference: If the Tribunal refuses to rectify its order, no reference can be made to the High Court on that basis. The rectification order, if accepted, becomes a part of the original order, and only the original order (as amended, if applicable) can be the subject of a reference to the High Court if it raises a question of law.\nConclusion:\n•\nA reference to the High Court against a Tribunal’s decision to reject a rectification application is not maintainable. The Tribunal's original order, not its decision to reject the application, governs the ability to file a reference. If the Tribunal amends its order, then the rectified order is subject to the same process for reference if it raises legal questions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=133,136,133(4) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. 350 of 2003, decision dated: 10-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nVS.\nMUHAMMAD SHARIF" + }, + { + "Case No.": "32", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBjPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 24 = 2011 SLD 24 = (2011) 103 TAX 347 = 2011 PTCL 733 = 2011 PTD 637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBjPQ", + "Key Words:": "Case Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Sections 22(8), 37, 133(1), and Clause (21) of Part II, Second Schedule\nKey Points:\n1.\nIssue at Hand:\no\nThe assessee company, engaged in the shipping business, sold assets (specifically a vessel) and contended that the income from the sale should be treated as part of its business income under the Presumptive Tax Regime.\no\nThe key issue was whether the income from the disposal of the vessel should be treated as capital gains or as business income under the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n2.\nLegal Provisions:\no\nSection 22(8) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Addresses the treatment of gain from the disposal of depreciable assets in the context of business income.\no\nSection 37: Deals with capital gains and sets out provisions related to the disposal of capital assets.\no\nSection 133(1): Pertains to the powers of the Taxation Officer to assess income.\no\nClause (21) of Part II, Second Schedule: Specifies the presumptive tax regime applicable to certain business income.\nCourt's Ruling:\n1.\nPresumptive Tax and Capital Gains:\no\nThe assessee’s argument that the gain from the sale of the vessel should be treated as business income under the Presumptive Tax Regime did not hold ground. This was primarily because the depreciation had never been allowed on the vessel, and therefore, there was no Written Down Value (WDV) available for computing the gain under Section 22(8).\no\nUnder the Presumptive Tax Regime (Clause 21, Part II, Second Schedule), the assessee’s income from the sale of the vessel was not considered business income. The court held that once the income is subject to the presumptive tax, the entitlement to depreciation on assets ceases. As such, the assets in question did not fall under the ambit of Section 37(5)(b) (which deals with the treatment of depreciable assets upon disposal).\n2.\nTax Treatment of Disposal Gain:\no\nThe gain from the disposal of the vessel was classified as capital gains and not as business income. According to the court, such income should be taxed under the capital gains provisions rather than the business income provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n3.\nJustification of Tribunal's Decision:\no\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision to treat the gain from the disposal of the vessel as capital gains was upheld. The Tribunal rightly determined that the gain was not subject to the presumptive tax under Clause (21) of Part II, Second Schedule, and therefore was chargeable as capital gains.\n4.\nRe-computation of Gains:\no\nThe Taxation Officer had previously disallowed certain claims made by the assessee regarding deductions for stores, spares, bunker costs, and brokerage paid on the disposal of the vessel. The High Court directed the Taxation Officer to re-compute the gain in accordance with the provisions of Section 37 and decide whether the other claimed deductions were allowable.\nPrecedents Cited:\n•\nGenertech Pakistan Ltd. and others v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan Lahore and others (2004 PTD 2255) – This case was referenced to support the argument regarding the treatment of income from the sale of depreciable assets under the Presumptive Tax Regime.\nLegal Principle:\n•\nIncome from the sale of assets under the Presumptive Tax Regime is not considered as business income when depreciation has not been allowed, and thus, it is treated as capital gains subject to tax under Section 37 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The disposal of such assets cannot be computed under Section 22(8) because there is no Written Down Value (WDV) for the asset.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision to classify the gain from the disposal of the vessel as capital gains was justified. The sale was not covered under the presumptive tax regime for business income because the asset had not been depreciated, and the capital gains provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 applied instead. The Taxation Officer was instructed to re-compute the gain and decide on the allowability of other deductions claimed by the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=22,37,133,133(1),22(8),37(5)(b),Cl.21 ofPartII,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 598 of 2009, decision dated: 24-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kashif Paracha and Jawaid Khurram for Applicant. \nKafeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "M/S LALAZAR SHIPPING (PVT.) LTD. through Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, Karachi\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "33", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBZPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 25 = 2011 SLD 25 = (2011) 103 TAX 297 = 2011 PTCL 712 = 2011 PTD 647", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBZPQ", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction and Alternate Remedy in Tax Matters\nKey Legal Points:\n1.\nConstitution of Pakistan – Article 199:\no\nArticle 199 of the Constitution allows the High Court to exercise constitutional jurisdiction in cases of violation of fundamental rights or where there is a lack of jurisdiction in the orders of lower authorities. However, this jurisdiction is not intended to bypass alternate remedies that are available under the law.\no\nAlternate Remedy: Where there is an alternate remedy available, the High Court will not exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 unless the remedy is inadequate or unavailable. The High Court must be satisfied that there is no adequate legal recourse before it entertains a constitutional petition.\no\nThe maxim remedium juris applies, meaning that the law provides remedies for the grievances, and a party must exhaust those remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.\n2.\nTaxation and Constitutional Petition:\no\nIn a case where the assessee challenged the income tax assessment through a constitutional petition under Article 199, claiming that the assessment violated its previous practice and misinterpreted Section 187 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the High Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable. The assessee should have appealed the assessment through the prescribed appellate procedures under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 instead of approaching the High Court.\no\nThe grievance involved a misinterpretation of tax law, which could be raised before the appellate authority. Since an alternate remedy was available, the High Court found that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked at this stage.\n3.\nEstoppel and Res Judicata in Tax Matters:\no\nThe principle of estoppel and res judicata (which prevents re-litigation of the same issue) do not apply to tax proceedings because each tax year is considered a separate and distinct entity. The assessment of tax for each year is independent, and previous decisions or practices do not bind the determination for subsequent years.\no\nThis principle ensures that taxpayers are assessed fairly for each year based on the facts and circumstances of that particular year.\nDetailed Explanation:\n•\nConstitutional Jurisdiction and Availability of Alternate Remedy:\no\nThe High Court highlighted that when there is a legal alternate remedy, such as the right to file an appeal with an appellate authority, the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is not to be invoked. This ensures that statutory remedies are not bypassed by resorting to constitutional petitions prematurely.\no\nIn the given case, the assessee challenged the tax assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by directly approaching the High Court, despite having an alternative remedy (filing an appeal) available under the law. The Court emphasized that the remedy available under the law must be utilized first.\n•\nPrinciple of Remedium Juris :\no\nThe Court referenced the principle remedium juris , meaning that the law provides a remedy, and a party should pursue the statutory remedy before resorting to the constitutional jurisdiction. This helps maintain the separation of roles between the judiciary and the statutory appellate bodies.\n•\nTax Year as a Separate Entity:\no\nIn tax matters, each year is treated separately, and principles such as estoppel or res judicata do not apply. This allows for a fresh evaluation of facts and figures for each year, and the interpretation of tax provisions can vary from one year to another.\no\nTherefore, if a dispute arises regarding a specific year’s tax assessment, the issue must be addressed based on the facts of that year, and previous practices or decisions are not binding.\nConclusion:\n•\nAlternate Remedy: The assessee should have filed an appeal under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 instead of approaching the High Court. The High Court rightly dismissed the petition due to the availability of an alternate remedy, adhering to the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is reserved for exceptional cases where no adequate remedy exists.\n•\nTax Matters and Separate Assessment: The Court also reiterated that in tax matters, each assessment year is considered a distinct entity, and the principles of estoppel or res judicata do not apply. This allows the tax authorities to assess each year independently.\nThus, the petition was dismissed, and the assessee was advised to pursue the available statutory remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,187,122(5A),187(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-3594 3595, 3596 of 2010, decision dated: 30-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Umer Soomro for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "BP PAKISTAN EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INC., KARACHI\nVS.\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, INLAND REVENUE B ENFORCEMENT AND COLLECTION DIVISION I, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "34", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBFPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 711 = 1979 SLD 711 = 1979 PLD 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBFPQ", + "Key Words:": "1. Section 15(4) of the Ordinance:\n•\nThis section deals with the powers of the Rent Controller and the conditions under which an order for the eviction of a tenant may be made. It allows for eviction if the landlord's need for the premises is genuine (bona fide) and justifiable.\n•\nThe term bona fide personal requirement suggests that the landlord must genuinely need the property for personal use and not just for speculative purposes.\n2. Section 13 of the Ordinance:\n•\nSection 13 specifies the grounds on which a landlord can apply for the eviction of a tenant. One of the primary grounds is the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord.\n•\nThe landlord is required to prove, through evidence, that the premises are needed for personal use, either for themselves or their family.\n3. Concurrence of Findings by Courts Below:\n•\nConcurrence means that both the lower appellate court and the trial court have agreed on the same conclusion. In this case, the finding that the landlord genuinely needs the property for personal use was upheld.\n•\nThe courts evaluated the evidence presented by the landlord and found it sufficient to demonstrate that the landlord had a legitimate need for the premises.\n4. Evidence on Record:\n•\nThe decision to uphold the order of ejectment is supported by the evidence on record. This suggests that the landlord's request was substantiated by facts, such as the lack of alternative accommodations, personal circumstances, or the necessity of the property for the landlord’s use.\n5. Order of Ejectment Upheld:\n•\nSince the landlord’s need for the premises was found to be genuine, and this was backed by the evidence presented, the order of ejectment (eviction) was confirmed by the higher court.\n•\nThis reflects the court’s understanding that landlords seeking eviction on bona fide grounds have the right to reclaim their property when proper evidence is provided.\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord was established through the evidence presented in court. The findings of the lower courts were concurred, and the order of ejectment (eviction) was upheld in accordance with Section 13 and Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959). The landlord was able to prove that the house was needed for personal use, and therefore the tenant’s eviction was justified under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Second Appeal from Original Order No. 593 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 6066 of 1978, decision dated: 4th November 1978.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "BASHIR AHMAD AND ASR-Respondents\nMuhammad Rashid Chughtal for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAFI\nVS\nBASHIR AHMAD AND ASR-" + }, + { + "Case No.": "35", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBBPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 2 = 2009 SLD 2 = 2009 PTD 497 = (2009) 99 TAX 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBBPQ", + "Key Words:": "The case in question revolves around the Finance Act (V of 1989), specifically Section 7(2)(a), which was amended by Section 12 of the Finance Act (VII of 1990) and subsequently omitted by Section 15 of the Finance Act (IV of 1999), effective 1-7-1999. The legal issue is whether the omission of a provision related to the levy of capital value tax on the transfer of property has any effect on tax liability for a lease deed executed before the omission came into effect.\nKey Legal Points:\n1. Section 7(2)(a) of the Finance Act (V of 1989):\n•\nThis section provided for the capital value tax to be levied on the transfer of property, with certain exceptions. The section was amended by Finance Act (VII of 1990) and later omitted by the Finance Act (IV of 1999), with the omission taking effect from 1-7-1999.\n2. Effect of Omission of Section 7(2)(b):\n•\nThe omission of Section 7(2)(b), which is related to the levy of capital value tax on properties exceeding 250 square yards, took effect from 1-7-1999.\n•\nAccording to the General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Section 6(c), the omission of a provision does not affect rights, liabilities, or actions that took place before the provision was omitted. This means the omission would not extinguish any tax liabilities arising before 1-7-1999, including taxes associated with lease deeds executed before this date.\n3. Capital Value Tax on Transfer of Property:\n•\nThe case involved a lease deed executed on 27-7-1999. Even though Section 7(2)(b) was omitted by the Finance Act (IV of 1999) effective from 1-7-1999, the capital value tax was still in force when the lease deed was executed.\n•\nAs the omission does not have a retrospective effect, the tax liability was still applicable at the time of execution of the lease deed.\n4. Interpretation of Legal Precedents:\n•\nThe Supreme Court of India judgments cited in the case, such as J.M. Shelat v. Bhargave (AIR 1970 SC 494) and Abdul Azeez v. Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka-I (1981) 128 ITR 547, emphasize the general principle that statutory amendments or omissions do not affect ongoing liabilities unless specifically stated otherwise.\n•\nThe Dad Muhammad v. Additional District Judge-I, Quetta (1996 SCMR 1688) case is cited as following this precedent, affirming that the omission of the section would not extinguish the liability for tax that had been incurred before the provision was omitted.\nConclusion:\nThe omission of Section 7(2)(b) of the Finance Act (V of 1989) by the Finance Act (IV of 1999), effective 1-7-1999, did not affect the liability for capital value tax on property acquired through the lease deed dated 27-7-1999. The tax liability was in place at the time of the lease execution, and the omission did not obliterate the lessee's obligation to pay the tax. Therefore, the lessee remained liable for the capital value tax despite the legislative change.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1989=7,7(2)(a) General Clauses Act, 1897=5(c) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3013 of 2001, decision dated: 14-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawahar A. Naqvi for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LEATHERWARE (PVT.) LTD:, SIALKOT through Chief Executive\nVS.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "36", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBNPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 26 = 2011 SLD 26 = (2010) 102 TAX 554 = 2011 PTD 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBNPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 122(5A)\nThis case involves the application of Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), which relates to the amendment of assessments. Several key issues related to capital and revenue receipts, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors in revising tax assessments are discussed. Below is a breakdown of the legal points raised:\n(a) Income from Business - Taxability under S.18 and S.153(1)(c)\nThe assessee argued that the receipt in question should be taxed under the Presumptive Tax Regime, and not under Section 18 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. According to the assessee:\nThe receipt was capital in nature, not chargeable to tax under Section 18.\nThe department initially argued the taxability under Section 153(1)(c), which covers certain receipts like construction of buildings or installation of machinery.\nHowever, the second show-cause notice issued after four years took an entirely different stance, citing Section 18 to tax the receipt, while initially this was not conveyed.\nCourt's Findings:\nThe change in the grounds for revision after such a long period was a violation of the taxpayer’s rights.\nThe department had a consistent stance from the beginning that the amount was capital, but the shift to treating it as a revenue receipt under Section 18 was an unlawful deviation.\nThe Presumptive Tax Regime could apply, which doesn’t distinguish between capital and revenue receipts, but this was not considered in the final adjudication.\nLegal Precedents:\nThe decision referenced earlier cases, such as the Gadoon Textile Mills case (1997 SCMR 641), highlighting inconsistencies in the tax authority's approach.\n(b) Deviation from Grounds in Show-Cause Notice - Violation of Law\nSection 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance provides for the amendment of assessments. The court found that the deviation in the grounds mentioned in the second show-cause notice was a violation of law. The final adjudication was based on a new ground not mentioned in the initial notice, rendering the order illegal and void.\nCase Referenced:\nThe Collector Central Excise and Land Customs v. Rahim Din (1987 SCMR 1840): This case was cited to emphasize that any order based on different grounds from those initially presented is invalid.\n(c) Fishing Inquiries and Void Proceedings\nFishing inquiries (in which the tax department asks for data or explanations without clear justification) were deemed improper in the context of Section 122(5A).\nThe department's revisionary action after issuing multiple notices on different grounds for over four years was invalid, as the proceedings were based on speculation rather than firm evidence.\nCase Referenced:\n2008 PTD (Trib.) 1491 and I.T.A. No.1210/LB of 2006: The court referenced earlier rulings that emphasized that tax authorities cannot initiate proceedings based on conjecture and should have definitive information.\n(d) Violation of Law Due to Change of Allegations\nThe tax authority changed the nature of the allegation in the second notice, deviating from the original issue. The court ruled that this kind of procedural error violated the law and was not consistent with provisional jurisdiction.\nCase Referenced:\nThe Collector Central Excise and Land Customs v. Rahim Din (1987 SCMR 1840) again highlighted that changes in the allegations between notices could not lead to valid legal proceedings.\n(e) Conscious Application of Mind by the Commissioner\nSection 122(5A) mandates that the Commissioner must apply his independent mind when amending assessments. The court found that the Commissioner did not personally assess whether the original order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue.\nThe legal obligation for the Commissioner to make an informed decision was not fulfilled in this case.\nCase Referenced:\nMA(AG) No.221/LB/09 in I.T.A. No.1019/LB/08 (2009): Emphasized the importance of the Commissioner’s independent assessment and application of mind.\n(f) Jurisdiction to Exercise Revisional Powers\nSection 122(5A) is a revisional jurisdiction, meaning the authority to amend an assessment lies with the Commissioner and not any subordinate officers. The court ruled that the revisionary proceedings were invalid if exercised by anyone other than the Commissioner.\nCase Referenced:\nCIT v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 SCMR 1279) and Sandal Engineer (Pvt.) Ltd. v. IAC (2001 PTD 1467): Established that the jurisdiction to revise assessments must be exercised by the Commissioner himself, not delegated.\n(g) Illegal Actions Due to Violation of Statutory Requirements\nThe court emphasized that when a statute mandates that actions be taken by a specific person (such as the Commissioner), performing these actions by someone else is implicitly prohibited. The violation of this rule rendered the decision illegal.\nCase Referenced:\nMessrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and others (1997 SCMR 641): This case was cited to underline that delegation of power is not allowed under such legal provisions.\n(h) Capital vs Revenue Receipt - Taxability on Termination of Agency Rights\nThe court did not address the issue of whether the termination of agency rights constitutes a capital or revenue receipt, but noted that the taxpayer had a strong prima facie case for treating it as capital.\nConclusion\nThe overall conclusion is that the amendment of the assessment under Section 122(5A) was illegal due to procedural flaws, such as changes in allegations, lack of conscious application of mind by the Commissioner, and violation of statutory requirements. Additionally, the department's approach in handling the case was not based on definitive information, and the order was thus declared null and void. The case reinforces the principles that tax authorities must act within the law and with clarity in their approach.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=18,37,122,122(5),122(5A),153,153(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 697/LB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd August, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ikram ul Haq for Appellant \nMuhammad Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "37", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBJPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 27 = 2011 SLD 27 = (2010) 102 TAX 601 = 2011 PTD 719", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBJPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 184(2)(a), 122(5), and 111\nThis case concerns the penalty for concealment of income, the amendment of assessment, and the use of definite information in tax proceedings. The key issue revolves around whether the amended assessment made based on alleged diverted sales and deposits into the joint accounts of directors was valid under the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001).\nLegal Provisions Involved:\n1.\nSection 184(2)(a): Deals with the assessment of the taxpayer and the penalty for concealment of income.\n2.\nSection 122(5): Governs the amendment of assessment by the tax authorities in case of discovery of concealed income or incorrect reporting.\n3.\nSection 111: Deals with undisclosed income and provides the legal framework for assessing such income.\nCase Details and Findings:\nAudit and Amendment of Assessment:\n•\nDuring the audit of sales tax, it was discovered that the sales of the company were allegedly diverted to the undisclosed joint accounts of the company's directors.\n•\nBased on this, the tax department amended the assessment, claiming that the sales receipts of the company had been diverted and deposited into these joint accounts. As a result, the department added this amount to the company's declared income.\nTaxpayer's Defense:\n•\nThe taxpayer contended that there was no direct connection between the company's sales receipts and the deposits in the directors' joint accounts.\n•\nThe taxpayer argued that the requisite legal ingredients, especially the presence of definite information, were absent in this case, making the amended assessment invalid.\nDepartment's Argument:\n•\nThe department contended that the joint accounts of the directors were essentially benami accounts for the company, in which the company's undisclosed or suppressed sales had been deposited.\n•\nThe department invoked Section 122(5), arguing that it was rightly used to amend the assessment and include the sales diverted to these joint accounts as part of the company's income.\nCourt’s Findings:\nLack of Nexus:\n•\nThe court found that the tax authorities failed to establish a clear connection between the amounts deposited in the directors' joint accounts and the sales receipts of the company.\n•\nThe department's argument that the joint accounts were benami (fake or hidden accounts for the company) was not supported by sufficient evidence or definite information.\nFailure to Involve Directors:\n•\nThe court noted that the directors were not involved in the amended proceedings, and no inquiry was made into the source of the deposits in their accounts.\n•\nThe correct procedure, according to the court, would have been to issue a notice under Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance to the directors. This would allow the department to inquire about the nature and source of the deposits in their joint accounts.\nInsufficient Information for Amendment:\n•\nThe department failed to provide definite information that could directly link the sales of the company to the money deposited in the directors' accounts.\n•\nAs the department could not establish a clear nexus between the sales and the bank deposits, the amended assessment was not based on valid grounds.\nLegal Precedents:\n•\nThe case referred to earlier rulings, including:\no\n1986 PTD 37 and (1989) 59 Tax 112 (H.C. Lah.): These cases supported the argument that for an amendment under Section 122(5), there must be definite information and a clear connection between the alleged concealed income and the amended amount.\no\n1997 PTD 1485 (S.C. Pak) and 2003 PTD 1885: These cases reiterated the importance of providing substantive evidence and a valid legal basis for making amendments in tax assessments.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe court ruled that the amended assessment was not valid. The additions made to the taxpayer’s declared income were based on speculation and insufficient evidence, and therefore, the amended assessment was cancelled.\n•\nThe court directed the deletion of the additions made to the taxpayer's income, highlighting the failure of the revenue department to provide definite information linking the bank deposits in the directors' accounts to the company's sales.\n________________________________________\nKey Takeaways:\n•\nDefinite Information: The court emphasized that tax amendments under Section 122(5) must be based on definite, concrete information. Without this, assessments cannot be amended lawfully.\n•\nNexus between Income and Bank Accounts: The department failed to prove a clear connection between the company's income and the deposits in the directors' accounts.\n•\nProcedure under Section 111: The correct legal approach would have been to question the directors about the source of the funds in their accounts through a Section 111 notice, which was not done in this case.\n•\nLegal Precedents: The judgment relied on past cases that emphasized the need for clear evidence before altering tax assessments and imposing penalties for concealment of income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,120(1),122(1),122(5),122(9),184(2)(a) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1018/LB and 1020/LB of 2010, decision dated: 30-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmed, I.T.P. for Appellant. Muhammad Tahir, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "38", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAwPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 28 = 2011 SLD 28 = (2010) 102 TAX 586 = 2011 PTD 733", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAwPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 161, 265, and 21(l)\nThis case concerns the failure to pay tax collected or deducted and the admissibility of freight payments under specific provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The case involves the taxpayer’s liability for taxes under Sections 161 and 205, and the non-admissibility of certain expenses under Section 21(l).\nLegal Provisions Involved:\n1.\nSection 161: Deals with the deduction and collection of tax at the time of payment. It imposes a liability if tax is not deducted or collected.\n2.\nSection 205: Pertains to failure to deduct or collect tax and the consequences of such failure.\n3.\nSection 21(l): Relates to the non-admissibility of expenditures where tax has not been deducted or collected. The proviso to this section provides exemptions for certain payments.\n4.\nC.B.R. Circular No. 27 of 1991: Provides guidelines and clarifications about tax deductions related to freight charges.\nCase Details and Findings:\nIssue 1: Tax Deduction on Truck Freight:\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer was confronted for failing to deduct tax on truck freight payments. The taxpayer contended that there was no requirement for tax deduction on these payments, as the freight payments were specifically excluded from the tax deduction under Section 21(l) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nTaxpayer’s Defense:\no\nThe taxpayer argued that since freight charges were excluded from tax deductions under the proviso to Section 21(l), the invocation of Sections 161/205 was unjustified.\no\nThe taxpayer also argued that documentary evidence did not establish that the vehicles used for freight were owned by individuals or had been used for a single journey throughout the year, as required for tax exemption under certain provisions.\n•\nCourt's Ruling:\no\nThe court held that Section 21(l) specifically disallows the deduction of expenditure on freight charges exceeding Rs. 50,000 if payment is not made through a banking channel. However, Section 161 of the Ordinance requires tax to be deducted at the time of payment. The court ruled that Section 161 and 205 operate independently of Section 21(l), and thus the taxpayer's liability to deduct and pay the tax was upheld.\no\nTherefore, the liability under Sections 161 and 205 was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, despite the taxpayer’s argument about the non-admissibility of freight payments.\nIssue 2: Purchases Below Taxable Limits:\n•\nBackground: The taxpayer argued that certain store purchases and repair maintenance payments, which were below taxable limits (Rs. 10,000 for services and Rs. 25,000 for supplies), should not be subject to tax deductions under Section 161.\n•\nTaxpayer’s Defense:\no\nThe taxpayer contended that these payments were below the taxable threshold and therefore should not have been subject to action under Section 161.\no\nHowever, the tax officer had already excluded payments under the taxable limits from action under Section 161.\n•\nCourt's Ruling:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the tax officer had only taken action against payments made to associated parties who did not have exemption certificates. The payments to associated parties were scrutinized, and the action under Section 161 was maintained.\no\nThe tribunal also upheld the action under Section 205, as the action taken under Section 161 was valid and justified.\nKey Legal Points:\n1.\nSection 21(l) of the Income Tax Ordinance: Expenditures on freight charges exceeding Rs. 50,000 are not admissible if payment is not made through a banking channel. However, this provision does not directly affect the obligation to deduct tax under Sections 161 and 205.\n2.\nSections 161 and 205: Tax must be deducted at the time of payment. If the taxpayer fails to do so, the tax authorities may invoke these provisions for non-deduction or non-payment.\n3.\nThresholds for Tax Deduction: Payments for store purchases and repairs below taxable limits (Rs. 10,000 for services and Rs. 25,000 for supplies) were not subjected to action under Section 161, but payments to associated parties without exemption certificates were still scrutinized and found valid under the law.\nLegal Precedents:\n•\n2002 PTD 1: Relevant in establishing that payments to associated parties without exemption certificates can lead to tax actions under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\n2008 PTD 1227: Not found to be relevant in this case.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold the liability under Sections 161 and 205 was based on the taxpayer's failure to deduct tax on truck freight payments, despite the taxpayer's contention regarding the exclusion under Section 21(l).\n•\nThe taxpayer’s argument regarding purchases below the taxable limits was found to be irrelevant, as the tax officer had already excluded such payments from scrutiny.\n•\nThe overall ruling confirms the liability to deduct tax under the relevant sections and the validity of the tax authorities’ actions in assessing the taxpayer's obligations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,21(l),160,161,205,265 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4A),52,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 470/LB and 471/LB of 2009, decision dated: 30-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Iqbal Kh. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "39", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB3PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 29 = 2011 SLD 29 = (2011) 104 TAX 13 = 2011 PTD 744", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB3PQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 170(4), 127, and 170(5)\nBackground:\nThe taxpayer filed a refund application, but the Commissioner did not pass an order within the 45-day period specified under Section 170(4). The taxpayer argued that this delay meant the refund was refused and was time-barred. The First Appellate Authority accepted this argument, but the Department appealed, claiming that failure to act was appealable under Section 170(5).\n________________________________________\nCourt's Ruling:\n•\nTribunal’s Decision: The Tribunal ruled that the inaction by the Commissioner is equivalent to refusal of the refund and can be challenged by the taxpayer through an appeal under Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nAppeal Process: The Tribunal emphasized that inaction under Section 170(4) must be treated as refusal, and Section 127 provides a mechanism for appealing such refusal.\n•\nRemand for Merit Consideration: The case was sent back to the First Appellate Authority to decide the appeal based on merits, not just on limitation.\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Points:\n1.\nSection 170(4): The failure to pass an order on a refund application within 45 days is treated as refusal.\n2.\nSection 127: If the Commissioner fails to act, the taxpayer has the right to file an appeal.\n3.\nSection 170(5): Inaction is treated as refusal, and the appeal can be pursued under Section 127.\n________________________________________\nLegal Precedents:\n•\nFlopetrol International Case (1994 PTD 1370): Established the principle that inaction amounts to refusal and can be challenged.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the Commissioner’s inaction on the refund should be treated as refusal, allowing the taxpayer to appeal under Section 127. The case was sent back to the First Appellate Authority for a decision based on the merits of the refund claim.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,170(4),170(5),170(5)(2),120,127,169,169(3),115,170, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1139/LB of 2008, decision dated: 8-08-2009.", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Tahir, D.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T. LEGAL DIVISION, RTO, LAHORE\nVS.\nMUHAMMAD MUNIR CHAUDHRY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "40", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVVPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 30 = 2011 SLD 30 = (2011) 103 TAX 316 = 2011 PTD 751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVVPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 2(48), 127, Sixth Schedule, Part-I & Income Tax Rules, 2002, Rule 94\nBackground:\nThe Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Appeals) vacated the decision of the Commissioner (Legal), which had approved the recognition of the provident fund under Part-I of the Sixth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The taxpayer's rectification application also failed. The Department argued that the First Appellate Authority did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the issue concerned was outside the scope of Section 127 of the Ordinance, which defines the appellate jurisdiction.\n________________________________________\nCourt's Ruling:\n•\nJurisdiction: The Tribunal determined that Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 does not provide the First Appellate Authority jurisdiction to hear appeals concerning recognition or non-recognition of provident funds, as these matters fall under Section 2(48) and Rule 94 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002, which designates the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) as the appellate authority.\n•\nIssue with Rule 94: The taxpayer argued that Rule 94 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 mentioned the Commissioner (Appeals) as an appellate authority, suggesting concurrent jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal found that the mention of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal form was likely a typographical error, as Rule 94 itself explicitly designated the FBR as the appellate authority.\n•\nAdministrative Matter: The recognition of provident funds was treated as an administrative matter and not one under the appellate jurisdiction of the First Appellate Authority. Consequently, the FBR was the proper forum to handle appeals related to provident fund recognition.\n•\nAdjudication Procedure: The First Appellate Authority also failed to follow proper procedural rules, such as issuing a show cause notice, which is a necessary step before beginning adjudication proceedings. This failure further undermined the authority’s jurisdiction in this case.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the First Appellate Authority did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal concerning the recognition of the provident fund. The order of the First Appellate Authority was set aside, and the taxpayer was directed to approach the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) for a remedy.\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Points:\n1.\nJurisdiction under Section 127 is specific, and the First Appellate Authority cannot hear appeals on matters related to provident funds, which are governed by Section 2(48) and Rule 94.\n2.\nThe Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) is the appropriate authority for provident fund recognition appeals.\n3.\nThe First Appellate Authority failed to follow proper procedural rules, including the issuance of a show cause notice.\n________________________________________\nLegal Precedents:\n•\nThe tribunal clarified that matters relating to provident fund recognition fall within the administrative domain, not the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Authority.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(48),144,184,188,182,189,170,127,161,187,183,185,R.94,122,2,143,186,172,162,121,221,Sixth Schedule,Part-I,Rr.14(1),2(1)(e) Income Tax Rules, 2002=94 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 759(IB) of 2010, decision dated: 4-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Mukhtar, D.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "CIR, (LEGAL), RTO, ISLAMABAD\nVS.\nMessrs COMPETITIVENESS SUPPORT FUND, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "41", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVRPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 350 = 1997 SLD 350 = 1997 MLD 1792", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVRPQ", + "Key Words:": "The Constitution of Pakistan provides protection for property rights under Fundamental Rights; however, disputes often arise regarding the acquisition of land and compensation. In this case, the petitioners (landowners) challenged the disposal of land by the Government under the Land Acquisition process. They contended that the compensation offered was inadequate and that the land acquisition violated their property rights as protected under the Constitution.\n________________________________________\nKey Issues:\n•\nDispute over Land Ownership: The petitioners sought a remedy for the acquisition of land by the government, questioning the amount of compensation and the procedure used to dispossess them of their property.\n•\nProtection of Property: The petitioners argued that the disposal of land was in contravention of their fundamental rights, specifically the right to own property and be protected from unlawful dispossession.\n•\nJudicial Review: The High Court was approached through a constitutional petition where the petitioners claimed that the Government had violated their rights by not following due process as outlined in the Constitution of Pakistan and statutory laws.\n________________________________________\nCourt's Ruling:\n•\nThe Court emphasized the protection of property rights under the Constitution, ensuring that land acquisition must be done for public purpose and with fair compensation.\n•\nThe Government or Executive actions regarding land acquisition were reviewed for violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners. The Board of Revenue was involved in the matter but was required to provide adequate evidence regarding compensation and the public purpose behind the land acquisition.\n•\nThe Court emphasized judicial restraint in reviewing executive decisions, but also held that there must be proper remedy for individuals whose property rights are violated, especially in cases where the disposal of land is concerned.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe Court disposed of the constitutional petition by upholding the order in favor of the petitioners after evaluating whether the Government's actions complied with the Constitution. The judgment clarified that compensation for land acquisition must adhere to the constitutional provisions, and if compensation is found insufficient or unlawful, the petitioners have a remedy to seek justice.\n________________________________________\nLegal Precedents and Jurisprudence:\n•\nThe Court referred to the Constitution of Pakistan, especially the provisions safeguarding property rights and compensation.\n•\nThe jurisdiction of the High Court was acknowledged in disposal of disputes over land acquisition where the public purpose and payment of compensation are in question.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(1)c ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3384/M of 1996, 25-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AQIL MIRZA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mst. Mukhtiar Fatima", + "Party Name:": "Mst. Mukhtiar Fatima\nVS\nDeputy Commissioner, Multan and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "42", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVjPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 31 = 2011 SLD 31 = (2011) 104 TAX 92 = 2011 PTD 756", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVjPQ", + "Key Words:": "In this case, the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) was involved, particularly Sections 62, 32(3), and provisions related to deferred advance fee, expenses, and the burden of proof in tax assessments.\n________________________________________\nLegal Issues and Relevant Provisions:\n1.\nDeferred Advance Fee:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Section 32(3): The Deputy Commissioner has the authority to allow adjustments in the method of accounting when the assessee is not consistently following a method that correctly reflects their income. In this case, the assessee sought to defer income (advance fees) to the subsequent accounting period.\no\nMercantile System of Accounting: Under the mercantile system, income is generally taxed in the year it is received, but Section 32(3) allows for adjustments in such cases when the income deferral is justified.\no\nAppellate Tribunal upheld the decision that the advance fees should be recognized proportionally in the following period, given that the assessee’s reasoning was consistent with recognized accounting principles.\n2.\nBurden of Proof and Books of Accounts:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Section 62: This section requires the assessee to produce sufficient evidence to support their tax claims. The burden of proof falls on the assessee to prove that the expenses claimed are legitimate.\no\nQanun-e-Shahadat (Evidence) Order, 1984 – Article 1(2): Under this provision, the assessee is required to support their claims with credible evidence.\no\nThe assessee provided 120 files of books of accounts but failed to properly link the evidence to specific claims, failing to discharge the burden of proof adequately.\n3.\nExemption for Educational Institutions:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Second Schedule, Clause (86): This section provides exemptions for educational institutions. However, the assessee failed to demonstrate that they met the criteria for exemption.\no\nCompanies Ordinance, 1984 – Section 42: Under this section, a company must be registered under Section 42 to receive the exemption for educational institutions. The assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to show that their company was set up exclusively for educational purposes or did not distribute profits.\n4.\nPrinciples of Natural Justice:\no\nGeneral Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 24-A: This section mandates that all authorities must act reasonably, fairly, and justly when exercising their powers. It requires giving a reasoned order, which was not adhered to by the Assessing Officer.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice by failing to issue a show-cause notice and not providing sufficient reasons for the rejection of the books of accounts.\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Provisions and Their Application:\n1.\nSection 32(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979:\no\nThis provision allows the Deputy Commissioner to intervene when the assessee is not regularly following an appropriate method of accounting, and the income cannot be correctly computed.\n2.\nSection 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979:\no\nThis section requires the assessee to produce sufficient evidence to support the claims made in the return. It also stipulates that the Assessing Officer can reject the books of account only after identifying specific defects and providing an opportunity for the assessee to explain.\n3.\nQanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 1(2):\no\nThe burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that income is exempt from taxation or that the expenses claimed are legitimate. The assessee must provide documentary evidence to support their claims.\n4.\nSection 42 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984:\no\nThis section outlines the requirements for a company to be recognized as a non-profit educational institution eligible for tax exemption. The assessee did not comply with the criteria necessary for this exemption.\n5.\nGeneral Clauses Act (X of 1897), Section 24-A:\no\nThis section ensures that all authorities, including the Assessing Officer, must act fairly and reasonably, following the principles of natural justice.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision on deferred advance fees, stating that the assessee had provided a valid explanation for deferring income to the following accounting period.\n•\nThe assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the profit and loss expenses due to the lack of proper evidence to link their books of accounts to the claims.\n•\nThe exemption for educational institutions was denied because the assessee did not meet the requirements under Section 42 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nThe principles of natural justice were violated by the Assessing Officer, who did not provide a show-cause notice or a reasoned order.\n•\nThe case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further proceedings, ensuring that the assessee provides specific documentation for their claims.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,62,32(3),24,Second Schedule Companies Ordinance, 1984=42 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=117 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 373/LB, 374/LB, 446/LB and 447/LB of 2005, decision dated: 30-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tahir, D.R. for Appellant\nCh. Anwar ul Haq for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE LTD., LAHORE and others\nVS.\nCIT, CIRCLE 13 CO, ZONE II, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "43", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVZPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 32 = 2011 SLD 32 = (2011) 103 TAX 359 = 2011 PTD 767", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVZPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Section 221 - Rectification of Mistake\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Issue:\nThe central issue in this case revolves around the rectification of a mistake under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The assessee filed a miscellaneous application challenging the Appellate Tribunal's decision, which noted that the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax had informed the assessee that its case did not qualify for self-assessment because the declared tax liability was not higher by 10% compared to the tax assessed for the previous year.\nThe assessee contended that the Regional Commissioner had not communicated this exclusion from the Self-Assessment Scheme in a timely manner. Furthermore, the assessee argued that there was no objection regarding the tax liability being not higher by 10% when the intention to select the case for audit was communicated, and the deemed order should have been upheld as valid.\n________________________________________\nRelevant Law and Sections:\n1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Section 221 (Rectification of Mistakes):\no\nSection 221 allows the Appellate Tribunal to rectify any mistakes in its orders. However, this rectification must be based on a clear error, and not on revisiting the merits or decisions made by the Tribunal.\no\nThe assessee was seeking to rectify the decision of the Tribunal based on the timing and manner of communication regarding the exclusion from the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n2.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 - Section 62 (Self-Assessment Scheme):\no\nThis section governs the Self-Assessment Scheme, under which taxpayers are allowed to assess their own income and taxes, provided they meet specific criteria such as paying a tax liability higher by 10% compared to the previous year.\no\nThe assessee did not meet the criteria, as they had not paid the required higher tax, thus not qualifying for the scheme.\n________________________________________\nTribunal's Findings and Assessee’s Argument:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal had originally observed that the Regional Commissioner informed the assessee that its case had not been selected for audit, and the assessee did not qualify for the Self-Assessment Scheme because the tax liability was not higher by 10% than the previous year's assessment.\n•\nThe assessee argued that the Regional Commissioner did not communicate in a timely manner that the case was excluded from the Self-Assessment Scheme. Additionally, the assessee asserted that there was no mention of the tax liability being insufficient during the communication of the intention to select the case for audit.\n•\nThe assessee also claimed that the deemed order under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was still valid, and the Appellate Tribunal’s observation that the exclusion was timely communicated was erroneous.\n________________________________________\nDecision and Conclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous application for rectification. The Tribunal held that the exclusion of the assessee from the Self-Assessment Scheme was based on a different premise and was not related to any technical deficiencies or discrepancies in documents.\n•\nThe Tribunal emphasized that the basic theme of the Self-Assessment Scheme required the assessee to pay a tax liability that was higher by 10% than the previous year’s tax. Since the assessee failed to meet this requirement, the assessee’s case was never part of the Self-Assessment Scheme from the start.\n•\nEven if the statement regarding the timely communication of exclusion from the Self-Assessment Scheme was deleted, it did not affect the outcome. The fact remained that the assessee had not paid the necessary higher tax and thus did not qualify for the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n________________________________________\nKey Takeaways:\n1.\nRectification of Mistake: Under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the Appellate Tribunal can rectify its orders only when there is a clear and identifiable mistake. Mere disagreement with the Tribunal's reasoning is not sufficient for rectification.\n2.\nSelf-Assessment Scheme Requirements: Under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to qualify for the Self-Assessment Scheme, a taxpayer must pay a tax liability that is at least 10% higher than the previous year’s tax. The assessee failed to meet this threshold, which led to exclusion from the scheme.\n3.\nTimeliness of Communication: The assessee's argument regarding the timing of the Regional Commissioner’s communication about exclusion from the scheme was not upheld, as it did not impact the fundamental eligibility criteria for the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n________________________________________\nThus, the Appellate Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the assessee's miscellaneous application for rectification was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=55A,221,24(c),50,85,24,59,59(4),50(7b),24(ff),55,24(fff),62, ", + "Case #": "MA(R) No. 145/IB of 2010, decision dated: 24-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waseem Ahmed Siddique, C.A. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MAZHAR EYE CLINIC, RAWALPINDI\nVs.\nCIR, LTU, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "44", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVFPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 33 = 2011 SLD 33 = (2011) 104 TAX 54 = 2011 PTD 784", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVFPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Section 170 - Refund Jurisdiction and Validity\nKey Legal Issues:\nThe core issue in this case revolves around Section 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which deals with the refund of taxes. Specifically, the Taxation Officer conducted an inquiry into the commercial status of the assessee (taxpayer), determining the taxpayer’s status as a supplier rather than a manufacturer, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The assessee disputed this decision, arguing that the Taxation Officer lacked jurisdiction to make such a determination, as the issue had already been assessed under the law.\nRelevant Law and Sections:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Section 170 (Refund):\nSection 170 governs the refund procedure and sets out the framework for granting refunds to taxpayers. This section also provides limitations and the jurisdiction of the Taxation Officer in processing refund claims.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Section 120 (Assessment Order):\nSection 120 outlines that an assessment of income tax made by the Taxation Officer is deemed to have been made by operation of law. Once the assessment has been completed and is final under Section 120 or Section 115 (under specific circumstances), it cannot be arbitrarily altered or disturbed by the Taxation Officer.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Section 169(3) (Assessment and Finality):\nThis section further reinforces that an assessment order becomes final, and its status cannot be questioned or amended unless there is a mistake of law or clerical error.\nFacts of the Case:\nThe Taxation Officer rejected the assessee's claim for a tax refund by questioning the assessee’s commercial status. The officer determined the taxpayer to be a supplier rather than a manufacturer, which affected the eligibility for the refund.\nThe assessee contended that the issue of commercial status had already been resolved through an assessment order under Section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the Taxation Officer had no jurisdiction to alter this status for the purpose of processing the refund.\nThe Department argued that it was mandatory for the Taxation Officer to verify the taxpayer's claimed status as a manufacturer, which the officer did not do.\nTribunal’s Findings and Ruling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Taxation Officer or Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to probe or alter an issue that had already attained the status of an assessment order under Section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. This is because, once an assessment is made and becomes final, it cannot be disturbed or amended without proper legal grounds.\nThe Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner could not reject or withhold the refund claim on the basis of a belief that the assessment order was defective. Such a decision was outside the jurisdiction of the Taxation Officer or Commissioner once the assessment had been finalized by law.\nThe Taxation Officer’s determination that the assessee was a supplier and not a manufacturer was made without proper legal authority and was therefore deemed void. The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision and dismissed the Department's appeal.\nKey Legal Principles:\nRefund and Jurisdiction: Under Section 170, a refund claim cannot be rejected based on a re-evaluation of an issue that has already been addressed through an assessment order. Once an assessment is final, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Taxation Officer or Commissioner to alter it for refund purposes unless there are specific legal grounds to do so.\nFinality of Assessment Orders: Section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 establishes that an assessment order made under the law is final and binding, and any dispute or change to this assessment can only be made if there is an error of law or clerical mistake.\nVoid Orders: The Taxation Officer’s order rejecting the refund based on the commercial status of the assessee was void because it was issued without proper authority. Such orders are invalid and cannot affect the legal status of the taxpayer.\nLimitation and Refund: Limitation periods do not apply to void orders, meaning that the limitation period for claiming a refund does not run against an order that has no legal effect or authority.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority and dismissed the Department's appeal. The Taxation Officer had no jurisdiction to alter the assessee’s commercial status after the assessment order had been finalized. The refund claim was improperly rejected, and the order was void.\nThis case reaffirms that final assessments cannot be revisited by the Taxation Officer for purposes of refund processing unless clear legal grounds exist, and that such actions are beyond jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,171,169(3),169,120,115,170(4),R-71, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 45/LB of 2009, decision dated: 11-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Shahab, D.R. for Appellant. None for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "45", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVBPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 34 = 2011 SLD 34 = (2011) 104 TAX 73 = 2011 PTD 834", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVBPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Sections 127 & 205 - Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals)\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Issues:\nThe issue in this case centers around the appealability of an order passed under Section 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 before the First Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the same Ordinance. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the grounds that Section 205 was not specifically mentioned in Section 127(1) at the relevant time, making the appeal incompetent. The issue was whether an order that reduced a refund or increased liability, including one passed under Section 205, was appealable under Section 127, even before the insertion of Section 205 into Section 127 by the Finance Act, 2009.\n________________________________________\nRelevant Law and Sections:\n1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Section 127 (Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals)):\no\nSection 127(1) outlines the provisions under which an appeal can be filed before the First Appellate Authority (Commissioner). It specifies that orders that either enhance the assessment, reduce a refund, or increase the taxpayer’s liability in any form (such as tax, penalty, or additional tax) are appealable.\n2.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Section 205 (Assessment Orders):\no\nSection 205 of the Ordinance addresses the power of the Commissioner to make orders that could affect the taxpayer’s liability, including orders that might reduce refunds or otherwise change the tax obligations of the taxpayer.\n3.\nFinance Act, 2009 - Insertion of Section 205:\no\nSection 205 was inserted into Section 127 through the Finance Act, 2009 to clarify that orders passed under Section 205 were also appealable. The insertion was clarificatory in nature and did not alter the original intent of the provision.\n________________________________________\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority dismissed an appeal filed by the taxpayer, asserting that the appeal was not competent because Section 205 was not mentioned within the specific subsections of Section 127 at the time.\n•\nThe taxpayer argued that Section 127 did not require the specific mention of Section 205 for an appeal to be filed. According to the taxpayer, Section 127 allowed appeals against orders that either enhanced an assessment, reduced a refund, or increased the taxpayer's liability in any form, which included orders under Section 205 that affected refunds or tax liabilities.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority had applied a narrow interpretation, which the taxpayer contended was incorrect. The taxpayer argued that the provision under Section 127(1) should be interpreted more broadly to allow appeals in cases where the order had the effect of increasing liability, including those under Section 205.\n________________________________________\nTribunal’s Findings and Ruling:\n1.\nInterpretation of Section 127:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that the appeal under Section 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not restricted to the specific sections mentioned within Section 127. The Tribunal found that Section 127 allowed appeals against orders that either enhanced an assessment, reduced a refund, or otherwise increased the liability of the taxpayer in any form, including tax, penalty, or additional tax.\n2.\nBroader Interpretation of Increasing Liability :\no\nThe Tribunal held that the phrase “otherwise increasing the liability of the person” in Section 127 had a wider connotation. This phrase includes any increase in liability, whether in the form of tax, penalty, or additional tax. Therefore, orders affecting refunds or increasing the taxpayer's liability (including those under Section 205) were appealable under Section 127, even before the Finance Act, 2009 inserted Section 205 into Section 127.\n3.\nClarificatory Nature of the Insertion:\no\nThe Tribunal observed that the insertion of Section 205 into Section 127(1) through the Finance Act, 2009 was clarificatory in nature. The insertion did not change the legal position but was meant to clarify that orders under Section 205 were indeed appealable, a principle that was already implicit in the original wording of Section 127.\n4.\nDismissal of the Appeal:\no\nThe Tribunal concluded that the narrow interpretation of the First Appellate Authority was incorrect and contrary to the express provisions of Section 127(1). The order of the First Appellate Authority was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be treated as pending. The First Appellate Authority was ordered to decide the matter on its merits.\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Principles:\n1.\nAppealability under Section 127:\no\nSection 127(1) allows for an appeal against orders that either enhance an assessment, reduce a refund, or otherwise increase the liability of a taxpayer. The phrase otherwise increasing the liability of the person has a wide scope and includes increases in liability in any form, including tax, penalty, or additional tax.\n2.\nClarification through Legislation:\no\nThe insertion of Section 205 into Section 127 by the Finance Act, 2009 was clarificatory in nature, affirming that orders under Section 205 were already appealable before the amendment.\n3.\nStatutory Interpretation:\no\nInterpretation of tax laws should not be done in isolation. A harmonious construction of the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 suggests that the legislature intended wider appealability under Section 127 for orders that increase a taxpayer's liability, even if those orders are made under specific sections like Section 205.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the appeal filed by the taxpayer against the order under Section 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was competent. The dismissal of the appeal by the First Appellate Authority was found to be based on a narrow and incorrect interpretation of Section 127(1). The Tribunal vacated the order and directed the First Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits, ensuring that orders under Section 205, even before the Finance Act, 2009, were indeed appealable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=162,120,143,121,102,108,105,182,172,188,221,115,103,127,189,187,116,113,101,184,170,205,126,114,122,124,185,123,106,118,112,186,117,119,127(1),144,107,110,104,111,109,125,183, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 610/LB to 612/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHEMTEX (PVT.), FAISALABAD\nVs.\nC.I.T.(LEGAL), RTO, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "46", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVNPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 35 = 2011 SLD 35 = (2011) 104 TAX 60 = 2011 PTD 840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVNPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Sections 221, 182(3), and 165 - Rectification of Mistake\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Issues:\nThe case revolves around the rectification of an ex parte order that imposed a penalty on a taxpayer for failing to file withholding statements. The taxpayer filed an application for rectification, providing acknowledgment receipts of the statements filed on June 30, 2006, which were not considered part of the record during the penalty proceedings. The issue was whether the Taxation Officer was justified in rejecting the rectification application, despite the taxpayer’s claim that the statements were duly filed and acknowledged by the department.\n________________________________________\nRelevant Law and Sections:\n1.\nSection 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\no\nSection 221 allows for the rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in any order passed under the Ordinance. The taxpayer may apply for rectification if there is an apparent mistake in the order.\n2.\nSection 182(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\no\nThis section deals with penalties imposed for default in filing withholding statements. Penalties can be levied when taxpayers fail to comply with the filing requirements within the prescribed time.\n3.\nSection 165 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\no\nThis section concerns the production of documents and statements by the taxpayer for the purpose of assessment or penalty proceedings.\n________________________________________\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nPenalty Imposition: The Taxation Officer imposed a penalty on the taxpayer for defaulting on the filing of withholding statements as required under Section 182(3).\n•\nApplication for Rectification: The taxpayer filed an application under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requesting rectification of the ex parte penalty order. The taxpayer provided acknowledgment receipts as proof that the statements had been filed on June 30, 2006.\n•\nRejection of Rectification: The Taxation Officer rejected the application for rectification, stating that the statements produced were not part of the record when the penalty order was passed on October 23, 2008, and that they were not presented during the penalty proceedings despite proper notice being given.\nThe department argued that since the statements were not filed during the penalty proceedings, they could not be included in the record for the purpose of rectification. On the other hand, the taxpayer contended that the statements were duly filed in June 2006, and the acknowledgment receipts were produced to demonstrate this.\n________________________________________\nFirst Appellate Authority’s Findings:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority found that the rejection of the rectification application under Section 221 was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The authority acknowledged that the taxpayer had filed the statements and that they were duly acknowledged by the department.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority concluded that the taxpayer could not be penalized for any failure on the part of the department to include the filed documents in the record at the time of the penalty proceedings.\n________________________________________\nAppellate Tribunal’s Findings:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal concurred with the findings of the First Appellate Authority, holding that the rejection of the rectification application was not in accordance with the law. The Taxation Officer was duty-bound to consult the relevant records to determine whether the statements were filed on the date mentioned in the acknowledgment receipts.\n•\nThe Tribunal emphasized that if the filing of statements was found to be genuine, any absence of these statements from the record during the penalty proceedings was beyond the control of the taxpayer. The taxpayer should not be penalized for an internal departmental lacuna that led to the documents not being part of the case record.\n•\nThe Taxation Officer was instructed to verify the authenticity of the acknowledgment receipts and to issue a rectification order based on the evidence produced.\n________________________________________\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nRectification of Mistake:\no\nThe concept of rectification of mistakes under Section 221 should not be narrowly interpreted. A mistake that is apparent from the record can be rectified, even if the documents or information were not originally part of the case record at the time the order was passed.\n2.\nDuty of the Taxation Officer:\no\nThe Taxation Officer has a duty to verify the acknowledgment receipts or any other relevant documents provided by the taxpayer. The officer cannot simply reject the taxpayer’s rectification application without examining the evidence presented.\n3.\nControl Over Departmental Lacuna:\no\nThe taxpayer should not be penalized for any errors or omissions in the department’s record-keeping or processing of documents. If the taxpayer has duly filed the required documents, it is the department’s responsibility to include them in the record.\n4.\nMistake Apparent from Record:\no\nThe phrase mistake apparent from the record should be interpreted broadly, encompassing situations where there is clear evidence (such as acknowledgment receipts) that documents were filed on time but were missing from the record due to no fault of the taxpayer.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority, ruling that the rectification application should not have been rejected. The Taxation Officer was directed to consider the evidence produced by the taxpayer, including the acknowledgment receipts, and to pass a speaking order after verifying the genuineness of the filed statements.\n•\nThe application for rectification was deemed to be pending until the Taxation Officer carried out this verification and took appropriate action based on the evidence provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182,221,165,182(3), ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1484/LB of 2009, decision dated: 12-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Asif Hashmi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, LTU, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "47", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVJPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 36 = 2011 SLD 36 = 2011 PTD 1685", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVJPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) & Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) - Refund Claim and Maladministration\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Issues:\nThe case revolves around two non-resident contractors who were aggrieved by the non-issuance of their income tax refunds. Despite appellate decisions from higher judicial fora affirming their entitlement to refunds, the tax department failed to issue the refunds. The complainants alleged that this constituted gross maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n________________________________________\nRelevant Law and Sections:\n1.\nSection 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001):\no\nRefund Claims: This section deals with the procedure for claiming refunds under the income tax law. It outlines the conditions and steps for taxpayers to claim and receive refunds of overpaid taxes.\n2.\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000:\no\nSection 2(3): Defines maladministration as arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive, or biased actions by government authorities.\no\nSection 9: Outlines the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Tax Ombudsman in addressing complaints of maladministration related to tax matters.\no\nSection 10: Provides for the investigation and inquiry process in cases of alleged maladministration by tax authorities.\no\nSection 11: Allows for the recommendation of corrective action by the Federal Tax Ombudsman, including compensation for damages caused by maladministration.\n________________________________________\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nRefund Claim: The two complainants, non-resident contractors, had filed for income tax refunds. Despite favorable appellate decisions from higher judicial authorities confirming their right to the refunds, the tax department failed to issue them.\n•\nAllegations of Maladministration: The complainants claimed that the tax officials' failure to issue the refunds amounted to gross maladministration. They accused the department of engaging in arbitrary and unjust practices, which had caused undue hardship and delays.\n•\nDepartment’s Conduct: The complainants noted that the tax officials had engaged in prolonged and purposeless litigation, creating illegal demands and imposing penalties that were repeatedly declared unlawful by appellate authorities. This created a burden on the complainants and added unnecessary delays to the refund process.\n________________________________________\nFindings of the Ombudsman:\n1.\nArbitrary and Oppressive Conduct:\no\nThe Ombudsman found that the tax officials had acted in an oppressive, unreasonable, and unlawful manner. The prolonged litigation, coupled with the creation of illegal demands and penalties, was deemed unjust and contrary to the rulings of appellate authorities.\no\nThe Ombudsman also noted that the conduct of the tax officials not only wasted time and energy but also undermined the confidence of foreign investors in Pakistan’s tax system.\n2.\nViolation of Legal and Procedural Rights:\no\nThe Ombudsman highlighted that the tax officials’ actions violated the complainants’ legal rights, as they were entitled to refunds based on judicial decisions. The failure to issue refunds or process claims promptly led to a right to compensation for the undue delay.\n3.\nRecommendations for Corrective Action:\no\nThe Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) direct the Chief Commissioner to issue the refunds and compensation to the complainants as per the law.\no\nThe Ombudsman further directed that the refund be processed and issued within 30 days and that compliance be reported back within 45 days.\n________________________________________\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nMaladministration:\no\nMaladministration includes any arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive, biased, or unlawful conduct by tax officials that negatively affects taxpayers. In this case, the failure to issue refunds despite judicial rulings amounted to maladministration, as it resulted in unjust hardship for the taxpayers.\n2.\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Powers:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman has the authority to investigate complaints of maladministration and make recommendations for corrective action. These powers include directing the tax authorities to issue refunds and awarding compensation where delays or unjust actions have occurred.\n3.\nCompensation for Delay:\no\nTaxpayers are entitled to compensation for delays caused by unjust and arbitrary actions of tax authorities, particularly when judicial decisions have already ruled in their favor, but the refunds are not processed in a timely manner.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman concluded that the conduct of the tax officials was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful, and recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue direct the Chief Commissioner to issue the refunds and compensation due to the complainants, as per the law. The FBR was instructed to comply with this order within 30 days and report back within 45 days.\n•\nThe case highlights the importance of timely compliance with judicial decisions and the need for transparency and fairness in the administrative process, particularly regarding taxpayer rights to refunds and compensation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,164(2),59A,80,143,59,143B,80C,164,Clause9A ofPart-IV ofSecondSched. Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,9(2)(a),10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 39/Ist/IT(35)/42/2010, decision dated: 31st May, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "M/S GHAZI BAROTHA CONTRACTORS\nVs.\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "48", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUwPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 37 = 2011 SLD 37 = 2011 PTD 1692", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUwPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Recovery of Income Tax Despite Exemption from Withholding Tax\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Issues:\nThis case involves a dispute regarding the recovery of income tax despite a prior exemption granted through S.R.O. 567(I)/2008. The complainants, involved in the import of cotton, were exempted from withholding income tax at 1% under the S.R.O. dated 11th June 2008. However, following the Finance Act, 2008, the exemption was repealed, and the import of cotton became subject to withholding tax.\nDespite this, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had failed to withdraw the S.R.O. from its website for nearly a year, leading to confusion among the importers regarding their tax obligations. The tax authorities had issued a recovery notice for non-payment of income tax on the import of cotton, despite the fact that the complainants relied on the Commissioner Income Tax's clarification that the exemption was still valid.\nThe complainants contended that no deliberate misdeclaration or wilful non-payment had occurred due to the confusion caused by the Commissioner's clarification.\n________________________________________\nRelevant Law and Sections:\n1.\nSection 159, 160, & 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001):\no\nThese sections relate to withholding tax provisions, under which certain transactions are subject to tax at the source of payment (in this case, the import of cotton).\n2.\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000:\no\nSection 2(3): Defines maladministration as arbitrary, unreasonable, or biased conduct by the tax authorities.\no\nSection 9: Provides the powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman to address maladministration and take corrective actions.\no\nSection 10: Deals with the investigation of complaints regarding tax matters, especially those involving tax officials' conduct.\no\nSection 11: Empowers the Ombudsman to recommend corrective actions, including the issuance of refunds or compensation in cases of maladministration.\n3.\nS.R.O. 567(I)/2008 (Dated 11-6-2008):\no\nExemption from Withholding Tax: Provided an exemption from withholding tax on the import of cotton under HS Code 52.01.\n4.\nFinance Act, 2008:\no\nAmendment to Exemption: The exemption granted in S.R.O. 567(I)/2008 was removed by the Finance Act of 2008, thereby making the import of cotton subject to withholding tax.\n________________________________________\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nS.R.O. 567(I)/2008: This notification exempted the import of cotton from withholding tax at 1% under HS Code 52.01. The exemption remained valid until the Finance Act, 2008, which repealed the exemption, making the import of cotton liable to withholding tax.\n•\nCommissioner's Clarification: After the Finance Act, 2008, the Commissioner Income Tax issued a clarification to the Collector of Customs, stating that the exemption under S.R.O. 567(I)/2008 was still valid, even though it had been repealed. This caused confusion among importers, including the complainants, who did not make the necessary tax payment on the import of cotton, relying on the Commissioner’s clarification.\n•\nRecovery Notices: Despite the clarification and the S.R.O. remaining on the FBR's website, the tax authorities issued a recovery notice for the non-payment of income tax on cotton imports, leading to the complainants’ grievances.\n•\nTaxpayer's Defense: The complainants argued that no willful or deliberate misdeclaration could be attributed to them since they had acted in reliance on the incorrect clarification issued by the Commissioner Income Tax. They contended that the entire tax liability had already been discharged through the appropriate tax returns for the relevant year.\n________________________________________\nFindings of the Ombudsman:\n1.\nConfusion Caused by the Commissioner’s Clarification:\no\nThe Ombudsman determined that the clarification issued by the Commissioner Income Tax created significant confusion among taxpayers regarding their tax liability. The S.R.O. 567(I)/2008 remained on the FBR website for an extended period (almost one year) after the repeal of the exemption, further compounding the misunderstanding.\n2.\nNo Willful or Deliberate Misdeclaration:\no\nSince the complainants relied on the clarification issued by the tax authorities and the S.R.O. was still publicly available on the FBR website, the Ombudsman concluded that the complainants did not wilfully or deliberately misdeclare their tax liabilities.\n3.\nMaladministration by Tax Authorities:\no\nThe Ombudsman found that the failure of the tax authorities to withdraw the S.R.O. and issue timely corrections constituted maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance. The incorrect clarification led to the confusion, which ultimately resulted in the non-payment of the withholding tax at the import stage.\n4.\nRecommendations for Corrective Action:\no\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) review the legality of the order-in-original and order-in-appeal, considering the complainants’ claim that their entire tax liability for the relevant year had already been discharged. The Ombudsman also urged the FBR to fix responsibility for the non-withdrawal of the S.R.O. and the incorrect clarification and take appropriate action as per law.\n5.\nReport Compliance:\no\nThe Ombudsman directed the FBR to report compliance with the recommendations within 30 days.\n________________________________________\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nMaladministration:\no\nMaladministration includes the failure of tax authorities to act in a timely and proper manner, especially when their actions or inactions lead to confusion or undue hardship for taxpayers. In this case, the failure to withdraw the S.R.O. after its repeal and the subsequent incorrect clarification issued by the Commissioner Income Tax constituted maladministration.\n2.\nReliance on Tax Authority’s Clarification:\no\nTaxpayers may reasonably rely on clarifications and public statements issued by tax authorities, and no willful misdeclaration can be attributed to them if the authorities fail to correct erroneous information or update public records promptly.\n3.\nTaxpayer Protection:\no\nTaxpayers are entitled to protection from punitive action when their failure to comply with tax obligations is caused by misleading or confusing statements issued by tax authorities. In such cases, the responsibility for rectifying the situation lies with the tax authorities.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the tax authorities’ actions were arbitrary and caused unnecessary confusion for the complainants, leading to their failure to pay withholding tax on the import of cotton. The Ombudsman recommended corrective action to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), including reviewing the legal standing of the tax orders, fixing responsibility for the maladministration, and ensuring that compliance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations was reported within 30 days.\nThis case underscores the importance of clarity and transparency in tax administration, particularly when changes to tax law or exemptions occur, and the critical role of tax authorities in ensuring that correct information is provided to taxpayers.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=SecondSched,159,160,161 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 42/KHI/CUS(25)/256 of 2010, decision dated: 17-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Ahmad, Advisor / Dealing Officer", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIAZ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nVs.\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "49", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV3PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 38 = 2011 SLD 38 = 2011 PTD 1716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV3PQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Excess Perquisites in Salary (Section 24(i)):\n•\nIssue: The assessee included various allowances like orderly allowance, special allowance for officers, drinking water allowance, stipend, honorarium, cash reward for meritorious services, and good conduct pay in the salary. The Assessing Officer excluded these payments, considering them as excess perquisites (more than 50% of the salary).\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the exclusion, noting that the cash reward for meritorious services was not a bonus and was a separate perquisite, not part of the salary. The distinction between cash rewards and bonuses was emphasized, and the exclusion of these items by the Assessing Officer was legally correct.\n________________________________________\n(b) Non-deduction of Withholding Tax from Salaries (Section 24(c)):\n•\nIssue: The Assessing Officer made a 20% addition to the claim due to suspicion that withholding tax was not deducted from salaries. The assessee argued that no such issues were raised in subsequent years and that the suspicion was baseless.\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal found no justification for the 20% addition. The Assessing Officer failed to provide sufficient evidence of tax non-deduction, and the addition was made on an estimate basis, which could not be legally maintained.\n________________________________________\n(c) Interest Capitalization on Borrowings (Section 23(1)(vii)):\n•\nIssue: The assessee capitalized interest on borrowings used for machinery acquisition, while the Department argued that the interest should have been capitalized only once the assets were commissioned and used in business.\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the department, holding that the expenditure on uncommissioned assets was capital in nature and not deductible as revenue expenditure. The assessee's failure to substantiate the claim further confirmed the disallowance.\n________________________________________\n(d) Bad Debts (Section 23(1)(x)):\n•\nIssue: The admissibility of bad debt deductions was questioned, focusing on the concept of debt becoming bad and the criteria for such a claim.\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal clarified that a debt becomes bad when it becomes irrecoverable, and the time at which a debt becomes irrecoverable is a matter of fact. Age of the debt alone isn't decisive, and legal advice or the debtor's circumstances may lead to a debt being written off.\n________________________________________\n(e) Payments to Non-residents and Double Taxation Treaty (Section 24(b) & 50(3)):\n•\nIssue: The payments made to a UK-based organization, which was exempt from tax due to the Double Taxation Treaty between Pakistan and the UK, were disallowed by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to delete the disallowance, citing the treaty exemption and the organization’s status as a UN-affiliated entity.\n________________________________________\n(f) Royalty and Satellite Use (Sections 31(4) & 50):\n•\nIssue: The nature of payments for satellite facilities was in question, particularly whether these should be considered as royalty under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal concluded that payments for satellite use did not qualify as royalty because they were commercial profits and were not covered by the definitions in the 1979 ordinance. The absence of a Double Taxation Treaty further supported the non-deduction of tax.\n________________________________________\n(g) Scientific Equipment and Transponder Payments (Sections 24(b) & 50(3)):\n•\nIssue: Payments related to the use of a transponder, considered scientific equipment, were assessed for their treatment under the Double Taxation Treaty with the UK.\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the First Appellate Authority's decision that payments made for the use of transponders were subject to the Royalty provisions of the Double Taxation Treaty with the UK, as the transponder functioned as scientific equipment for communication purposes.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe judgments primarily focused on whether the disputed payments could be classified as part of the salary, perquisites, or royalties and whether the correct procedures for tax deduction were followed. In most cases, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, emphasizing the need for clarity in the nature of payments and proper documentation to justify tax claims.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,2(54) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,12,23,31,50,12(4),23(1)(vii),23(1)(x),24(b),24(c),24(i),31(4),50(3),Cl.140 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos.1023/IB to 1026/IB of 2006 and M.As.(AG) Nos.439/IB and 313/IB of 2006, decision dated: 30-05-2009, hearing DATE : 9-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Amin Shah for Appl. (I.T.As. Nos.1023/IB to 1025/LB of 2006, M.As. (A.G.) Nos. 439/IB and 313/IB of 2006), Shahid Iqbal, LA for Resp. (I.T.As. Nos.1023/IB to1025/LB of 2006, M.As. Nos. (AG) 439/IB and 313/IB of 2006), Shahid Iqbal, LA for Appl. (I.T.A. No. 1026/IB of 2006), Shaukat Amin Sha", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CO. LTD, ISLAMABAD\nVs.\nDCIT, CIR II, COMPANIES ZONE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "50", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVVPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 39 = 2011 SLD 39 = (2012) 105 TAX 34 = 2011 PTD 1771", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVVPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 177(4)(a)(b)(c)(d) - Audit - Word also - Connotation\n•\nIssue: The interpretation of the word also in Section 177(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and its connotation.\n•\nPrinciple: The rule of literal construction is that an interpretation which renders any part of the provision as surplusage is incorrect. A construction that leaves any part of the statute without effect is normally rejected. Subsections (2) and (4) of Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were found to be disjunctive rather than conjunctive, clearly empowering the Commissioner of Income Tax to issue a notice based on the criteria outlined in sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of subsection (4).\n•\nCase Reference: Writ Petition No. 11166 of 2009.\n________________________________________\n(b) Maxim - Audi Alteram Partem - Applicability\n•\nPrinciple: The principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) applies universally, requiring strict observance of natural justice norms, including the right for the person to be heard before an adverse decision is made.\n•\nCase References:\no\nPLD 2008 SC 663\no\n2007 SCMR 330\no\n2005 SCMR 678\no\n2005 SCMR 1814\no\nPLD 2004 SC 441.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 177(4)(a)(b)(c)(d) - Audit - Pre-selection Notice\n•\nIssue: Whether a pre-selection notice is required for audit under Section 177(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nPrinciple: The exclusion of a pre-selection notice is essential for the smooth operation of the process. The court's decision emphasized that the right of the assessee to contest the department's version is protected under subsections (6) of Section 177 and Section 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The pre-selection notice was deemed unnecessary.\n•\nCase References:\no\n2008 PTD 1440\no\nMuhammad Hussain v. C.I.T. 2005 PTD 152\no\n2009 PTD 284\no\n2009 SCMR 344\no\nLiberty Oil Mills v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1271.\n________________________________________\n(d) Precedent - Curative Philosophy\n•\nPrinciple: When precedents from the same forum with the same authority are in contrast with each other, the later decision should generally be followed, based on the concept of curative philosophy, which aims to correct past mistakes.\n•\nCase Reference:\no\nMohsin Raza v. Chairman, F.B.R. and others 2009 PTD 1507\no\nWrit Petition No. 11166 of 2009.\n________________________________________\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 177(4)(a)(b)(c)(d) - Non-quoting of Sub-clauses\n•\nIssue: The failure to quote sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Section 177(4) while selecting a person for audit.\n•\nPrinciple: The conditions and parameters set forth in sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Section 177(4) serve as the jurisdictional basis for selecting an individual for audit. The existence of this jurisdictional basis must be confirmed before the power can be exercised. This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, allowing the assessee the opportunity to challenge the department's decision and present evidence.\n•\nCase References:\no\n2009 PTD 284.\n________________________________________\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 177, 120, 120(1A) & 121 - Audit - Commissioner’s Powers\n•\nIssue: The procedure for selecting cases for audit under Section 177 and the powers of the Commissioner under Sections 120 and 121.\n•\nPrinciple: The powers to conduct an audit flow from Section 120(1A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which empowers the Commissioner to select cases for audit. Section 177 provides the detailed procedure for selection. The law clarified that no provision should be considered surplus, and the primary jurisdiction for selecting a case for audit lies in Section 120(1A). The amendments made in the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2005 were also relevant.\n•\nCase Reference: Writ Petition No. 11166 of 2009.\n________________________________________\n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 21 - Capital Expenditure on Development Cost\n•\nIssue: The disallowance of capital expenditure claimed as development costs by the assessee.\n•\nPrinciple: The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate that the payments were capitalized as advances and not claimed as expenses. The taxation officer rightly added these amounts to the taxable income since they were capital in nature.\n________________________________________\n(h) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 21(1) - C.B.R. and F.B.R. Circulars - Deductions Not Allowed\n•\nIssue: The applicability of F.B.R. Circulars regarding cash payments for development work in progress.\n•\nPrinciple: The F.B.R. Circulars of 1998 and 2006 clarified that for tax year 2005, payments for development work in progress did not need to be made through a banking channel. The provisions under Section 21(1) were applicable from tax year 2006 onward. Therefore, the additions made in the tax year 2005 were rightly deleted by the First Appellate Authority.\n•\nCase Reference: F.B.R. Circular No. 1 of 2006 dated 17-2-2006.\n________________________________________\n(i) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Second Schedule Clause (39) & Section 21 - Special Allowance to Employees\n•\nIssue: Non-deduction of tax on special allowances paid to employees, which were considered exempt under Clause (39) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nPrinciple: The exemption under Clause (39) applied to employees, not to the payments made by the taxpayer. Therefore, the addition made by the department for non-deduction of tax at source was found to be unwarranted and was rightly deleted.\n________________________________________\n(j) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 21 - Deductions Not Allowed - Claim on Purchase of Land\n•\nIssue: The disallowance of the claim for the purchase of land due to non-declaration of receipts from the sale of such land.\n•\nPrinciple: The taxpayer provided evidence that the receipts were declared, and the observation by the taxation officer was incorrect. The breakdown of receipts was produced before the First Appellate Authority, and since the assessing officer did not negate the breakdown, the addition was rightly deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,21(l),21(c),120,121,122,120(1A),122(9),177(4)(a)(b)(c)(d),21(l),Cl.39 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.170/IB and 183/IB of 2009, decision dated: 15-01-2011 hearing DATE : 15-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Idrees and Abdul Basit, FCA for Appellant (in I.T.A No. 170/IB of 2009), Shahid Iqbal, L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 170/IB of 2009), Shahid Iqbal, L.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 183/IB of 2009) and Hafiz Idrees and Abdul Basit, FCA for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 183/IB of 2009)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BAHRIA TOWN, RAWALPINDI and others\nVs, \nTAXATION OFFICER (AUDIT III), ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "51", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVRPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 40 = 2011 SLD 40 = (2011) 104 TAX 198 = 2011 PTD 1800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVRPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 114, 115(4), 120, 122(5-A), 131 & 153 - Furnishing Return of Income, Amendment of Assessment, and Tax Deduction\n•\nIssue: The issue at hand involved the filing of income tax returns by the assessee under the correct tax regime and the compliance with legal obligations for tax reporting, particularly with respect to the Presumptive Tax Regime and the Normal Tax Regime.\n•\nBackground:\no\nThe assessee, a manufacturer, had been filing a statement under Section 115(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, opting for the Presumptive Tax Regime up until the tax year 2004.\no\nFor tax year 2005, the assessee opted to file a return under the Normal Tax Regime under Section 114 of the Ordinance.\no\nHowever, as per Section 115(4), the assessee was legally obligated to continue opting for the Presumptive Tax Regime for the subsequent three years if the option was exercised for any particular year.\no\nThe Taxation Officer found that the assessee had failed to fulfill these legal requirements and had incorrectly filed the return under the Normal Tax Regime rather than continuing with the Presumptive Tax Regime for the tax year 2005.\n•\nPrinciple:\no\nThe Taxation Officer noted that the assessee was required to file a statement under Section 115(4) for the tax year 2005, given the supplies made to different parties, and was under the Presumptive Tax Regime.\no\nThe assessment completed under Section 120 (which deals with the deemed assessment procedure) was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as the filing under the normal tax regime was not in line with the statutory requirements for that year.\n•\nAction Taken:\no\nThe Taxation Officer modified the assessment under Section 122(5-A), which deals with the amendment of assessments when they are deemed erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.\no\nThe modification included treating the tax deduction under Section 153 (deduction of tax at source on supplies made) as the final discharge of the tax liability for the year in question.\n•\nRuling:\no\nThe Taxation Officer's order was deemed to be sound and justified, aligning with the legal provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance.\no\nThe order of the First Appellate Authority (the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)) was found to be illegal and without lawful authority, as it did not adhere to the legal framework.\no\nConsequently, the order passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) was vacated, and the order of the Assessing Officer was restored.\nKey Legal Provisions Involved:\n•\nSection 114: Requires the filing of the income tax return by the taxpayer.\n•\nSection 115(4): Pertains to the Presumptive Tax Regime, under which a manufacturer can opt for a simplified tax regime for a given tax year, with obligations extending for the succeeding three years.\n•\nSection 120: Allows the Assessing Officer to complete an assessment based on the return filed by the taxpayer, which can be deemed correct if no further action is taken.\n•\nSection 122(5-A): Allows for the modification of the assessment if found erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.\n•\nSection 153: Relates to the deduction of tax at source on payments made for goods and services, and it is treated as a final discharge of the tax liability when applicable.\nConclusion:\nThe case highlights the importance of adhering to the specific provisions under the Presumptive Tax Regime and the Normal Tax Regime and emphasizes the obligations of manufacturers who opt for the Presumptive Tax Regime. The Taxation Officer was correct in modifying the assessment under the provisions of Section 122(5-A), and the appellate order was rightly vacated due to non-compliance with legal requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,115,120,122,131,153,115(4),122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 172/LB of 2010, decision dated: 13-05-2011 hearing DATE : 14-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Mansoor, D.R. for Appellant. M. Shahid, for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, RTO, LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs PLASCOAT SYSTEM, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "52", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVjPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 41 = 2011 SLD 41 = (2012) 105 TAX 181 = 2011 PTD 1804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVjPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Ss. 113, 154(4), & 131\nThe department appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) on three grounds. The first ground concerned the chargeability of minimum tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The second ground was related to the addition made due to the reversal of provisions for bad debts. The third ground challenged the chargeability of tax on the rebate given to the taxpayer on export.\n________________________________________\nFirst Two Grounds Decided in Favor of Taxpayer:\nThe first two grounds had already been decided in favor of the taxpayer by the Appellate Tribunal, and the Departmental Representative conceded that these issues had been resolved in the taxpayer's favor in a previous appeal concerning a different tax year.\n________________________________________\nThird Ground - Chargeability of Tax on Rebate:\nThe third issue was whether the rebate received by the taxpayer for exports in the relevant tax year was taxable. The department argued that the rebate, as income, should be taxed.\n________________________________________\nRebate Arising from Exports - Section 154(4):\nThe rebate in question arose from the taxpayer's export transactions. Section 154(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, explicitly supported the taxpayer's argument that the rebate income falls under the Final Tax Regime and had already been taxed.\n________________________________________\nFinal Decision:\nSince the law clearly supported the taxpayer’s position, there was no need to rely on a Circular or S.R.O. to interpret the issue further. Therefore, the department’s appeal regarding the rebate was rejected.\n________________________________________\nReferences:\n•\nPTR No. 218 of 2005 dated 28-5-2009\n•\nITA No. 124/IB/2007 dated 4-8-2009", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,131,154,154(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 352/LB and 353/LB of 2010, decision dated: 9-03-2011 hearing DATE : 9-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJustice(s)AD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., LEGAL DIVISION, LTU, LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs TETRA PAK PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "53", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVZPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 42 = 2011 SLD 42 = 2011 PTD 1824 = (2011) 104 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVZPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) — Ss. 111(1)(b) & 122(5)\nUnexplained Income or Assets\nThe addition was made on the basis that six out of ten cheques issued to the Director were not recorded in the taxpayer/company's ledger. This led to the inference that the taxpayer had under-reported the debit side of the balance sheet to offset the credit side.\n________________________________________\nTaxpayer’s Contention\nThe taxpayer contended that the Assessing Officer had wrongly attempted to cross-match the payments from the customer ledger, which was meant for recording share transactions of listed securities. The taxpayer argued that the payments represented loan repayments made to the company by the Director, not investments. The Director was a customer of the company, and the customer account was meant for recording transactions related to securities. A separate ledger existed for recording loans/advances made by the Director to the company.\n________________________________________\nValidity\nThe authorities below had misinterpreted the nature of payments made to the Director, mistaking them for investments rather than loan repayments. The customer account was solely used for securities transactions, while the payments were related to the repayment of loans. The Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition, finding no justification for the addition.\n________________________________________\nReferences:\n•\nSohail Jute Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 329\n•\nMessrs Mehran Associates v. CIT 1993 SCMR 274\n•\nI.T.A. No. 370/KB/2009\n•\nIncome Tax Officer v. Chappal Builders 1993 SCMR 1108\n•\nCentral Insurance Company and others v. Central Board of Revenue 1993 PTD 766\n•\nPakistan Education Society v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 PTD 804\n•\nSyed Azhar Ali v. Director General Excise and Taxation 2002 PTD 700\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) — Ss. 111(1)(b) & 122(5)\nC.B.R. Circulars No. 9 of 1998 & No. 15 of 1980\nThe taxpayer argued that the Taxation Officer could not review issues previously adjudicated in a composite audit approved by the Additional Commissioner. The audit had already reviewed the sources of investment and verified the financial transactions, closing the audit without any adverse inferences.\n________________________________________\nValidity\nThe Taxation Officer’s addition under Section 111(1)(b) for non-recorded payments was made without considering that the audit had already concluded, and all necessary documents and explanations had been provided. Since the audit was approved by the Additional Commissioner, the Taxation Officer could not reopen the issue. The audit had focused on the sources of investment, and no adverse conclusions had been made at that time. The addition was without justification.\n________________________________________\nReferences:\n•\n1990 PTD 389 (H.C.)\n•\n2003 PTD 1068 (Trib.)\n•\n2004 PTD 1010 (Trib.)\n•\n2004 PTD 2749 (Trib.)\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) — Ss. 122(5), 210, 211 & 114\nAmendment of Assessment — Jurisdiction\nThe taxpayer contended that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to amend an assessment under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as the power to amend lay with the Commissioner. The taxpayer argued that the Deputy Commissioner was not legally competent to amend the order passed by the Commissioner.\n________________________________________\nValidity\nThe Deputy Commissioner had the delegated powers under Section 210 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to amend an assessment order deemed to have been passed under Section 120. The powers were exercised in accordance with the law, as per Section 122(5) of the Ordinance. Section 211 of the Ordinance treats orders issued by a subordinate officer under delegation as orders passed by the Commissioner.\n________________________________________\nConclusion\nThe Deputy Commissioner’s action was legal, as the delegation of powers from the Commissioner enabled such amendments under Section 122(5), even if it was deemed to be passed by the Commissioner himself.\n________________________________________\nReferences:\n•\nWrit Petition 653 of 2009\n•\nC.Ps. Nos. 1664-1665 of 2009 dated 11-9-2009\n•\nI.T.As. Nos. 393 and 270/KB/2010\n________________________________________\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) — Ss. 122(5), (5A) & (9)\nAmendment of Assessment — Methods\nThere are two methods to amend an assessment under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\n1.\nSection 122(5) — based on definite information from an audit or other sources.\n2.\nSection 122(5A) — when the Commissioner finds the assessment prejudicial to revenue.\n________________________________________\nApplication in This Case\nIn this case, the taxpayer was selected for audit, and after audit, a notice was issued under Section 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The amendment was made under Section 122(5), as the action was based on definite information obtained during the audit.\n________________________________________\nReferences:\n•\nIncome Tax Officer v. Chappal Builders 1993 SCMR 1108\n•\nCentral Insurance Company and others v. Central Board of Revenue 1993 PTD 766\n•\nPakistan Education Society v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 PTD 804\n•\nSyed Azhar Ali v. Director General Excise and Taxation 2002 PTD 700\n________________________________________\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) — S. 122(5)\nAmendment of Assessment — Change of Opinion\nThe taxpayer argued that the assessment should not be reopened under Section 122(5) merely due to a change of opinion, as all facts had been disclosed and considered previously.\n________________________________________\nValidity\nReopening the assessment based on a change of opinion is not permissible where all facts had been disclosed by the taxpayer and no new facts had been discovered. The assessment cannot be reopened just because the Taxation Officer disagrees with the initial decision.\n________________________________________\nReferences:\n•\n1990 PTD 389 (H.C.)\n•\n2003 PTD 1068 (Trib.)\n•\n2004 PTD 1010 (Trib.)\n•\n2004 PTD 2749 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=39(3),111,59,114,122,210,211,111(1)(b),114(4),122(5),122(9),210(1A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),62,63,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 938/KB of 2010, decision dated: 29-03-2011 hearing DATE : 29-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Athar for Appellant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DJM SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVs.\nC.I.T., RTO, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "54", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVFPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 45 = 2011 SLD 45 = (2011) 104 TAX 145 = 2011 PTD 1893", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVFPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) — Ss. 128(5), 182, 190 & 165 — S.R.O. No. 662(I)/2007 dated 8-6-2007\nProcedure in Appeal: Filing of Evidence at First Appellate Stage and Levy of Penalty for Non-Compliance of Show-Cause Notice\n________________________________________\nCase Summary:\nThe Taxpayer was penalized by the Taxation Officer for failing to comply with a show-cause notice and for not filing necessary statements and documents. However, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the initial penalty was wrongly imposed because the taxpayer had complied with the letter. The department, on the other hand, argued that the taxpayer did not provide the required documents and evidence, and thus the appeal should be dismissed based on the provision in Section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n________________________________________\nTaxpayer’s Argument:\nThe taxpayer argued that compliance with the show-cause notice had been made, and thus the penalty imposed by the Taxation Officer was not valid. However, the taxpayer failed to produce the relevant evidence that was required to prove compliance before the Taxation Officer at the time of the notice.\n________________________________________\nDepartment’s Contention:\nThe department contended that the taxpayer had failed to file the necessary documents and evidence before the Taxation Officer. According to Section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was not empowered to accept any documentary evidence submitted at the appellate stage that was not produced before the Taxation Officer during the original assessment. The department argued that because the taxpayer did not provide evidence at the initial stage, the appeal should be dismissed.\n________________________________________\nLegal Analysis:\n1.\nNon-Compliance of the Show-Cause Notice:\nThe taxpayer was duly confronted with a show-cause notice but failed to comply with it on the required date. Furthermore, the taxpayer did not request an adjournment, which resulted in the Taxation Officer treating the taxpayer as a taxpayer in default and imposing a penalty under Sections 182 and 182(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n2.\nFirst Appellate Authority’s Action:\nThe FAA accepted the evidence produced by the taxpayer that the statements had been filed, but this was in violation of Section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which prohibits the acceptance of new evidence at the appellate stage unless it was already submitted before the Taxation Officer.\n3.\nSection 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\nThis section restricts the First Appellate Authority from accepting any documentary evidence that was not produced before the Taxation Officer. Therefore, the FAA’s action to accept evidence at this stage was deemed to be beyond the legal jurisdiction and invalid.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nSince the taxpayer had failed to comply with the Taxation Officer's notice, and the FAA had wrongly accepted new evidence, the matter was remanded back to the Taxation Officer for fresh adjudication. The orders of both the Taxation Officer and the FAA were vacated with directions that the taxpayer should submit the required evidence before the Taxation Officer, who would then decide the matter based on the law and after providing the taxpayer an adequate opportunity to present all relevant documents.\n________________________________________\nReferences:\n•\n2004 PTD 745\n•\n1980 PTD 74 (Trib.)\n•\nMessrs National Foods' Case 65 Tax 274", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=128,165,182,190,128(5),182(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. 867/KB of 2010, decision dated: 20-04-2011, hearing DATE : 1st April, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Ali Saand, D.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., LD, R.T.O., KARACHI\nVs.\nM/S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTRE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "55", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVBPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 46 = 2011 SLD 46 = (2011) 104 TAX 81 = 2011 PTD 1897", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVBPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) — Ss. 34(5), 122 & 131 — Interest Payable on Trading Loan and Rescheduling of Debt\n________________________________________\nCase Summary:\nThis case revolves around the issue of whether unpaid interest, which had been rescheduled after the statutory period of three years, is liable to tax under the head Income from Business as per Section 34(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The taxpayer contended that since the loan, against which the interest was payable, had been rescheduled, the interest should be considered paid and therefore should not be subject to tax. The department, however, maintained that the unpaid interest was still chargeable to tax under the head Income from Business. \n________________________________________\nTaxpayer’s Contention:\nThe taxpayer argued that the interest, which had been rescheduled, should be deemed to have been paid and, as such, it could not be considered as payable under the provisions of Section 34(5). Since the loan had been rescheduled, the taxpayer viewed the interest obligation as effectively extinguished, rendering it non-taxable.\n________________________________________\nDepartment’s Contention:\nThe department asserted that the interest payable to various financial institutions, which remained unpaid after the statutory period of three years, should be treated as chargeable to tax under the head Income from Business. The department emphasized that Section 34(5) explicitly concerns unpaid interest and that rescheduling does not change the nature of the outstanding liability, which remains a part of the taxpayer’s business income.\n________________________________________\nLegal Analysis:\n1.\nUnpaid Interest and Rescheduling:\nInterest, as per Section 34(5), becomes part of the taxpayer’s liability if it remains unpaid after a certain period, and this unpaid interest is treated as an allowable business expense. Rescheduling of the loan essentially acknowledges that the taxpayer could not meet the original repayment terms and that the financial institution agreed to extend the payment terms. However, this does not negate the fact that the interest remains unpaid and is still a liability.\n2.\nEffect of Rescheduling on Interest Liability:\nRescheduling of an unpaid liability is, in essence, an acknowledgment that the original debt, including the interest, could not be paid within the prescribed time. This restructuring or rescheduling does not eliminate the original debt but instead extends the timeline for payment. The unpaid interest continues to exist as a liability until it is actually paid or settled.\n3.\nSection 34(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\nSection 34(5) specifically addresses unpaid interest and treats it as part of a larger liability (principal). The rescheduling of the loan does not automatically mean that the interest is paid or settled; it only extends the timeline for repayment. Therefore, unpaid interest, even if rescheduled, still qualifies as payable under the terms of Section 34(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe unpaid interest, even after the rescheduling of the loan, remained a part of the taxpayer’s financial obligations. The rescheduling itself was a clear indication that the taxpayer was unable to pay the interest within the statutory period. Therefore, the liability for interest under Section 34(5) remained, and the order of the Taxation Officer imposing an addition under this section was upheld.\nThe taxpayer's argument that the rescheduled interest should be considered as paid was rejected, as rescheduling does not change the liability nature of the unpaid interest.\n________________________________________\nReferences:\n•\nI.T.A. No. 1470/LB/1997\n•\nBig Mac Foods (Pvt.) Ltd.'s case I.T.A. No. 6304/LB of 2005\n•\nUBL v. Aziz Tanneries (Pvt.) Ltd. 2004 CLD 1715\n•\nCebee Industries v. I.T.A.T. 2006 PTD 348\n•\nMessrs Ethyl Saxena v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (1984) 146 ITR 518\n•\nQamaruzzaman Khan v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan 2009 CLD 460\n•\nHabib Bank v. Qayyum Spinning Ltd. MLD 2001 Kar. 1351", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=34,122,131,34(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.160/LB of 2008, decision dated: 13-08-2009, hearing DATE : 13-08-2009.", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ahmed Shahab, D.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., (LEGAL), DIVISION, R.T.O., LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs SARGODHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "56", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVNPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 47 = 2011 SLD 47 = (2011) 104 TAX 185 = 2011 PTD 1906", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVNPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Disallowance of Expense on Alleged Payment Not Made Through Crossed Cheque or Banking Instrument:\nIssue: The issue here was the disallowance of expenses by the Taxation Officer due to alleged non-payment through a crossed cheque or other banking instruments. The assessee argued that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had misdirected itself by not requiring the Taxation Officer (TO) to provide a break-up of the total amount disallowed and that the assessee had not been given an appropriate opportunity to rebut the proposed action.\nDecision: The Taxation Officer had already confronted the assessee and made specific findings regarding the disallowance before making the addition. The First Appellate Authority did not address the argument properly, and the assessee failed to adequately plead the case at the appellate stage. The appellate tribunal confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority, upholding the disallowance.\n________________________________________\n(b) Disallowance of Exchange Loss Under Accrual Basis of Accounting:\nIssue: The taxpayer followed the accrual basis of accounting and recorded an exchange loss at the year-end, which was then reworked at the time of actual payment in the subsequent year. The department disallowed the notional loss under this accounting method, and the assessee contended that the loss was properly accounted for under the accrual system.\nDecision: The First Appellate Authority agreed with the Taxation Officer that only the notional loss should be disallowed, which was legally and factually justified. The appellate tribunal upheld the decision, and the taxpayer's appeal was dismissed, confirming that the notional loss was correctly disallowed.\nReference: 2008 PTD (Trib.) 1040\n________________________________________\n(c) Allowability of Unrealized Exchange Loss as Deduction in the Following Year:\nIssue: The issue was whether the unrealized exchange loss, disallowed in the previous year as notional, should be allowed in the subsequent year when it became realized upon payment.\nDecision: The appellate tribunal agreed that the loss, which was unrealized in the prior year, should be allowed as a deduction in the year it became realized. No dispute existed regarding the allowance of the exchange loss as a business expense; the only point in question was the nature of the loss (unrealized or realized). The tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal on this matter.\n________________________________________\n(d) Workers' Welfare Fund Payable Based on Accounting Profit:\nIssue: The taxpayer argued that the Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) should be payable based on total income as per the Income Tax Ordinance rather than on accounting profit. The First Appellate Authority had upheld the Taxation Officer's decision to calculate the WWF at 2% of the accounting profit.\nDecision: Under the amended Section 4(1) of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, the fund was payable at 2% of accounting profit for establishments with an income less than Rs.500,000. The appellate tribunal fully endorsed the First Appellate Authority's findings and dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, agreeing that the calculation was correct based on accounting profit.\n________________________________________\n(e) Grounds Not Adjudicated:\nIssue: Certain grounds raised by the taxpayer were not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority, leading to the remanding of these issues back for a decision after hearing arguments from both parties.\nDecision: The appellate tribunal remanded the unresolved issues back to the First Appellate Authority for adjudication, ensuring that the taxpayer and the department would be given a fair opportunity to present their arguments on these issues.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nIn each of these cases, the decisions were based on specific provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) and other relevant regulations. The appellate authorities generally upheld the Taxation Officer’s findings unless there was a failure to properly adjudicate or address certain grounds. In instances where the Taxation Officer’s actions were adequately justified, the appeals were dismissed, and the department’s stance was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,32,71,122,221,122(5A),32(2) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4(1),42(i) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3/KB to 7/KB of 2009, decision dated: 26-03-2011, hearing DATE : 1st November, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faraz Ahmed, FCA for Appellant. Dr. Muhammad Ali, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MERCK (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI\nVs.\nC.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "57", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVJPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 48 = 2011 SLD 48 = (2012) 105 TAX 14 = 2011 PTD 1918", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVJPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Long-Term Contracts and Percentage Completion Method:\nIssue: The Taxation Officer (TO) applied 25% of the accumulated advances from allottees and taxed it under Section 36 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The taxpayer did not contest this assessment, and the department subsequently applied the same ratio of 25% to the remaining advances in subsequent years. However, the taxpayer later sought to amend the assessments, arguing that the methodology used by the department was incorrect and that it should only be based on receipts from each year, not accumulated receipts.\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal found that the method used by the Taxation Officer was incorrect. The Percentage Completion Method should calculate income based on the actual receipts for the year, not accumulated receipts from the entire project. The methodology used by the department, which distributed the accumulated receipts over several years, was not warranted by law. The tribunal ruled that each year’s assessment should be independent, and only the receipts for that year should be considered. The cases were remanded to the Taxation Officer with the direction to focus on the receipts of the respective year, and any amendments should be made within the limitation period.\nReference: 1994 PTD 174; 2001 PTD 3090; PLD 1964 SC 113; 275 ITR 30; 1985 ITR 144\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (2001) - Section 36 - Method for Computation of Income:\nIssue: The Taxpayer argued that Section 36 was vague and inconsistent in its application, especially regarding the treatment of long-term contracts and how income should be computed. The taxpayer contended that the section was being treated as a charging section rather than a method for computation.\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal clarified that Section 36 provides a methodology for computing income, not a charging section. The section mandates comparing costs incurred during the year with the total estimated cost of the project. It emphasizes revenue and expenses being recognized based on the stage of completion of the contract, adhering to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The taxpayer’s plea regarding the vagueness of the section was rejected as unsustainable in law.\n________________________________________\n(c) C.B.R. Circular No.2 of 1975 - Allocation of Profit/Loss in Long-Term Contracts:\nIssue: The taxpayer cited C.B.R. Circular No. 2 of 1975, which provides guidance on how profits or losses should be allocated in long-term contracts. The taxpayer argued that the allocation of profit or loss should be based on the receipts for each year, as stipulated by this circular.\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the instructions of C.B.R. Circular No. 2 of 1975, which apply to contractors maintaining regular accounts. These instructions supersede earlier guidance from 1946 and outline that the total profit of a contract should be recognized based on the stage of completion, with adjustments for inadmissible expenses. The tribunal agreed with the taxpayer’s argument that profit or loss should be allocated on a yearly receipt basis.\n________________________________________\n(d) Calculation of Receipts for Long-Term Contracts:\nIssue: The Taxation Officer had the option of calculating receipts either based on the feasibility report or the actual receipts declared by the taxpayer. The taxpayer argued that the assessment should be based on actual receipts for the year, and the department should verify these receipts.\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal noted that the law is silent on whether receipts should be taken from the feasibility report or the actual receipts. The department could choose either methodology, depending on which best suits the circumstances. If receipts are taken from the feasibility report, income would always be positive, but it risks overlooking actual receipts. Conversely, if actual receipts are used, the department could verify the receipts more accurately, though there is a risk of discrepancies. The tribunal left the choice of methodology to the department but emphasized the need for proper verification and transparency in using either approach.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n1.\nCorrect Application of Percentage Completion Method: The assessments should be based on actual receipts for each year rather than accumulated receipts from the entire project. This ensures that each year is treated independently for tax purposes.\n2.\nSection 36 Clarified: It provides a method for calculating income in long-term contracts, which compares costs incurred with the total estimated project cost, rather than being a charging section.\n3.\nC.B.R. Circular No. 2 of 1975: Allocates profit or loss based on receipts for the year, and supersedes previous circulars on the subject.\n4.\nReceipt Calculation Methodology: The department has the discretion to choose between using feasibility report figures or actual receipts for calculating income, but must ensure proper verification and consistency in methodology.\nIn all cases, the Appellate Tribunal ensured that the tax methodology applied was consistent with the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) and relevant circulars, remanding cases where necessary for reassessment based on the appropriate methodology.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=32,34,36,120,122,122(1)(5) Income Tax Rules, 2002=68 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 58/IB to 61/IB of 2011, decision dated: 9-04-2011, hearing DATE : 9-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Shahzad Mehmood for Appellant AND Tahir Khan, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MERCK (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI\nVs.\nC.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "58", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUwPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 49 = 2011 SLD 49 = (2012) 105 TAX 286 = 2011 PTD 1929", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUwPQ", + "Key Words:": "Issue: The taxpayer was subjected to additional tax under Section 88 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 due to non-payment of tax liability along with the return for the relevant assessment year. The taxpayer contended that the tax payable had been adjusted by the tax credit available to him under Section 107-AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and that if the Deputy Commissioner determined that the tax credit was not applicable, the tax payable should be recalculated accordingly.\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 54: Concerns the payment of tax liability with the return.\n•\nSection 62 & 65: Provide provisions for adjustments or recalculations of tax.\n•\nSection 88: Relates to the imposition of additional tax for non-payment of tax liability.\n•\nSection 107-AA: Deals with the availability of tax credits for the taxpayer.\nArgument of Taxpayer: The taxpayer's representative argued that the tax liability was paid after applying the tax credit under Section 107-AA. They contended that if the Deputy Commissioner determined the tax credit was not applicable, the tax payable would need to be recalculated based on the correct assessment for the relevant tax year. According to this view, if any modification in the declaration of the return occurred under Sections 62 & 65 or any other provision, the modified tax liability would not be subject to additional tax under Section 54.\nDecision: The tribunal or court ruled that the imposition of additional tax under Section 88 was incorrect and contrary to the provisions of the law. It was determined that the taxpayer was entitled to adjust the tax payable with the available tax credit under Section 107-AA, and if this adjustment was not accepted, the Deputy Commissioner would need to recompute the tax payable. Furthermore, if the return was modified under any provision of the Ordinance, the tax payable under the modified return would not be subject to additional tax under Section 54.\nThe imposition of additional tax under Section 88 was therefore annulled, as it was deemed to be against the law, and the taxpayer was not liable for the additional tax under the circumstances.\nReference:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Lahore, 2002 PTD 629", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=54,62,65,88,107,134,107(AA) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 84/LB of 2010, decision dated: 14-04-2011, hearing DATE : 14-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar A. Khan, FCA for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TWIN CITY HOUSING (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nVs.\nC.I.R., LTU, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "59", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV3PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 50 = 2011 SLD 50 = (2012) 105 TAX 58 = 2011 PTD 1950 = 2011 PTR 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV3PQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Amendment of Assessment under Sections 122 & 177 - Definite Information\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer argued that an assessment order could only be amended based on definite information and contended that information gathered through an audit did not qualify as such. The taxpayer claimed that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was illegal and void.\n•\nTax Department's View: The department argued that the issue was procedural and that the law favored adjudication on merits rather than on technicalities. A show-cause notice was issued to the taxpayer, listing the grounds and discrepancies found in the tax return, which provided the necessary information.\n•\nDecision: The tribunal found that the taxpayer had been given full disclosure of the definite information and a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The revised assessment order under Section 122(1) was valid, and no legal infirmity was found in the revised order. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal was upheld.\n(b) Commercial Expediency\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer questioned whether certain expenditures were made with commercial expediency. \n•\nDefinition: The term commercial expediency refers to expenditures that a prudent person might incur for the purpose of business, provided it is not gratuitous and is connected to the business.\n(c) Deduction of Amortized Expenses - Activation Tax\n•\nIssue: A cellular company claimed amortized expenses related to activation tax.\n•\nDecision: The tribunal ruled that the activation tax was a charge collected from customers in the capacity of a withholding agent, rather than an expense incurred for business purposes. Therefore, it was not an allowable deduction under Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The claim for tax deduction on activation charges was disallowed, and the order of the First Appellate Authority was set aside.\n(d) Disallowance of Free Air Time Expenses\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer, a cellular company, claimed expenses related to free air time provided to customers.\n•\nDecision: The tribunal found that the taxpayer did not incur an actual expense on the collection of excise duty paid by customers. Moreover, the free air time given to customers did not qualify as a deductible expense under Section 20(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The taxation officer's decision to disallow the expense was upheld, and the First Appellate Authority's order was vacated.\n(e) Line Leased Charges & Withholding Tax\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer paid line leased charges to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) and National Telecommunication Corporation (NTC) without deducting withholding tax.\n•\nDecision: The tribunal ruled that payments made to PTCL and NTC without the proper withholding tax deduction were inadmissible. The taxpayer failed to provide an exemption certificate for NTC, and the case of NTC did not qualify for exemption under Section 49(3). Therefore, the taxation officer rightly disallowed the expenses, and the First Appellate Authority's order was set aside.\n(f) Advertisement Expenses - Intangibles\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer, a cellular company, claimed advertisement expenses as a current expense rather than capitalized expenses.\n•\nDecision: The tribunal concluded that the advertisement expenses were of a recurring nature, but the benefit extended beyond one year and was thus capital in nature. These expenses fell under the category of intangibles and should be amortized over ten years as per Section 24(3). The taxation officer’s decision to amortize the expenses was upheld, and the order of the First Appellate Authority was vacated.\n(g) Depreciation on Computer Software (Intangibles)\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer claimed depreciation and initial allowance on computer software, considering it a fixed asset. \n•\nDecision: The tribunal ruled that the software, including embedded software, fell under the category of intangibles as per Section 24(11) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Software, whether embedded or application-based, should be amortized over ten years. The taxation officer correctly disallowed the initial allowance and depreciation claims.\n(h) Minimum Tax under Section 113(2)(c)\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer sought to adjust minimum tax paid in subsequent years if it had taxable profits.\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the First Appellate Authority's findings that the issue was not final and left it for the Taxation Officer to determine after providing both parties an opportunity to be heard. The adjustment could be made if taxable profits were determined in subsequent years.\n(i) Tax Exemptions and Claim of Expenses\n•\nIssue: Tax exemptions and expenses were claimed by the taxpayer.\n•\nDecision: The tribunal emphasized that tax exemptions and expenses must be examined in light of the relevant statutory provisions, and claims must meet the criteria established by the superior courts to be valid.\n(j) Legal Position on Exemptions\n•\nReference: The tribunal referred to various case law to establish the strict legal framework within which exemptions and claims for tax relief must be considered, ensuring they meet the established criteria for validity.\n________________________________________\nConclusion: The tribunal’s decisions reinforced the necessity of adhering to legal provisions, requiring that claims for tax deductions and exemptions meet the criteria laid out in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as well as ensuring transparency and proper documentation in tax proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=20,21,22,23,24,49,113,122,153,177,113(2)(c),122(1),20(1),21(c),24(11),24(3),49(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 589/IB of 2009, decision dated: 15-02-2011 hearing DATE : 15-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": " MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tahir Khan, D.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "60", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtVPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 51 = 2011 SLD 51 = (2011) 104 TAX 315 = 2011 PTD 1970", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtVPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Issuance of Demand Notice - Sections 137 & 138\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer argued that the demand notice was issued under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, whereas it should have been issued under Section 137. The taxpayer claimed that this error made the demand notice legally defective, and as a result, the entire assessment should be quashed.\n•\nDepartment's View: The department acknowledged the printing error in the heading of the notice but emphasized that the content of the notice was in line with Section 137, and the use of the new forms under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was appropriate. The department further argued that this technical error did not invalidate the assessment.\n•\nDecision: The tribunal upheld the validity of the demand notice, ruling that the printing error in the heading was a mere technicality and did not affect the substance of the notice. The notice was issued in the correct form, and the taxpayer's objection was rejected. The Appellate Tribunal's decision was sustained.\n(b) Valuation of Immovable Properties - Profit on Sale of Land\n•\nIssue: The taxation officer contested the sale price of land declared by the taxpayer as Rs. 1950 per kanal, asserting that the sale price was grossly understated. The officer pointed to nearby housing schemes where plots were priced at Rs. 7,00,000 per kanal, and argued that the actual market value was much higher.\n•\nTaxpayer's Evidence: The taxpayer provided documentary evidence (a 'Fard' or record of rights) indicating that the sale price was consistent with the prevailing market prices for the year of the transaction.\n•\nDepartment's Argument: The department produced evidence showing the valuation based on an average price of Rs. 18,000 to Rs. 22,000 per kanal for the period from 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2005.\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the department's estimate was baseless and did not reflect the specific market conditions at the time of the sale in 2002. The taxpayer’s evidence of the particular year’s pricing was deemed more accurate. Consequently, the tribunal vacated the authorities' orders and deleted the addition made to the taxable income.\n(c) Addition of Outstanding Liability - Approval of Inspecting Additional Commissioner\n•\nIssue: The taxpayer was penalized with an addition due to the clearing of a liability to Bolan Bank Limited without providing a clear source for the payment. The taxpayer contended that, under Section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the addition required approval from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner.\n•\nTaxpayer's Argument: The taxpayer argued that the delegation of authority under Section 210 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to the Inspecting Additional Commissioner for approving additions was not legally sound. The approval process, therefore, was deemed legally incorrect, and the addition should be deleted.\n•\nDepartment's Argument: The department failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for deviating from the procedure laid down in Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the addition was legally incorrect because it was made without the correct approval process. The addition was deleted, and the taxpayer's position was upheld.\n________________________________________\nConclusion\nThese cases emphasize key aspects of tax law, particularly regarding technicalities in procedural matters, such as the correct issuance of demand notices, proper valuation of assets, and adherence to the correct approval procedures for additions. The tribunal decisions highlight the importance of adhering to legal procedures and substantive evidence when challenging tax assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,137,138,210,2(13),2(65) Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,62,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 575/IB of 2009, decision dated: 4-11-2010 hearing DATE : 4-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Masood Chatta for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Maulvi AHMED SAGHEER\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) COMPANIES ZONE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "61", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtRPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 52 = 2011 SLD 52 = (2011) 104 TAX 287 = 2011 PTD 1996 = 2012 PTCL 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtRPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 147\nKey Issue: Estimate of NIL Advance Tax\n•\nTaxpayer's Position: The taxpayer filed an estimate of advance tax under Section 147(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 indicating a NIL advance tax liability, i.e., the taxpayer estimated that no tax would be payable. The Taxation Officer rejected the estimate, contending that the estimate of NIL advance tax was wrong and, therefore, not acceptable.\n•\nTaxation Officer's Powers: The core question revolves around the powers of the Taxation Officer to reject an estimate of NIL advance tax. Specifically, the issue is whether the Taxation Officer has the authority to discard an estimate filed by the taxpayer and require the taxpayer to pay tax according to the provisions of Section 147(1).\nLegal Framework:\n1.\nSection 147(1): This section requires taxpayers to estimate their income and file an advance tax payment based on this estimate. If a taxpayer estimates a tax liability, they must file and pay accordingly.\n2.\nSection 147(6): This provision allows taxpayers to file an estimate of advance tax, and it does not prohibit filing a NIL estimate. If a taxpayer believes they will not owe any tax, they can file an estimate showing no tax liability. Section 147(6) mandates that tax becomes payable based on the estimate filed by the taxpayer.\n3.\nSection 147(7): This section grants the Taxation Officer the authority to recover advance tax not paid as if it were a tax due under an assessment order, but does not provide the authority to reject the taxpayer’s filed estimate outright.\n4.\nSection 205(1B): If the taxpayer does not pay the correct advance tax or defaults in payment, the Taxation Officer can impose a default surcharge after completing an assessment.\nLegal Interpretation:\n•\nFiling a NIL Estimate: There is no provision under Section 147(6) that prohibits a taxpayer from filing an estimate where no tax is payable. The taxpayer can file an estimate showing that no tax is due, provided that the conditions of Section 147(1) are met. Essentially, if a taxpayer believes that they will not owe any tax, they are permitted to file a NIL estimate.\n•\nTaxation Officer's Role: Once a taxpayer files an estimate, whether accurate or not, the Taxation Officer cannot reject it simply because it is NIL or incorrect. The officer does not have the authority to disregard the filed estimate and force the taxpayer to pay taxes as per Section 147(1).\n•\nTaxation Officer’s Actions After Filing an Estimate: If the filed estimate is incorrect or not paid, the only recourse for the Taxation Officer would be to apply a default surcharge under Section 205(1B), after completing the assessment.\n•\nRecovery of Advance Tax: If the taxpayer fails to pay the advance tax as per the filed estimate, Section 147(7) allows the Taxation Officer to recover the tax as if it were due under an assessment order. However, there is no provision granting the officer the authority to pass an order requiring the taxpayer to pay taxes in accordance with the estimate filed under Section 147(1).\nConclusion and Precedents:\n•\nThe case of Pak Saudi Fertilizer v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1999 PTD 4061) and others highlights that the Taxation Officer does not have the authority to discard a filed NIL estimate and mandate the payment of taxes as per Section 147(1) if the estimate is wrong.\n•\nThe tribunal’s ruling reflects that the provisions of Section 147 do not allow the rejection of a NIL estimate solely based on the assumption that the estimate is wrong. Therefore, the filed estimate, whether correct or not, is valid and must be respected by the Taxation Officer, and the taxpayer’s responsibility is limited to paying taxes as per the filed estimate or facing default surcharge in case of non-payment.\nPrinciples:\n•\nA taxpayer has the right to file an estimate of NIL advance tax.\n•\nThe Taxation Officer does not have the authority to reject a NIL estimate.\n•\nIf the estimate is incorrect or no tax is paid, the Taxation Officer can only levy a default surcharge under Section 205(1B) after completing the assessment.\n•\nThe Taxation Officer cannot issue an order for the recovery of advance tax unless it has been assessed as payable.\nThis case upholds the taxpayer's right to file an estimate of NIL tax and confirms the limited powers of the Taxation Officer in such circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=147,147(6),147(7) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No.138 and C.M.A. No. 174 of 2011, decision dated: 27-05-2011, dates of hearing: 17th, 19th, 24th and 27-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan and Ali Almani for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "62", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtjPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 53 = 2011 SLD 53 = (2012) 105 TAX 74 = 2011 PTD 2005", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtjPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Assessment and Re-assessment Proceedings\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the re-assessment conducted by the Assessing Officer, after the case was remanded by the First Appellate Authority (FAA), was valid when the matter was still pending before the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nFindings: The re-assessment completed in pursuance of the FAA’s remand order was considered a nullity in the eyes of the law because the case was already pending before the Appellate Tribunal. Proper procedure demanded that the Assessing Officer should have waited for the Appellate Tribunal's decision before proceeding further with the re-assessment.\n•\nLegal Principle: If an appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the Assessing Officer should not proceed with re-assessment, as the outcome of the Tribunal's decision could affect the case's outcome. Therefore, the re-assessment conducted while the appeal was pending was considered void, and all subsequent proceedings were not legally sustainable.\n•\nCase Referenced: 2002 PTD 1195 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay President v. Khaim Oland Rani Das (1938 V .1.6) ITR 414.\n(b) First Appellate Authority’s Direction for Fresh Proceedings\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the First Appellate Authority was correct in directing fresh proceedings after accepting the assessee’s arguments, which highlighted deficiencies in the assessment.\n•\nFindings: The FAA wrongly recommended de-novo proceedings despite accepting the assessee's stance. If the FAA found the assessee's arguments valid, it should have decided the appeal in favor of the taxpayer, rather than remanding the case for fresh proceedings. Allowing the Revenue another chance was viewed as giving an opportunity to rectify deficiencies in the assessment, which was considered improper.\n•\nConclusion: The appeal of the assessee was accepted, and the FAA's remand order was vacated.\n(c) Re-assessment Validity After Appeal Filing\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the re-assessment made after the assessee had filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was valid.\n•\nFindings: The re-assessment proceedings were valid because the assessee had not filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal when the re-assessment was completed. The appeal was filed only after the re-assessment was finalized. The Assessing Officer had proceeded with the re-assessment after due consideration of the facts, and the assessment was considered fair and reasonable.\n•\nLegal Principle: The Assessing Officer can finalize re-assessment before an appeal is filed before the Appellate Tribunal, as long as the assessment is based on available evidence and does not contravene the legal process.\n•\nCase Referenced: 2002 PTD 1195 distinguished.\n(d) Difference of Opinion Among Tribunal Members\n•\nKey Issue: The proper procedure when there is a difference of opinion between Appellate Tribunal members.\n•\nFindings: Section 132(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, grants the Appellate Tribunal the authority to dismiss an appeal in default or proceed ex parte, at its discretion. However, when there is a difference of opinion between the members, the matter should be referred to a third member (referee) for a decision on the points of disagreement. The referee member does not have the authority to entertain new arguments or materials that were not presented earlier.\n•\nLegal Principle: The third member's role is limited to resolving the difference of opinion, and they cannot decide on the entire appeal independently. After the referee member's decision, the case should return to the original bench.\n(e) Dismissal of Appeal in Default\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the dismissal of an appeal in default by the Appellate Tribunal due to the assessee's absence was valid.\n•\nFindings: If the assessee offers a valid explanation for their absence, such as a medical issue (e.g., a bronchitis attack), the dismissal of the appeal can be reconsidered, and the case may be reinstated for hearing.\n•\nLegal Principle: The Appellate Tribunal has inherent powers to recall and rehear matters dismissed in default if a reasonable explanation for the default is provided. The Tribunal should act judicially, considering fairness and equity.\n(f) Discretionary Powers of Appellate Tribunal\n•\nKey Issue: The discretionary powers of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 132(2) in dismissing appeals in default or proceeding ex parte.\n•\nFindings: The Tribunal's discretion to dismiss an appeal in default is not automatic but depends on the facts of each case. If there is a difference of opinion among Tribunal members, the Tribunal is empowered to refer the matter to a third member. The referee's role is limited to the points of difference, and they cannot engage in a broader review of the entire appeal.\n•\nLegal Principle: The discretion granted to the Appellate Tribunal is judicial and should be exercised in accordance with legal principles, ensuring that cases are disposed of on their merits.\n(g) Referee Member’s Powers\n•\nKey Issue: The limited powers of the referee member when resolving differences of opinion among Tribunal members.\n•\nFindings: The referee member's role is restricted to deciding the points on which the original members disagree. They cannot introduce new arguments or fresh material. Once the referee member has rendered their decision, the case should return to the original bench for final adjudication.\n•\nLegal Principle: The referee member acts as a limited adjudicator, resolving specific points referred to them, not as an appellate body deciding the entire appeal.\n(h) Best Judgment Assessment\n•\nKey Issue: Whether an ex-parte assessment under Section 63 was valid when the notice under Section 61 was served but the assessee did not appear or seek adjournment.\n•\nFindings: The ex-parte assessment was valid because the assessee failed to comply with the notice and did not request an adjournment. Under these circumstances, the Assessing Officer was justified in finalizing the assessment based on available records.\n•\nLegal Principle: If the assessee fails to attend the hearing or seek adjournment, the Assessing Officer can complete the assessment ex-parte.\nConclusion:\nThe various provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and 2001 emphasize the importance of procedural fairness, the rights of the assessee, and the authority of the Appellate Tribunal to make decisions. Key points include the limited role of a referee member in resolving differences of opinion, the discretionary powers of the Tribunal in dismissing appeals in default, and the validity of re-assessments and ex-parte assessments depending on the facts and procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=132,130,130(10),132(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4304/LB of 2000, 2686/LB of 2001 and M.As. Nos.523/LB, 524/LB of 2005, decision dated: 25-02-2004, hearing DATE : 24-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Arif Chaudhry, FCA for Appellants (in I.T.A. No. 4304/LB of 2000).Wajid Akram D.R. for Respondents (in I.T.A. No. 4304/LB of 2000). Wajid Akram D.R. for Appellants (in I.T.A. No. 2686/LB of 2001). Muhammad Arif Chaudhry, FCA for Respondents (in I.T.A. No. 2686/LB of 2001). Muhammad Asif Ch. FCA for Applicant (in M.As. Nos.523/LB and 524/LB of 2005). Nemo for Respondent (in M.As. Nos.523/LB and 524/LB of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "M/s. CARGO SERVICE (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE and others\nVs.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "63", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtZPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 54 = 2011 SLD 54 = (2012) 105 TAX 185 = 2011 PTD 2026", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtZPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 114(6), 120, 122(3)(b), 122(5-A), & 131 - Furnishing a Revised Return and Amendment of Assessment:\nIn this case, the taxpayer filed a revised return after receiving show-cause notices for the amendment of the assessment. However, the Taxation Officer ignored the revised return and proceeded with the action proposed in the show-cause notices, amending the assessments under Section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nKey Legal Points:\n•\nRight to Revise Return: Under Section 122(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the taxpayer has the right to revise their return. Once a revised return is filed, it should create a new right in the form of an amended assessment. The taxpayer’s right to amend the return is recognized for all purposes, including determining the payable tax.\n•\nSubstantive Right: Section 122(3) of the Ordinance provides a substantive right to the taxpayer to amend the return. The revised return, when submitted, should be accepted, and the tax authority must consider the amended return while proceeding with the assessment.\n•\nRetrospective Application of Section 114(6): Section 114(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which curtails the right of the taxpayer to amend their return, cannot be applied retrospectively. This is because the right to revise the return, when exercised, is unconditional at the time of submission. Thus, the conditions under Section 114(6) should not be applied retrospectively to affect the taxpayer's ability to amend their return.\nKey Case References:\n•\nZakaria H.A. Sattar Bilwani’s case (2003 PTD 52)\n•\nMalik Gul Hassan and Co. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan (1996 SCMR 237)\n•\nMuhammad Ishaq v. State (PLD 1956 SC (Pak.) 256)\n•\nState v. Muhammad Jamil (PLD 1965 SC 681)\n•\nAbdul Rehman v. Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1966 SC 362)\n(b) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) - Sections 2(3), 9, & 11 - Investigation of Allegations of Maladministration:\nThis section pertains to the powers and functions of the Federal Tax Ombudsman in investigating allegations of maladministration by tax authorities.\nKey Legal Points:\n•\nInvestigation of Maladministration: Under Section 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, the Ombudsman can investigate allegations of maladministration by tax authorities. If the allegations are found to be correct, the Ombudsman will communicate the findings along with recommendations to the Revenue Division.\n•\nAction on Recommendations: According to Section 11(1), the Revenue Division must take action based on the Ombudsman’s recommendations or explain why no action will be taken. If the Ombudsman believes that the reasons for not acting on the recommendation are unsatisfactory, they can refer the matter to the President for further consideration.\n•\nNature of Recommendations: The Federal Tax Ombudsman’s recommendations are not legally binding orders that change the legal status of actions taken by the tax authorities. They are simply suggestions to correct or redress any maladministration. The Revenue Division has the authority to either accept or reject the recommendations, with the Ombudsman having the power to challenge the reasons for non-compliance.\n•\nLimitations on Investigations: The Ombudsman’s investigation powers are limited by Section 9(2), which restricts the investigation from interfering with the quasi-judicial powers of tax authorities under the relevant laws.\nPrinciples:\n•\nThe office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman is not a judicial body, and its function is not to change legal decisions but to address maladministration.\n•\nIts powers are primarily advisory, aiming to identify and recommend changes to maladministration within the tax system.\n•\nThe recommendations do not hold the force of law but are intended to guide administrative action.\nConclusion:\n•\nIn the first case (Income Tax Ordinance), the right of a taxpayer to amend their return under Section 122(3) should be upheld, and retroactive application of Section 114(6) is not valid.\n•\nIn the second case (Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance), the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate maladministration and provide recommendations, but it does not have the power to alter legal decisions made by tax authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,9,120,122,131,114(6),122(3)(b),122(5A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,11,2(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 75/LB, 76/LB, 1067/LB and 1068/LB of 2010, decision dated: 22-03-2011, hearing DATE : 22-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Imran Rashid for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PROGRESSIVE WEAVERS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs.\nC.I.T., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "64", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtFPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 55 = 2011 SLD 55 = (2011) 104 TAX 313 = 2011 PTD 2042 = 2012 PTCL 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtFPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Taxability of Insurance Company’s Income:\nThis legal issue revolves around the taxation of insurance companies, which conduct both insurance and normal business operations. The Income Tax Ordinance (2001) provides special provisions for the taxation of insurance companies, distinct from the general provisions applied to other businesses.\nKey Legal Points:\n1.\nSeparate Treatment for Insurance Business: The legislature has treated insurance businesses separately from other normal businesses in terms of taxability. Therefore, ordinary rules for computing profits and gains, which apply to other businesses, cannot be applied to insurance companies.\n2.\nSpecial Provisions for Insurance Companies: Under the Fourth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the profits and gains of an insurance business are computed differently from those of normal businesses. These special provisions in the Fourth Schedule take precedence over the general provisions of the Ordinance, as they are specifically designed for the insurance sector.\n3.\nCapital Gains and Dividends: Income such as capital gains and dividends earned by an insurance company should be treated as part of the overall income of the insurance business. These types of income are considered as one basket income along with the business income of the insurance company.\n4.\nNo Proration of Expenses: The Fourth Schedule does not provide for the proration of any expenses between the exempt income of the insurance business and the income from normal business activities. Thus, unidentifiable expenses will not be allocated between the two types of income.\n5.\nFederal Board of Revenue (FBR) Position: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has long accepted the concept of treating an insurance company’s income as one unit (since 1988). This means that both exempt and taxable income of the insurance company should be considered together for tax purposes.\n6.\nUnlawful Application of Section 67: Section 67 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which applies to general businesses, cannot be applied to an insurance company. The application of this section would conflict with the special provisions under the Fourth Schedule and would be unlawful.\nKey Case References:\n•\nFederal Bank for Cooperatives, Islamabad v. Ahsan Muhammad (2004 SCMR 130)\n•\nGolden Orphies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Director of Vigilance, Central Excise, Customs and Sales Tax (1993 SCMR 1635)\n•\nMessrs Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, A Karachi (1991 SCMR 2485)\n•\nMessrs E.F.U. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan (1997 PTD 1693)\n•\nCentral Insurance Co. and others v. Central Board of Revenue (1993 PTD 766)\nThe ruling emphasizes that insurance companies should be taxed under the specific provisions of the Fourth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and that the application of general business provisions like Section 67 would be inappropriate.\n(b) Administration of Justice - Non-Compliance with Prescribed Procedure:\nIn legal proceedings, when something is required to be done in a particular manner, it must be done exactly as prescribed. A deviation from the prescribed procedure can vitiate the entire process, rendering it invalid.\nKey Legal Principle:\n•\nStrict Adherence to Procedure: If a procedure is prescribed by law or regulation for carrying out a particular act or process, that procedure must be followed precisely. Any failure or deviation from the prescribed manner will result in the invalidation of the proceedings.\n(c) Interpretation of Statutes - Special Statute Ousts General Provisions:\nWhen a special statute provides a detailed or specific procedure for a particular matter, its provisions override any general provisions that might otherwise apply to the same issue. In other words, special statutes take precedence over general ones.\nKey Legal Principle:\n•\nPriority of Special Provisions: If a special statute provides a specific manner or rule for dealing with a particular issue, the general provisions of other laws do not apply. The special statute's provisions must be followed.\nCase Reference:\n•\nFederal Bank for Cooperatives, Islamabad v. Ehsan Muhammad (2004 SCMR 130)\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Section 214 – Binding Nature of FBR Instructions:\nSection 214 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 deals with the instructions issued by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). These instructions are legally binding on tax authorities.\nKey Legal Principle:\n•\nBinding Instructions of FBR: The instructions issued by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) are mandatory for tax authorities to follow. Tax authorities must comply with these instructions in the execution of their duties, as they hold legal force.\nConclusion:\n•\nInsurance Business Taxation: The taxation of insurance companies is governed by the special provisions under the Fourth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and cannot be treated the same as other businesses.\n•\nProcedure in Legal Proceedings: Adherence to prescribed procedures in legal processes is crucial, and any deviation from such procedures can invalidate the proceedings.\n•\nSpecial Statutes Prevail: When a special statute provides specific rules, they supersede general provisions in conflict with them.\n•\nFBR Instructions are Binding: The Federal Board of Revenue's instructions must be followed by tax authorities as they have binding authority.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=3,67,99,100,214,100A,5,6,6A,8,9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,26 Income Tax Rules, 2002=13 Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(7) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. As. Nos. 158 to 160 of 2010, decision dated: 6-06-2011, hearing DATE : 15-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi for Appellant. Sirajul Haq Memon and Arshad Siraj Memon for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER (LEGAL) INLAND REVENUE\nVs.\nMessrs EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "65", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtBPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 56 = 2011 SLD 56 = (2011) 104 TAX 275 = 2011 PTD 2148 = 2012 PTCL 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtBPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Taxability of Capital Gains from the Sale of Modaraba Certificates Prior to 30-6-1992\nRelevant Laws and Sections:\n1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979:\no\nSection 2(12): Defines company, which includes any body corporate such as a Modaraba.\no\nSection 2(16)(cc) [Inserted by Finance Act VII of 1992]: Clarifies that Modarabas are to be considered companies for tax purposes. This provision resolves ambiguity regarding the status of Modarabas.\no\nSecond Schedule, Clause 116: Exempts income from the sale of Modaraba certificates from tax, recognizing it as income from a company.\n2.\nModaraba Companies and Modarabas (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980:\no\nSections 14, 15, and 36: These sections govern the operation and structure of Modaraba companies, establishing their legal status as corporate entities, thus falling under the definition of company in the Income Tax Ordinance.\n3.\nInterpretation:\no\nThe modaraba, being a body corporate, is treated as a company under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, even before the amendment in Section 2(16)(cc) by the Finance Act of 1992.\no\nThe capital gains from the sale of Modaraba certificates, which fall under Clause 116 of the Second Schedule, are exempt from income tax.\nPrinciple:\n•\nThe beneficial amendment made through Section 2(16)(cc) of the Income Tax Ordinance in 1992 is retrospective, meaning Modarabas should be treated as companies even before this amendment. This ensures that Modaraba certificates, when sold, enjoy the tax exemption provided under Clause 116 of the Second Schedule.\nKey Case Law:\n•\nCentral Insurance Co. and others v. Central Board of Revenue (1993 SCMR 1232) – This case underlines the concept of tax exemptions available for specific types of income, including capital gains on Modaraba certificates.\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospective Effect of Beneficial Provisions\nRelevant Law:\n•\nPrinciple of Retrospective Effect: The principle of law states that beneficial provisions of the law, which favor taxpayers or correct previous errors, generally have retrospective effect unless the statute explicitly states that it should be applied prospectively.\nPrinciple:\n•\nRetrospective Effect: Provisions that are beneficial to taxpayers, such as those clarifying a status or providing exemptions, will typically apply to situations that occurred before the provision was enacted.\nKey Case Law:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Shahnawaz Ltd. and others (1993 SCMR 73): In this case, it was established that provisions intended to remedy past errors or provide benefits, such as tax exemptions or clarifications, are typically treated as retrospective.\n(c) Interpretation of Statutes - Remedial and Curative Statutes Are Retrospective\nRelevant Law:\n•\nPrinciple of Remedial and Curative Statutes: A remedial statute or a curative statute, which aims to correct past mistakes or fill gaps in the law, is often treated as retrospective. These statutes correct defects in earlier laws and apply to actions or transactions that took place before the new statute was enacted.\nPrinciple:\n•\nRetrospective Application of Remedial Statutes: A remedial statute that provides a remedy or relief for situations that existed before its enactment is typically given retrospective effect to ensure that the correction applies to past conduct.\nKey Case Law:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Shahnawaz Ltd. and others (1993 SCMR 73): This case affirmed that remedial statutes, which correct past legal anomalies, are usually given retrospective application, benefiting those affected by the previous legal gaps.\n________________________________________\nSummary of Sections and Laws Involved:\n1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979:\no\nSection 2(12): Defines company to include Modarabas.\no\nSection 2(16)(cc): (Inserted by Finance Act VII of 1992) Defines Modaraba as a company for tax purposes.\no\nSecond Schedule, Clause 116: Exempts capital gains from the sale of Modaraba certificates from taxation.\n2.\nModaraba Companies and Modarabas (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980:\no\nSections 14, 15, and 36: Establish Modarabas as bodies corporate, thus qualifying them as companies. \n3.\nInterpretation of Statutes:\no\nRetrospective Effect of Beneficial Provisions – Beneficial amendments, such as the one made in Section 2(16)(cc) of the Income Tax Ordinance in 1992, are applied retrospectively to benefit taxpayers.\no\nRemedial and Curative Statutes Are Retrospective – Statutes designed to correct errors in the law are considered retrospective and apply to actions taken before their enactment.\n________________________________________\nBy applying these legal provisions and principles, it is clear that Modarabas are treated as companies for tax purposes, and the capital gains from the sale of Modaraba certificates are exempt from tax under Clause 116 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The retrospective effect of the amendment in Section 2(16)(cc) (inserted in 1992) ensures that this treatment applies even to transactions that occurred before the amendment.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(12),2(16)(cc),Cl.116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 45 of 1996, decision dated: 13th, June, 2011 hearing DATE : 21st April, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Jawaid Farooqui\nRespondent(s) by: Ms. Lubna Pervez", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nVS\nM/S. B.R.R. INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "66", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtNPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 57 = 2011 SLD 57 = 2011 PTD 2158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtNPQ", + "Key Words:": "The issue in this case revolves around the selection of the taxpayer’s case for audit by the tax authorities. The taxpayer contended that the selection was illegal and void due to the failure to issue a pre-selection notice, a necessary procedure before initiating the audit. The department, however, argued that no pre-selection notice was required and that the taxpayer would have sufficient opportunity to prove their case during the audit proceedings.\n________________________________________\nRelevant Provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\n1.\nSection 177(4) - Audit: This section deals with the power of the tax authorities to conduct audits of taxpayers' returns and accounts. The audit aims to ensure that the taxpayer’s declared income and tax liabilities are correct and in compliance with the law.\n2.\nSection 120 - Assessment: This section defines the assessment procedure, where the tax authorities issue an assessment order on a taxpayer’s return, either accepting or amending the declared figures based on an audit or other information.\n3.\nSection 122(9) - Amendment of Assessment: This section allows the Commissioner to amend an assessment order after conducting an audit or investigation if discrepancies or inaccuracies are found.\n4.\nSections 18, 20, and 22 - Verification of Expenses and Income:\no\nSection 18: Deals with the verification of expenses claimed by the taxpayer.\no\nSection 20: Concerns the verification of income.\no\nSection 22: Addresses other related matters for verifying the income and expenses claimed by the taxpayer in their return.\n________________________________________\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nAudit and Pre-selection Notice: The tax department selected the taxpayer’s case for audit on the grounds that the claims made in the taxpayer’s return (especially regarding manufacturing and profit and loss account expenses) needed examination to verify their verifiability, reasonability, and admissibility under the provisions of Sections 18, 20, and 22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nFailure to Provide Documentary Evidence: Upon the audit, the taxpayer failed to provide the required documentary evidence to support their claims. As a result, the tax authorities amended the assessment and created a tax liability.\n•\nContention of the Taxpayer: The taxpayer contended that the selection of the case for audit was illegal because no pre-selection notice had been issued. The taxpayer argued that issuing such a notice was a pre-requisite before selecting the case for audit.\n•\nDepartment’s Response: The department maintained that for the selection of the case for audit, no pre-selection notice was necessary, as the taxpayer had ample opportunity to prove their case during the audit proceedings. The department also argued that if no discrepancies were found, the taxpayer’s declared version would be accepted.\n________________________________________\nLegal Findings and Conclusion:\n•\nSelection Process: The court ruled that the selection of the case for audit was not in line with the parameters and procedural requirements laid down by the law, as well as the precedent set by the apex court. The pre-selection notice serves an important role in ensuring that the taxpayer is informed about the reasons for the audit selection and is given an opportunity to present any relevant information or documents beforehand.\n•\nViolation of Natural Justice: The non-issuance of the pre-selection notice violated the principle of natural justice, specifically the audi alteram partem rule, which mandates that a person must be given a fair opportunity to be heard before a decision is made. By failing to issue a pre-selection notice, the tax authorities denied the taxpayer an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the audit before the process began.\n•\nAnnulment of Amended Assessment: Since the selection process for the audit was found to be illegal and void ab initio (from the beginning), the amended assessment order issued under Section 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal.\n________________________________________\nKey Case References:\n1.\n2009 SCMR 344 = 2009 PTD 37: This case is cited as it reflects the principles regarding the importance of pre-selection notices and adherence to procedural requirements in audit selection.\n2.\n2010 PTD 395: This case further reinforces the necessity of procedural fairness, including the requirement for pre-selection notices in the audit process.\n3.\nI.T.A No. 618/LB/09: Reference to a tribunal decision that aligns with the ruling in this case, reinforcing the legal importance of issuing pre-selection notices.\n________________________________________\nLegal Principles Established:\n1.\nPre-selection Notice: A pre-selection notice is mandatory before a taxpayer’s case is selected for audit. Failure to issue such a notice violates the natural justice principles and makes the audit selection process illegal and void from the beginning.\n2.\nTaxpayer’s Right to Information: The taxpayer must be informed about the reasons for the selection of their case for audit, and they must be given an opportunity to present their case prior to the audit.\n3.\nAudit Procedure: While the tax authorities have the power to audit, they must follow proper procedural guidelines established by law to ensure fairness in the process. The failure to follow these procedures undermines the entire assessment process.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\nThe tax authorities' failure to issue a pre-selection notice for audit rendered the selection of the taxpayer’s case for audit illegal and void. As a result, the amended assessment made under Section 122(1) was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal, reinforcing the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and natural justice principles in the audit process under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,18,20,22,120,122,120(1)(b),122(1),122(9),177(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 414/LB of 2011, decision dated: 31st May, 2011, hearing DATE : 4-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Riaz Ahmed, ITP", + "Party Name:": "M/S. SHAHSONS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN\nVS\nC.I.R., R.T.O., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "67", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtJPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 58 = 2011 SLD 58 = (2011) 104 TAX 352 = 2011 PTD 2161 = 2012 PTCL 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtJPQ", + "Key Words:": "Issue (a): Burden of Proof for Books of Accounts\n•\nSection 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 addresses the submission and examination of books of accounts by the taxpayer. The core issue here is about the burden of proof when the assessee submits their books of accounts to support their explanations regarding income and expenses.\n•\nBurden of Proof: When a taxpayer submits their books of accounts in support of their income tax return or explanation, the onus of proof shifts to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is then required to examine and controvert (refute) the taxpayer's explanation using specific examples or instances from the books of accounts that would demonstrate the fallacy or inaccuracy of the taxpayer's claims.\n•\nCase Law Reference: The cases cited, including Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krudd Sons Ltd., Pima (Pvt.) Ltd., New Snow White Dry Cleaners, and others, highlight the principle that once the taxpayer has submitted their books, the responsibility falls on the Assessing Officer to challenge the taxpayer’s version based on concrete evidence from those books.\nRelevant Section:\n•\nSection 32 - Burden of Proof: The provision under this section suggests that once books of accounts are provided by the taxpayer to substantiate their income or expenses, the onus of proving the correctness or fallacy of these books lies with the tax authorities. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate any discrepancies or falsities in the accounts.\n________________________________________\nIssue (b): Rejection of Trading Accounts and Reference to High Court\n•\nSection 32(3) & 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 pertains to the rejection of trading accounts submitted by the taxpayer and the ability to refer such rejection to the High Court.\n•\nRejection of Trading Accounts: If the Assessing Officer rejects the trading accounts submitted by the taxpayer, the taxpayer has the right to challenge this decision. The rejection is a matter involving both questions of law and fact. Because the matter involves both legal principles and factual determinations, it is appropriate for the High Court to adjudicate upon it.\n•\nQuestion of Law and Fact: A question concerning the rejection of trading accounts is a mixed question of law and fact because it involves both legal standards (such as the interpretation of tax laws) and factual determinations (such as the accuracy of the books and records presented by the taxpayer). The High Court, therefore, has the authority to examine these issues and provide a ruling.\n•\nCase Law Reference: The case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krudd Sons Ltd. and others is referenced, affirming that the rejection of trading accounts and the subsequent reference to the High Court is valid, as it pertains to a mixed question of law and fact.\nRelevant Sections:\n•\nSection 32(3): Deals with the rejection of trading accounts by the Assessing Officer if the accounts are found to be inaccurate or incomplete.\n•\nSection 136: Provides for the procedure and maintainability of appeals to the High Court in cases involving questions of law and fact.\n________________________________________\nSummary of Principles:\n1.\nBurden of Proof (Section 32):\no\nWhen a taxpayer produces books of accounts to support their tax return, the burden of proof shifts to the Assessing Officer to examine and challenge the taxpayer's claims with specific instances from the books.\no\nThe Assessing Officer cannot reject the accounts merely on suspicion; they must provide evidence from the taxpayer’s records that show discrepancies or inaccuracies.\n2.\nRejection of Trading Accounts (Sections 32(3) & 136):\no\nThe rejection of the taxpayer's trading accounts is a mixed question of law and fact. If the taxpayer wishes to contest this decision, they may file an appeal, and the matter can be referred to the High Court for adjudication.\no\nThis reflects the principle that legal matters involving both facts and law can be examined by the High Court to ensure that decisions comply with both legal standards and factual evidence.\n________________________________________\nKey Case References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Krudd Sons Ltd. (1994 SCMR 229): The case emphasizes that when a taxpayer submits their books of accounts, the onus lies with the Assessing Officer to challenge the validity of those accounts with clear examples of discrepancies.\n•\nPima (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1994 PTD 123) and New Snow White Dry Cleaners (1985 PTD 315): These cases underline the application of Section 32 in terms of burden of proof and how it affects the duty of the Assessing Officer in tax proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,136,32(3) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Cases Nos. 3, 4 and 20 of 1995, decision dated: 26-05-2006, dates of hearing: 13-04-and 11-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Iqbal Salman Pasha", + "Party Name:": "M/S. GHAZI TANNERIES LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "68", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWswPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 59 = 2011 SLD 59 = (2011) 104 TAX 342 = 2011 PTD 2186 = 2012 PTCL 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWswPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Stevedoring Services and Deduction of Tax at Source\n•\nIssue: The issue revolves around whether deduction of tax at source on stevedoring services receipts during the assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-2001 was treated as a full and final discharge of the taxpayer’s tax liability for those years under the provisions of Section 50(4) and Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nInterpretation of Stevedoring Services: At the relevant time, there was no explicit definition of stevedoring services under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Therefore, the ordinary dictionary meaning of stevedoring (which refers to the work of loading and unloading ships) would be applied.\n•\nTaxability of Stevedoring Receipts: The case must be decided based on the law applicable at the time (i.e., the law prevalent during the assessment years in question). As the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not treat the deduction at source for stevedoring receipts as full and final discharge of the taxpayer’s tax liability during those years, the taxpayer could still be subject to tax based on their total income.\n•\nSection 80-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: This provision would not apply to the deductions related to stevedoring services receipts, as they could not be considered as final discharge of the tax liability in the absence of a clear legislative provision to that effect.\n•\nPrinciple: The tax liability should be determined according to the prevailing laws during the relevant years. Since the law did not define stevedoring services, the tax treatment must follow the law as it existed during the years in question, and deduction at source should not be considered a complete discharge of the taxpayer’s liability.\n•\nCase Reference: The case of Premier Mercantile Services v. Commissioner of Income Tax (97 Tax 89) is referenced, where it was held that such deductions could not be treated as full and final discharge.\n________________________________________\n(b) Taxation Case to be Decided According to Law Prevalent at the Time\n•\nPrinciple: The case must be adjudicated according to the tax law as it stood during the relevant time. This principle emphasizes that the legal provisions and interpretations at the time of the assessment are binding, rather than any subsequent changes in the law.\n•\nCase Implication: The relevant tax law, interpretation, and application of tax provisions for each assessment year must be followed. Thus, if a law was amended after the assessment years in question, such amendments would not apply retroactively unless explicitly stated.\n________________________________________\n(c) Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes and Powers of the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.)\n•\nIssue: The scope of the powers of the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) under fiscal statutes is limited. The C.B.R. cannot interpret or redefine provisions of the fiscal laws; their role is limited to enforcing the law as written.\n•\nInterpretation of Fiscal Laws: Fiscal statutes, like the Income Tax Ordinance, are interpreted according to their clear, written provisions. The C.B.R. does not have the authority to re-interpret or modify the legal provisions; their function is primarily administrative and enforcement-based.\n•\nCase Reference: The case of Central Assurance (68 Taxation 86) is cited to support the principle that the C.B.R. cannot interpret fiscal laws or modify their scope beyond what is legislatively prescribed.\n________________________________________\nSummary of Principles:\n1.\nStevedoring Services Taxability:\no\nFor assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-2001, deduction of tax at source on stevedoring receipts cannot be considered as full and final discharge of tax liability, as no such provision existed in the law at that time.\no\nThe law during the relevant time did not provide a final discharge for such deductions, and the application of Section 80-C did not apply to these receipts.\n2.\nTaxation and Law at Relevant Time:\no\nTax cases must be decided based on the law in effect during the assessment years in question. Later amendments or changes in the law do not have a retrospective effect unless explicitly stated.\n3.\nC.B.R.’s Powers:\no\nThe Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) has no power to interpret or redefine provisions of fiscal law. Its role is to enforce the law as it is written, not to provide new interpretations of legal provisions.\n________________________________________\nKey Case References:\n•\nPremier Mercantile Services v. Commissioner of Income Tax (97 Tax 89): This case highlights the non-application of full and final discharge in the case of tax deductions at source for stevedoring receipts.\n•\nCentral Assurance (68 Taxation 86): This case emphasizes that the C.B.R. cannot interpret or modify fiscal law; it is restricted to its administrative role.\nRelevant Legal Sections:\n•\nSection 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Deals with deductions at source and tax liability.\n•\nSection 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Discusses deductions and exemptions related to income.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,80,50(4),80(C) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Cs. Nos.132, 154 to 156, 181 of 2002 and 124 to127 of 2003, decision dated: 28-03-2011, hearing DATE : 10-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Javed Farooqui (in I.T.Cs. Nos.132, 154 to 156, 181 of 2002 and 124 to 127 of 2003)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND OTHERS\nVS\nM/S. BADRUDDIN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "69", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt3PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 60 = 2011 SLD 60 = (2011) 103 TAX 289 = 2011 PTD 845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt3PQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 57A & 2(1A) - Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Sections 284 & 287\n•\nIssue: This case involves the setting off of business losses consequent to the amalgamation of companies, particularly those involved in industrial undertakings.\n•\nFacts: The Assessing Officer had observed that due to the insertion of the words or company owning and managing industrial undertaking through the Finance Act, 2005, the benefit of setting off business losses from amalgamating companies against the income of the amalgamated company could not be availed before 1st July 2005. This restriction stemmed from the fact that only banking companies, non-banking financial institutions, or insurance companies could avail of the benefit of amalgamation before that date.\n•\nLegal Provisions:\no\nSection 57A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: It prohibits the adjustment of losses brought forward from amalgamating companies against the income of the amalgamated company.\no\nSections 284 & 287 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984: These sections deal with the approval of the scheme of amalgamation by the High Court, and the merger of companies.\n•\nAppellate Findings: The First Appellate Authority held that the High Court’s approval of the scheme of amalgamation did not nullify the provisions of Section 57A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The amalgamated company could not adjust the brought forward losses of the amalgamating companies, as the benefit was not available prior to 1st July 2005.\n•\nConclusion: The decision of the High Court did not override the legal provisions of Section 57A. The Taxation Officer’s rejection of the claim for loss adjustment was upheld.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 67, 120(1), & 122(5A)/122(4) - Income Tax Rules, 2002, Rule 13\n•\nIssue: The case revolves around the apportionment of expenses related to dividend income and the sale of shares under the presumptive tax regime, and the validity of apportionment under Section 67 and Rule 13.\n•\nFacts: The taxpayer argued that the expenses related to share dealings and dividend income should not be fully apportioned to business activities. The Assessing Officer had applied Rule 13(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 to allocate the expenses but did so without properly considering Section 67, which requires expenses to be apportioned on a reasonable basis, considering the nature and size of the activities.\n•\nLegal Provisions:\no\nSection 67 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Requires that apportionment of expenses be done based on a reasonable basis, considering the relative nature and size of the activities involved.\no\nRule 13 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002: Provides a formula for apportioning expenses between business income and income not subject to tax, such as dividend income.\n•\nAppellate Findings: The First Appellate Authority found that the Assessing Officer did not consider the reasonable basis required by Section 67 or address the content of the certificate provided by the Chartered Accountant. The case was remanded for reconsideration, emphasizing a detailed review of apportionment based on the taxpayer's activities.\n•\nConclusion: The case was remanded to the Taxation Officer for proper evaluation, as the existing apportionment lacked adequate justification under the relevant provisions.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 113 - Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 80D\n•\nIssue: The case deals with the calculation of minimum tax on the aggregate turnover, including sales assessable under both the Presumptive Tax Regime and normal law.\n•\nFacts: The Appellate Tribunal determined that the minimum tax under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, should be charged based on the combined turnover from all sources, including both the sales subject to normal tax and those under the Presumptive Tax Regime.\n•\nLegal Provisions:\no\nSection 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Specifies the imposition of minimum tax on the aggregate turnover of businesses.\no\nSection 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979): Deals with the taxation of persons involved in business or profession.\n•\nAppellate Findings: The Tribunal held that the tax should be computed on the combined turnover, which includes both normal law and presumptive sales, ensuring that no business is unfairly taxed based on its sales under the presumptive regime.\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal’s decision to include both types of sales for the calculation of minimum tax was valid and in accordance with the law.\n________________________________________\nKey Differences Between Paragraphs:\n1.\nIssue Focus:\no\n(a) Deals with the tax treatment of losses from amalgamated companies, specifically industrial undertakings.\no\n(b) Focuses on the apportionment of expenses related to dividend income and share dealings under the presumptive tax regime.\no\n(c) Addresses the calculation of minimum tax based on the combined turnover of a business, including both presumptive and normal law sales.\n2.\nLegal Provisions Involved:\no\n(a) Sections 57A of the Income Tax Ordinance and 284 & 287 of the Companies Ordinance.\no\n(b) Sections 67, 120(1), 122(5A)/122(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance and Rule 13 of the Income Tax Rules.\no\n(c) Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) and Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979).\n3.\nOutcomes:\no\n(a) The claim for setting off losses was rejected, and the order of the First Appellate Authority was vacated.\no\n(b) The case was remanded to the Taxation Officer for proper apportionment of expenses.\no\n(c) The Tribunal upheld the calculation of minimum tax on combined turnover.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=57,2,67,113,120,122,120(1),122(4),122(5A),2(1)(a),57(A) Income Tax Rules, 2002=13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 406/LB to 408/LB, 481/LB to 483/LB of 2009, decision dated: 1st February, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Syed Zulqarnain Tirmizi, D.R.s (in I.T.As. Nos.406/LB to 408/LB of 2009)", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., LEGAL DIVISION, LTU, LAHORE\nVS\nM/S. DAWOOD LAWRANCEPUR LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "70", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBVPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 61 = 2011 SLD 61 = (2011) 104 TAX 58 = 2011 PTD 876", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBVPQ", + "Key Words:": "The issue concerns the audit and amendment of an assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the legal validity of the proceedings related to the taxpayer’s income from the construction and sale of buildings. The case involves the review of an assessment made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), which was later upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\n________________________________________\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee, engaged in the business of construction and sale of buildings, filed a return for the relevant tax year.\n•\nThe case was selected for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. During the audit, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) decided to enquire into the assessee's income, leading to an amendment of the assessment under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nThe assessee, however, failed to produce any relevant evidence, such as bank statements and sale deeds of the properties sold, during the audit process.\n•\nAs a result, the ITO had no other option but to conduct an enquiry into the assessee's income using alternative means.\n•\nThe statements of two persons who had purchased offices from the assessee were recorded, and they produced sale agreements.\n•\nThe amendment made by the ITO was later upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\n________________________________________\nLegal Provisions:\n•\nSection 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Provides the power for the amendment of an assessment when any income or loss is understated or wrongly calculated.\n•\nSection 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Deals with the power of the Income Tax Officer to enforce the production of documents and information to verify the correctness of an assessee's return.\n•\nSection 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Relates to the audit of the taxpayer’s accounts, enabling the ITO to examine and verify the details provided in the return.\n________________________________________\nAppellate Tribunal Findings:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the amendment made by the ITO, stating that due to the assessee’s failure to provide sufficient evidence during the audit, the ITO was justified in using alternative methods to verify the income.\n•\nThe tribunal also noted that statements from the purchasers and sale agreements served as sufficient evidence to substantiate the assessment.\n________________________________________\nHigh Court Reference:\n•\nThe assessee filed a reference application before the High Court, contending that the Tribunal’s decision was flawed.\n•\nThe High Court observed that no legal lacuna or infirmity had been pointed out in the case.\n•\nThe factual controversy surrounding the assessment, such as the failure to produce evidence and the findings based on third-party statements, had already been resolved by the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nThe High Court also reiterated that it could not enter into factual controversies when deciding a reference application, as it only deals with legal issues.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nSince there were no legal errors identified, and the factual matters were already adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court ruled that the reference application could not proceed.\n•\nThe order of the Appellate Tribunal was upheld, and the case was not entertained by the High Court.\n________________________________________\nKey Legal References:\n•\n1993 SCMR 1108\n•\n1988 PTD 324\n•\n1997 SCMR 1256\nThese references establish the principle that the High Court’s role in a reference application is confined to legal issues, and factual findings made by lower authorities, such as the Appellate Tribunal, are not subject to further review.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,133,177,122(5) ", + "Case #": "T.R. No.1 of 2011, decision dated: 2-02-2011, hearing DATE : 20-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IQBAL HAMEED UR REHMAN, C.J. AND RIAZ AHMED KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idris for Petitioner. Ayaz Shoukat for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AHMED ENTERPRISES, ISLAMABAD\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF TAX (LEGAL) LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "71", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBRPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 169 = 1996 SLD 169 = 1996 SCMR 1433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBRPQ", + "Key Words:": "In the case at hand, the appeal was dismissed after considering several legal principles and the arguments raised by the parties involved. Below is a breakdown of the key legal concepts and reasoning behind the dismissal:\nKey Legal Concepts & Principles:\n1.\nBinding Terms and Conditions: The terms and conditions set forth in the notices issued by the relevant authorities were deemed binding. Failure to comply with these could result in the cessation of rights, obligations, or claims, including in cases of auction or transactions involving goods.\n2.\nCease Notice: A cease notice was issued, implying a directive for discontinuation or halt of a particular activity, such as the withdrawal of a petition or cessation of involvement with a third party.\n3.\nPrima Facie and Invalid: The prima facie evidence presented in the case was deemed insufficient to support the claim. This led to the determination that the claim was invalid under the State policy or broader legislative framework.\n4.\nNatural Justice and Due Process: Issues of natural justice, validity, and procedural fairness were raised, with the court determining that adequate consideration was given to all arguments, particularly in the issuance of notices and enforcement of decisions.\n5.\nDiscretion and Judicial Review: The court reviewed whether there was any unfettered discretion exercised by public functionaries or administrative authorities, including the issuance of notices or orders without proper jurisdiction, which could be illegal or without jurisdiction.\n6.\nConstitutional Jurisdiction: Constitutional petitions and arguments about lack of jurisdiction were key points in the case. The appeal centered on the application of constitutional provisions, grounds for judicial review, and whether the writ jurisdiction was appropriately invoked.\n7.\nPrivate Property and Public Property: The case also discussed the rights over private and public property, the grant of relief, and the administration of public property. Public property was a key consideration, particularly in disputes regarding attachment or disposal.\n8.\nGrievance and Remedies: The grievance was analyzed in light of existing legal rights, including equitable relief and remedies available under law. The procedural fairness in reaching the impugned order was also questioned.\n9.\nAppeal and Leave: The appeal was dismissed, with the court ruling that there were no cogent reasons to challenge the impugned order. Additionally, the court refused to grant leave to appeal, citing that no fundamental legal issue or cause of action warranted further judicial review.\n10.\nPublic Functionary and Right Accrued: The involvement of a public functionary and the assertion of right accrued were important aspects. However, the appeal failed to establish any irregularity in the decisions made by the administrative or judicial authorities.\n11.\nFraud and False Statement: Allegations of fraud or false statements were not substantiated, and no relief could be granted on such grounds.\nFinal Decision:\nThe appeal was dismissed based on the court's findings that:\n•\nThe actions taken by the authorities were within jurisdiction.\n•\nNo violation of natural justice or constitutional rights was evident.\n•\nThe impugned orders were not unlawful or without jurisdiction.\n•\nThe grievance raised was either procedural or lacked legal merit.\nResult:\nThe appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower courts or authorities involved. The petitioner's grounds for appeal were found insufficient to overturn the prior decision.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1247 of 1995, 9-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Gul Zarin Kiani. Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant ,Muhammad Yawar Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Dr. Muhammad Mohy-ud-Din Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 4. Anwar H. Mir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 7.", + "Party Name:": "JAVAID IQBAL ABBASI & COMPANY\nVS\nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 6 OTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "72", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBjPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 62 = 2011 SLD 62 = 2011 PTD 886", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBjPQ", + "Key Words:": "Legal Summary:\nIssue:\nThe issue in the case revolves around the exemption from income tax claimed by State Enterprises Mutual Funds under the status of a Modaraba. The authorities argued that the assessee (Mutual Fund) did not qualify as a Modaraba under Section 8 of the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance, 1980, and thus, was not entitled to the tax exemption.\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nSection 2(29-A): This section defines the term Modaraba for the purposes of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nSecond Schedule, Clause 105: Provides for exemptions and special provisions for certain entities under the Income Tax Ordinance.\nModaraba Companies and Modaraba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance (XXXI of 1980)\nSection 2(i)(a): Provides the definition of Modaraba in the context of the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba Ordinance, 1980.\nSection 8: Prescribes the formalities required for an entity to qualify as a Modaraba under this Ordinance.\nLegal Reasoning:\nHarmonious Construction of Statutory Provisions:\nThe court held that the words used in the statute should be construed harmoniously to give meaning to all words included. This principle ensures that no provision is rendered meaningless.\nThe definition of Modaraba under Section 2(i)(a) of the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba Ordinance (1980) was adopted by reference in Section 2(29-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nApplicability of Modaraba Status for Taxation:\nThe definition of Modaraba in the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance, 1980, is adopted into the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. This means that for tax purposes, Unit Trusts and Mutual Funds, regardless of the name used, would be treated as Modarabas.\nThe court emphasized that once the definition of Modaraba was adopted through Section 2(29-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the formalities required under Section 8 of the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba Ordinance, 1980 for qualifying as a Modaraba were not necessary for the purpose of tax treatment. Thus, the State Enterprises Mutual Funds were eligible for the tax exemptions applicable to Modarabas.\nAdopted Provisions as Part of the Adopting Statute:\nThe court held that adopted provisions from one statute become an integral part of the adopting statute. In this case, the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 adopted the provisions regarding Modarabas from the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance, 1980. Therefore, once the definition of Modaraba was adopted, the mutual funds, though not formally registered as Modarabas under the latter Ordinance, were still entitled to the same tax treatment as Modarabas.\nJudicial Precedents Referenced:\nCIT v. Narsee Nagsee and Co. (1957) 31 ITR 164 Bom.\nCIT v. V.R.M. Amin (1971) 82 ITR 94 (GUJ)\nRamchandra Mardraj Deo v. Collector (1957) 31 ITR 651\nCIT v. Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. PLD 1981 SC 293\nBeecham Pakistan v. CI 1995 PTD 577\nCIT v. Zafa Pharmaceuticals 2002 PTD 117\nThese cases were referenced to establish the principle of statutory interpretation and the harmonious construction of provisions to give effect to the legislative intent.\nPrinciples of Statutory Interpretation:\nHarmonious Construction:\nThe interpretation of the statute must ensure that all words are given meaning. No provision should be rendered redundant or meaningless.\nAdopted Provisions Becoming Part of the Adopting Statute:\nWhen one statute adopts the provisions of another, those provisions become part of the adopting statute. In this case, the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 adopted the definition of Modaraba from the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance, 1980 for tax purposes.\nConclusion:\nState Enterprises Mutual Funds were entitled to the same tax treatment as Modarabas, even if they did not fulfill all the formalities prescribed under the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance, 1980. The adoption of the definition of Modaraba in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was sufficient to extend the tax exemptions to these mutual funds.\nThe plea of the authority that the assessee did not qualify as a Modaraba under the Modaraba Ordinance was rejected.\nThe appeal was decided in favor of the assessee, confirming their eligibility for the income tax exemption under the status of a Modaraba.\nKey Legal References:\nCrawford, The Constitution of Statutes - Referencing principles of statutory interpretation and the importance of adopting provisions in law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,SecondSched,2(29A),Cl.105 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 656 to 754 of 2000 and 1040 to 1045 of 1999, decision dated: 7-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Jawaid Farooqui and Muhammad Farid\nPetitioner(s) by: Sirajul Haque Memon and Arshad Siraj", + "Party Name:": "VS.\nPROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "73", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBZPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 63 = 2011 SLD 63 = (2011) 103 TAX 321 = 2011 PTD 893", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBZPQ", + "Key Words:": "Issue: The central issue in this case involves the Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) demand raised on the basis of the net profit as per the accounts, which was higher than the income declared in the tax return. The Taxation Officer passed an order under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 based on the net profit as per accounts. The First Appellate Authority disagreed, ruling that the WWF was chargeable on total income as assessable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, rather than the accounting profit (before taxation).\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nWorkers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 (XXXVI of 1971)\nSection 2(i): Defines the terms related to the Workers' Welfare Fund, including the assessment base for calculating the Fund's contribution.\nSection 4: Imposes the obligation for industrial establishments to contribute to the Workers' Welfare Fund based on their income, as assessed under the relevant taxation ordinance.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001)\nSection 221(2): This section provides the powers of the Taxation Officer to assess and raise demands under various circumstances, including the calculation of the WWF contribution.\nCircular No. 13 of 2008, Dated 23-10-2008:\nThis circular clarifies the basis for determining the total income for the purposes of the Workers' Welfare Fund.\nFinance Act, 2006 & Finance Act, 2008:\nThese amendments dealt with the definition of total income and the provisions of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, particularly related to the income assessable under the Income Tax Ordinance.\nLegal Reasoning:\nInterpretation of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971:\nSection 4(i) of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 required an industrial establishment to pay 2% of its total income as assessable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. This phrase total income as assessable under the Ordinance was key to the case. The Taxation Officer raised the WWF demand based on the net profit as per accounts, which led to a dispute about whether the total income should be determined before or after taxation.\nAmendment and Omission of Words:\nFinance Act, 2008 omitted the phrase “of so much of its total income as is assessable under the Ordinance” from Section 4(i). However, this omission was not retrospective, meaning it did not apply to earlier assessments.\nAt the time of the assessment, Section 4(i) of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 still included the words referring to total income as assessable under the Ordinance, which clinched the issue in favor of the taxpayer.\nFirst Appellate Authority's Decision:\nThe First Appellate Authority held that the WWF should be charged on total income as assessable under the Income Tax Ordinance, rather than the accounting profit (before taxation). Therefore, the Taxation Officer's order was incorrect.\nLegal Infirmity in the Taxation Officer's Order:\nThe demand raised by the Taxation Officer suffered from a legal infirmity because it was based on net profit rather than the total income as defined under the Income Tax Ordinance and the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971.\nThe First Appellate Authority was correct in deleting the WWF demand raised by the Taxation Officer and in confirming the taxpayer's position.\nDepartment's Appeal:\nThe Department's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal as it was found to be without merit, upholding the First Appellate Authority’s decision.\nJudicial Precedents Referenced:\n2002 PTD 14\n2009 PTD (Trib.) 738\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 1379\n2008 PTD 1988\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 3226\n2005 PTD 259 (H.C. Kar.)\n(2010) PTD 755 (H.C. Kar.)\n1996 SCMR 1470\n1993 SCMR 474 = 1993 PTD 69\nThese cases were referenced to establish the correct interpretation of the statutory provisions and the basis for calculating the Workers' Welfare Fund contribution.\nKey Points from the Case:\nTaxable Income Under the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance:\nThe WWF contribution is based on the total income assessable under the Income Tax Ordinance, not on accounting profit (before taxation).\nLegal Interpretation of Statutes:\nThe phrase total income as assessable under the Ordinance in Section 4 of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 clinched the issue in favor of the taxpayer.\nEffect of Amendments:\nThe Finance Act, 2008 omitted certain provisions, but these changes did not apply retrospectively, so they did not affect earlier assessments.\nRole of the Appellate Authorities:\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly ruled that the WWF should be charged based on the income assessable under the Income Tax Ordinance, and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal.\nConclusion:\nThe Workers' Welfare Fund demand raised by the Taxation Officer was invalid, as it was based on the net profit rather than the total income as assessable under the Income Tax Ordinance. The First Appellate Authority's decision to delete the demand was correct, and the Department's appeal was dismissed. The WWF contribution should be calculated based on total income assessable under the relevant taxation laws, as interpreted by the authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,221(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 184/IB of 2009, decision dated: 10-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Tahir Muhammad Khan D.R. Respondent(s) by: M. Rashid Qureshi, FCA", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T. (LEGAL DIVISION) L.T.U., ISLAMABAD\nVS\nM/S. FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "74", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBFPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 64 = 2011 SLD 64 = (2011) 103 TAX 404 = 2011 PTD 901", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBFPQ", + "Key Words:": "Issue: The case revolves around multiple issues regarding deductions, rectification of mistakes, and disallowances under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. These include issues related to the rectification of a mistake, the disallowance of expenses, and the deductibility of certain payments such as gratuity, personal use of vehicles, and donations.\nKey Legal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001)\nSection 221: Deals with rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the record.\nSection 122(5): Concerns the powers of the taxation officer regarding the amendment of assessments.\nSection 62: Pertains to the rectification of mistakes in tax assessments.\nSection 21: Relates to the disallowance of deductions, particularly for expenses not wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes.\nSection 148: Relates to tax collected or deducted as a final tax.\nSection 169: Deals with tax deductions at source, particularly in relation to export transactions.\nSection 2(36): Defines donation and the conditions for deductibility of donations.\nIncome Tax Rules, 2002\nRule 6-C: Provides guidelines on the deductions for expenses related to vehicles used for both business and personal purposes.\nCircular No. 14 of 1993, Dated 19-08-1993:\nDeals with tax issues regarding export and local business transactions, particularly the proration of expenses.\nLegal Issues and Analysis:\n(a) Rectification of Mistake:\nIssue: The First Appellate Authority had rejected an appeal but allowed rectification based on the contention that the vires of Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, concerning the assessment year 2002-2003, had not been adjudicated. The Department argued that the appeal had already been decided after proper application of mind and that the scope of rectification was limited.\nLegal Principles:\nIf a mistake of law has been made in applying a statute contrary to a competent court's rulings, it qualifies as a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which can be rectified under Section 221.\nThe Appellate Tribunal confirmed that the rectification was valid, as the First Appellate Authority had initially erred in applying the law in a manner inconsistent with high court rulings, and thus, it could be corrected.\nOutcome: The Department’s appeal was dismissed, and the rectification order was upheld.\n(b) Disallowance of Deductions for Expenses:\nIssue: The Department disallowed certain expenses due to a lack of documentary evidence, as the taxpayer was operating in an undocumented economy where proper vouchers were not issued. The First Appellate Authority deleted the disallowance, and the Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision.\nLegal Principles:\nThe Taxation Officer is within their rights to disallow expenses if they are not properly documented. However, in an undocumented economy, especially with small-scale or petty business concerns, it is not always feasible to obtain proper vouchers.\nThe Appellate Tribunal agreed with the taxpayer’s position, noting that the company had internal controls in place, which minimized the risk of fraudulent or bogus claims.\nThe taxpayer’s claim of internal controls in a public limited company with operations spread over several locations was deemed reasonable.\nOutcome: The disallowance of the expenses was deleted by the First Appellate Authority and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\n(c) Export Rebates and Proration of Expenses:\nIssue: The taxpayer argued that compensatory rebates on exports should be included in the export proceeds, which would impact the proration of expenses. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the rebate should not be treated as part of the export proceeds.\nLegal Principles:\nThe compensatory rebate is essentially a refund of taxes that were initially included in the cost of the exported products. This rebate reduces the cost of sales rather than increasing the export proceeds.\nAs per the Appellate Tribunal, the rebate should not be treated as revenue for proration purposes of the expenses.\nOutcome: The Appellate Tribunal directed that the rebate should not be included in export proceeds for expense proration.\n(d) Gratuity Deduction:\nIssue: The Taxation Officer denied the deduction for gratuity payments made to employees, claiming that the payments were made directly to employees rather than to an approved gratuity fund. The taxpayer argued that the payments were made to an approved gratuity fund, which was also approved by the Commissioner.\nLegal Principles:\nGratuity payments made to an approved fund are deductible, but payments made directly to employees without deduction at source would not be allowed as a deduction.\nThe Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the Taxation Officer for further investigation to verify whether the payments were made to the approved fund or directly to employees.\nOutcome: The case was remanded for further investigation, and if the payment was to the approved fund, the deduction would be allowed.\n(e) Personal Use of Vehicles:\nIssue: The taxpayer provided vehicles to employees for both business and personal use. The Taxation Officer disallowed a portion of the vehicle-related expenses due to the personal use of the vehicles.\nLegal Principles:\nExpenses related to vehicles used for both business and personal purposes are subject to disallowance for the portion related to personal use.\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance by the First Appellate Authority.\nOutcome: The disallowance of vehicle-related expenses was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\n(f) Donation Deduction:\nIssue: The taxpayer claimed a donation deduction, but the charitable trust receiving the donation was not approved as a non-profit organization under Section 2(36). The taxpayer did not provide evidence of the approved status of the donee.\nLegal Principles:\nFor a donation to be deductible, it must be made to an approved charitable trust under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nThe First Appellate Authority’s findings regarding the disallowance of the donation were maintained by the Appellate Tribunal due to lack of evidence.\nOutcome: The donation was disallowed, and the decision was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\nConclusion:\nRectification of Mistakes: The First Appellate Authority rightly rectified the mistake based on incorrect legal application in the original order. The Department's appeal was dismissed.\nExpense Deductions: The disallowance of certain expenses, including those for undocumented transactions, was found reasonable in the context of the business's operations. However, proper internal controls and documentation were essential for certain claims.\nExport Rebates and Deductions: The compensatory rebate was rightly excluded from export proceeds for the purposes of expense proration.\nGratuity Payments: The case regarding gratuity deductions was remanded for further investigation to determine if payments were made to an approved fund.\nPersonal Use of Vehicles: The disallowance of vehicle-related expenses was upheld due to the personal use of the vehicles.\nDonations: The disallowance of the donation was maintained as the donee was not an approved charitable organization under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=3,20,21,62,122,148,169,221,122(5),2(36),21(c) Income Tax Rules, 2002=6 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 599/LB, 948/LB, 706/LB, 707/LB of 2009, decision dated: 1st February, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Zulqarnain Tirwizi, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.599/LB and 948/LB of 2009).\nJalal Ahsan, F.C.A. for Respondents (ill I.T.As. Nos.599/LB and 948/LB of 2009).\nJalal Ahsan, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.706/LB and 707/LB of 2009).\nSyed Zulqarnain Tirmizi, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.706/LB and 707/LB of 2009).", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. LEGAL DIVISION, LTU, LAHORE AND OTHERS\nVS\nM/S. SERVICE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, LAHORE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "75", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBBPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 65 = 2000 SLD 65 = 2000 PTD 1288 = (2000) 81 TAX 458", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBBPQ", + "Key Words:": "Key Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nSection 21: This section deals with the liability of individuals regarding property ownership and taxation.\nSection 19: Deals with the status of the taxpayer for taxation purposes (e.g., whether they are treated as a company, individual, etc.).\nSection 136: Concerns the authority of the Assessing Officer to make adjustments or assessments.\nTransfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)\nSection 45: Provides that in the absence of a specific partition or designation of shares in the sale-deed, co-owners will be considered as holding equal shares in the property.\nKey Legal Issues:\n(a) Interpretation of Definite and Ascertainable in Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979:\nIssue: Whether the words definite and ascertainable in Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 should be interpreted as requiring each co-owner’s share to be physically partitionable or identifiable by metes and bounds (i.e., in terms of specific land divisions).\nLegal Principles:\nThe court ruled that the words definite and ascertainable should not be interpreted to mean that each co-owner’s share must be capable of physical division into independent units.\nThe term definite refers to the clarity or certainty of each co-owner’s share, not necessarily its physical separability.\nTherefore, co-owners can still hold definite and ascertainable shares in the property even if those shares are not physically divided, as long as they can be quantified or understood clearly in proportion to the total property value or other agreed terms.\nOutcome: The interpretation of definite and ascertainable does not require physical partitioning, but rather refers to the clarity and ascertainability of the co-owners’ shares.\n(b) Liability in Case of Co-owners:\nIssue: Whether co-owners, in the absence of specific shares being mentioned in the sale-deed of the property, are liable in equal shares, or whether their liability depends on some other agreement.\nLegal Principles:\nIn the absence of specific shares assigned in the sale-deed, Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governs, which provides that co-owners of a property are presumed to hold equal shares unless otherwise specified.\nOutcome: The co-owners in this case are deemed to have equal shares in the property, based on Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.\n(c) Rental Income and Co-ownership:\nIssue: The Assessing Officer had assessed the co-owners under Section 19 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as an Association of Persons (AOP), claiming their shares were not definite and ascertainable, since the sale-deed did not specify their shares. This resulted in the property not being capable of division or partition, leading to the classification of the co-owners as an AOP for tax purposes.\nTaxpayer’s Argument: The co-owners contended that while no specific shares were mentioned in the sale-deed, their shares were still definite and ascertainable under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which presumes equal shares for co-owners in the absence of specific allocations.\nLegal Principles:\nSection 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 requires that co-owners’ shares be definite and ascertainable for them to be taxed as individual owners.\nSection 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ensures that in the absence of specific shares, co-owners are treated as having equal shares.\nThe Appellate Tribunal initially ruled that because the shares were not explicitly mentioned in the sale-deed, the co-owners should be assessed as an AOP. However, the High Court disagreed and ruled that the shares of the co-owners should be considered equal and definite, in line with Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.\nOutcome: The High Court directed that the co-owners should be assessed under Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 based on their equal shares and not as an AOP. The Appellate Tribunal’s decision was set aside.\n(d) Connotation of the Terms Definite and Ascertainable :\nIssue: The meaning of definite and ascertainable as used in legal contexts, specifically under Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nLegal Principles:\nThese terms do not necessarily require physical division or the ability to identify the share by metes and bounds.\n Definite implies certainty or clarity, and ascertainable means that the share is capable of being determined or quantified, even if the physical division is not specified.\nOutcome: The interpretation of definite and ascertainable in this context allows for equal shares to be assigned to co-owners, even if the property is not physically partitioned.\nConclusion:\nThe terms definite and ascertainable under Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 do not require that each co-owner’s share be physically separated or marked by metes and bounds, but rather that the shares are clear, identifiable, and quantifiable.\nIn the case of co-ownership, where the sale-deed does not specify the shares, Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dictates that co-owners hold equal shares unless otherwise agreed.\nThe Assessing Officer's decision to assess the co-owners as an Association of Persons (AOP) was incorrect, as their shares were equal and ascertainable according to the Transfer of Property Act, and thus they should have been assessed under Section 21 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 based on individual shares.\nThe High Court correctly ruled that the co-owners should be treated as having equal shares and be assessed individually under Section 21 rather than as an AOP.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=21,19,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 23 of 1995, decision dated: 24-12-1998, hearing DATE : 12-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Farids Respondent(s) by: Shaikh Hyder", + "Party Name:": "M/S. QASIM ALI AND OTHERS\nVS\nCOMMISSONER OF INCOME TEX ZONE VI KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "76", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBNPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 66 = 2011 SLD 66 = (2011) 103 TAX 358 = 2011 PTD 925", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBNPQ", + "Key Words:": "Key Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922)\nSection 34: This section deals with the reopening of assessments by the Assessing Officer in the event of discovery of new facts or errors in the original assessment. It allows the revenue authorities to reassess an income tax return if new material facts or evidence come to light that were not considered previously.\nKey Legal Issues:\n(a) Reopening of Assessment under Section 34 and Its Effect on the Original Assessment:\nIssue: When the original assessment is quashed due to re-opening under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, what is the effect of that quashment on the original assessment?\nLegal Principles:\nIf an assessment order is quashed due to the re-opening of the assessment, the original assessment order is automatically restored unless the quashment is based on something that invalidates the original assessment.\nThis principle suggests that the original assessment remains valid unless it has been found to be legally flawed in the reopening process.\nOutcome: The original assessment order would be restored automatically after its quashment if no further issues arise from the reopening process.\n(b) Re-Assessment of Income in Different Years as Different Types of Income:\nIssue: Whether income assessed as a capital gain in one year can be reassessed as an adventure in the nature of trade in a subsequent year.\nLegal Principles:\nIf income has been assessed in one year under a particular head (e.g., as capital gains), it cannot be reassessed in another year under a different head (e.g., as an adventure in the nature of trade) without rectifying or cancelling the earlier assessment.\nA single source of income cannot be taxed twice or in different ways in different years unless there is an explicit correction or revision of the original assessment.\nRes judicata does not apply in tax proceedings, meaning the same income cannot be assessed differently in two different years without following the necessary legal steps to amend or cancel the prior assessment.\nOutcome: If income is assessed under a specific head in one year, it cannot be reassessed under a different head in a subsequent year without removing or correcting the prior assessment. The impugned order was set aside for this reason.\n(c) Applicability of Rules of Res Judicata and Estoppel in Tax Proceedings:\nIssue: Whether the rules of res judicata or estoppel apply to income tax proceedings, particularly regarding the re-assessment of income in later years.\nLegal Principles:\nThe rules of res judicata and estoppel do not apply to income tax proceedings in the same way they apply in other legal contexts.\nThe Assessing Officer is not estopped or bound by a decision made in earlier assessments, even if facts remain the same. The officer can revisit an assessment if new facts or evidence are discovered.\nIf income was treated in a certain manner in one year, but it accrues in another year, the Assessing Officer can treat the income differently in that subsequent year.\nOutcome: Res judicata and estoppel do not bar the Assessing Officer from revisiting and reassessing income in future years based on new facts or changed circumstances.\nConclusion:\nEffect of Quashment: When a re-opening order under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act results in the quashment of the original assessment, the original assessment order is automatically restored, unless the reopening is based on invalidating grounds.\nRe-Assessment of Income in Different Years: The same income cannot be assessed differently (e.g., as capital gain in one year and as an adventure in the nature of trade in another) without rectifying or canceling the earlier assessment. The same income cannot be subject to taxation in two different years under different categories.\nApplicability of Res Judicata and Estoppel: In income tax proceedings, the principles of res judicata and estoppel do not prevent the Assessing Officer from revisiting an earlier decision or assessment, especially when new facts or evidence emerge. Thus, income can be treated differently in subsequent years.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No.177 of 1997, decision dated: 13-01-2011, hearing DATE : 2-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE AND MUNIB AKHTER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Farzeen Bhudha Advocate Respondent(s) by: Mr. Jawaid Farooqui Advocate", + "Party Name:": "RAJAB ALI HAMANI, KARACHI\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER INCOME TAX. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "77", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBJPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 67 = 2011 SLD 67 = (2011) 103 TAX 417 = 2011 PTD 936", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBJPQ", + "Key Words:": "Legal Analysis:\nThe provided text discusses various provisions under the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), focusing on the amendment of assessment orders, limitation for amendments, the doctrine of merger, and related tax procedural matters. Here’s an analysis of each section:\n(a) Amendment of Assessment - Overview of the Process:\nConcept and Procedure:\nThe Income Tax Ordinance (2001), especially under Sections 122(5), 121, 115(4), 114, 144(6), and 177, sets out the process and powers available to the Commissioner to amend assessment orders.\nSection 122(1) outlines that an assessment order made under Section 120 or 121 can be amended if certain conditions are met, such as the discovery of income escaping assessment or misclassification of income.\nBest Judgment Assessment (under Section 121) can be made when a taxpayer fails to file the return or statement.\nThe doctrine of best judgment allows the Commissioner to assess based on available material when the taxpayer's return is incomplete or missing.\nThe audit process under Section 177 serves to verify returns filed under Section 114 or 115(4), which is a different procedure from the assessment. Routine audits are not required in all cases, only when selected by the Commissioner.\nSection 122(5A) allows amendments when an assessment order is deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.\nLimitation for Amendments:\nSection 122(4) explains the limitation for amendments. If an assessment order has been amended, further amendments can only be made within five years from the end of the financial year in which the Commissioner issued or treated the assessment order as issued.\nIf the five-year limitation period has expired, an amendment can still be made within one year from the end of the financial year in which the last amendment was made (per Section 122(4)(b)).\n(b) Doctrine of Merger and Its Application to Amendment:\nDoctrine of Merger:\nThis doctrine is critical when analyzing whether changes in an original assessment order can lead to further amendments.\nThe doctrine of merger suggests that once a decision (or order) from a higher authority or a revised assessment is made, the earlier decision merges into the new one and loses its standalone existence.\nThis principle is also applicable in the context of amendments of assessment orders under Section 122, especially when parts of the original order are amended and no longer remain in force as separate decisions.\nEffect of Amendment:\nUpon amendment, the amended part of the original order disappears, and is effectively replaced by the new amended order. Thus, the original assessment order is merged into the revised version.\n(c) & (d) Change of Opinion and Invalidity of Further Amendments:\nChange of Opinion:\nIf a part of an assessment order has already been addressed and merged into an amended order, the re-examination of the same matter in further amendments constitutes a change of opinion.\nA Taxation Officer cannot revisit a matter (such as the commercial status of a taxpayer) unless new facts or evidence are discovered. A mere change of opinion on the part of the officer is not sufficient for a valid second amendment.\nApplication of the Doctrine of Merger:\nIn cases where the original assessment order and the first amended assessment order have merged, any subsequent amendments that attempt to address matters already settled in the merged order are invalid.\nFor example, if a taxpayer’s manufacturer status has already been settled in the first amendment, re-examining the status without new evidence or facts constitutes a change of opinion, and the second amendment would not be valid.\n(e) Functus Officio Doctrine and Its Impact on Tax Proceedings:\nFunctus Officio Doctrine:\nThe functus officio doctrine limits the ability of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority to alter or amend a determination after it has been issued. Once an order is signed and finalized, the authority is considered to have completed its task and cannot revisit or change its decision unless specifically allowed by law.\nThis principle ensures finality in decision-making and prevents a re-opening of concluded matters.\n(f) Review of Taxation Orders:\nA review of a taxation order can only be conducted if explicitly allowed by the Income Tax Ordinance (2001). The Commissioner cannot engage in a review unless a provision in the law permits it.\n(g) Amendment of Assessment - Further Clarifications:\nFurther Amendment:\nSection 122 allows for the amendment of assessment orders, and the doctrine of merger applies to ensure that amendments cannot be made indefinitely unless new material or evidence is found.\nAfter a first amendment, the original assessment order essentially merges into the amended order, and further attempts to amend areas already covered would likely be invalid unless there is significant new information.\n(h) Limitation for Further Amendment:\nThe one-year limitation for further amendments after the first amendment of the original assessment order ensures that unnecessary delays are avoided in tax proceedings. However, the five-year limitation for the initial amendment of the original order provides a longer window for adjustments based on new information.\n(i) Rectification of Mistakes and Its Effect:\nUnder Section 221, the rectification of mistakes allows for the correction of errors in the assessment order. However, the rectification process does not allow for a re-investigation of the case facts and is limited to correcting obvious errors in calculation or procedure, not substantive issues.\n(j) Non-Compliance with Notice Requirement:\nA notice under Section 115(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) is directory, meaning that failure to issue it does not invalidate the tax proceedings. The tax authorities can still proceed with the amendment under Section 122, but it may affect the taxpayer's right to contest the decision.\nConclusion:\nThe provisions discussed relate to the amendment of tax assessments, with a focus on the merger of original and amended orders, the limitations on amendments, and the procedures for handling change of opinion. The key takeaways include:\nAmendments can be made to the original assessment order if certain conditions (e.g., income escaping assessment) are met.\nThe doctrine of merger applies, meaning once an assessment is amended, the original order merges with the new one, and re-examining already settled matters amounts to change of opinion.\nRectifications and further amendments are limited by specific time frames, and the doctrine of functus officio ensures that determinations made by tax authorities are generally final unless specific legal grounds for review or amendment are provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,115,120,121,122,144,177,115(4),115(5),115(6),120(3),122(5),144(6) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 963/LB to 965/LB of 2009, decision dated: 21st December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Malik Muhammad Akram and Nasir Jamil, ACA,\nRespondent(s) by: Ahmad Shuja Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/S. RAFI ELECTRONICS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVS\nC.I.T., R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "78", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAwPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 68 = 2011 SLD 68 = (2011) 103 TAX 367 = 2011 PTD 1039", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAwPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Rectification of Mistakes and Carry Forward of Business Losses:\nRectification Under Section 221: Mistakes of fact and law, such as incorrect carry forward of business losses or incorrect tax rates, can be rectified under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Even if assessments were finalized under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, these errors could be corrected under the provisions of the 2001 Ordinance, provided the transactions had not become past and closed.\nMistakes in Assessment Orders: It was held that mistakes related to the carry forward of business losses and the application of the wrong tax rate could be rectified, especially if these errors resulted in a loss to the revenue.\nRectification of Mistakes: The tax rate applied to commercial imports was incorrect in a previous case and the rectification included using the correct valuation of imports under Section 50(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, rather than applying the sale proceeds.\n(b) Controversial Issues and Rectification:\nLimitations of Rectification: Controversial issues involving debate or differing interpretations do not fall under rectification, as they require more detailed adjudication. Rectification is only meant to correct obvious mistakes of law or fact.\n(c) Mistakes of Law:\nMistakes of Law: Once a competent court resolves a legal issue with an authoritative interpretation, any misapplication of that law in assessments constitutes a mistake of law. This can be rectified in the assessment proceedings to align with the court's interpretation.\n(d) Rectification of Assessments Under Previous Laws:\nContinuity of Rectification Under New Ordinance: Mistakes of law or fact from assessments finalized under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, can still be rectified under the new Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as long as those transactions were not closed at the time the new ordinance was promulgated.\n(e) Carry Forward of Business Losses (Interest and Exchange Gain):\nInterest Income and Losses: Interest income and exchange gains are not part of business income and cannot be set off against business losses. This distinction is important when calculating taxable income.\n(f) Unadjusted Depreciation Allowance:\nUnadjusted Depreciation: Unused depreciation allowances from previous years can be carried forward and treated as an admissible expense under Section 57(4), to be adjusted against income from any source as per Section 56(1).\n(g) Interest Income and Deductions:\nDeductions for Interest Income: Expenses incurred to earn interest income are deductible from the interest income, as long as the expenses are directly related to generating that income.\n(h) Exchange Gain as Business Income:\nExchange Gain as Business Income: Exchange gains arising from business transactions (like foreign currency transactions) are treated as part of business income, and thus can be set off against prior business losses.\n(i) Apportionment of Deductions:\nProration of Expenses: Expenses related to both taxable income under normal law and under the presumptive tax regime should be prorated, with care taken to distinguish between expenses that are entirely attributable to one type of income or the other.\n(j) Disallowance of Certain Deductions:\nSales Promotion, Entertainment, Fines, and Penalties: Disallowance of these expenses should be done with proper identification of unverifiable elements. The Taxation Officer must review detailed explanations and evidence provided by the taxpayer, not just use stock phrases.\n(k) Initial Allowance and Donations:\nAdd-back for Entertainment Expenses: When calculating expenses for initial allowances or donations, the Taxation Officer must ensure that there is a valid basis for disallowance or add-back. The Appellate Tribunal has ruled that stock phrases for disallowance are not acceptable without proper identification of unverifiable elements.\nIn summary, the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provides provisions for rectifying errors in assessments, especially when there are mistakes in fact or law. It emphasizes the need for careful application of tax rates, proper carry-forward of losses, and due process in determining deductions and allowances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,23,56,57,67,156,221,156(4),21(g),56(1),57(4) Income Tax Rules, 2002=13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=35,50,62,80,50(5A),80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.578/IB of 2010, 425/IB to 427/IB of 2010, M.A.(AG) No.127/IB of 2010 decided on 3rd January, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Tahir Razzaq, F.C.A. (I.T.A. No. 578/IB/2010)\nRespondent(s) by: Sardar Zafar Iqbal D.R. (I.T.A. No. 578/IB/2010).", + "Party Name:": "SIGMA MOTORS (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nVS\nTAXATION OFFICER (AUDIT V), LTU, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "79", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB3PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 69 = 2011 SLD 69 = (2011) 104 TAX 25 = 2011 PTD 1122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB3PQ", + "Key Words:": "The case involves the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), particularly Section 177, and its relationship with constitutional provisions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan concerning the selection of a case for audit.\nKey Points:\nLegal Obligation of the Authority:\nSection 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provides the legal framework for the selection of cases for audit. However, before initiating audit proceedings, the Tax Authority is legally required to first determine if the assessee is liable for assessment, filing of a return, and payment of tax.\nThe selection for audit cannot proceed without a decision on whether the assessee is legally obligated to file a return and pay taxes.\nClaim of Immunity:\nThe assessee in this case had made a claim for immunity from the audit proceedings. The Tax Authority had not addressed this claim before initiating the audit.\nConstitutional Petition:\nThe assessee filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, seeking relief against the initiation of audit proceedings without addressing the immunity claim.\nCourt's Direction:\nThe High Court held that the Tax Authority must first decide the assessee's claim of immunity through a speaking order (a reasoned decision).\nThe High Court directed the assessee to submit an application to the Tax Authority, clearly stating the grounds for claiming immunity. The Authority was then required to hear the assessee’s case and issue a speaking order.\nOnly after this decision could the Authority proceed with the audit, if warranted by the circumstances and in accordance with the law.\nConclusion:\nThis case emphasizes the importance of a fair process in tax proceedings. The Tax Authority cannot proceed with an audit unless it has first determined whether the assessee is liable for assessment, return filing, and tax payment. Additionally, if the assessee claims immunity from the audit, that claim must be considered and decided through a reasoned decision before further proceedings are taken. The High Court directed a procedural approach to ensure that the assessee's rights were respected under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=148(7),177 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7119 of 2010, decision dated: 31st March, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Mian Ashiq Hussain\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khans", + "Party Name:": "M/S. BARKAT ALI SALAH UD DIN AHMAD & CO. (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "80", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVVPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 70 = 2011 SLD 70 = (2011) 104 TAX 1 = 2011 PTD 1172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVVPQ", + "Key Words:": "The case involves Sections 111, 122, 127, and 131 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), focusing on additions for unexplained credits and expenses made by the Taxation Officer and the subsequent appeal process.\nKey Points:\nAdditions under Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\nThe Taxation Officer had made additions to the taxpayer's income under Section 111(1)(a) & (d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for unexplained credits and expenses. These additions were challenged, and the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted them.\nSection 111(1) deals with additions for unexplained income or assets, and Section 111(2) restricts these additions to the tax year immediately preceding the year in which the discovery is made.\nJurisdiction of the Taxation Officer:\nThe additions were made in the tax year 2008, but the issue regarding unexplained credits and debits was only confronted with the taxpayer in 2009, which related to the tax year 2009.\nThe Taxation Officer's actions were found to be without jurisdiction because Section 111(2) requires that the discovery of unexplained credits or expenses should occur in the tax year immediately preceding the year of the audit or review. Since the discovery was made in 2009 (a different tax year), the addition for 2008 was invalid, as the provisions of the law were not properly followed.\nLegal Framework:\nThe legislature had restricted additions under Section 111 to the tax year immediately preceding the financial year in which the discovery was made. This means the Taxation Officer cannot make additions arbitrarily in any year; they must adhere to the prescribed limits.\nFinal Ruling:\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the additions made by the Taxation Officer, and the court upheld this decision. Since the additions were made in violation of the legal framework set out in Section 111(2), they were deemed void ab initio (from the beginning) and not sustainable.\nThe court ruled that the Taxation Officer did not follow the correct procedure as outlined in the law, and thus the impugned order of the Commissioner could not be interfered with.\nPrinciple of Administration of Justice:\nThe case highlights the principle that acts, things, and deeds must be done in the manner prescribed by law. If they are not done according to the prescribed procedure, they should not be done at all. This principle underlined the invalidity of the additions made by the Taxation Officer.\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer's additions for unexplained credits and expenses were made in violation of Section 111(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which limits such additions to the immediately preceding tax year of discovery. Since the discovery occurred in a later tax year (2009) rather than the preceding one (2008), the additions were ruled invalid. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), which deleted the additions, was upheld by the court. The case emphasizes the importance of adhering to the procedural rules and limits set out by the legislature in tax matters.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,122,127,131,111(1)(a),111(2),111(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 345/KB of 2010, decision dated: 16-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Gohar Ali, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Amir Yasir", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. LEGAL DIVISION, RTO, KARACHI\nVS\nM/S. JIN TECHNOLOGIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "81", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVRPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 71 = 2011 SLD 71 = 2011 PTD 1175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVRPQ", + "Key Words:": "This case involves the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), specifically Sections 12, 122(5-A), 124, 153, and 170, along with the Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), including Sections 2(3), 9, and 10. The complainant, a sole proprietorship engaged in the transportation of hard waste and garbage, faced an amendment to their tax assessment under Section 122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nKey Points:\nBackground of the Case:\nThe complainant, who was engaged in providing transportation services for waste and garbage, was initially assessed as a service provider and transporter of goods.\nThe Additional Commissioner, acting suo motu, initiated an action under Section 122(5-A) and re-categorized the complainant's receipts as those of a contractor.\nThis change was based on a categorization under Section 153(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, which pertains to contractors. However, the complainant argued that they were actually covered by the exception in Section 153(1)(c), and the change was arbitrary.\nFailure to Provide Explanation:\nThe Additional Commissioner failed to clarify how the complainant's receipts, which were related to their work as a service provider, could be treated under the contractor category, which would bring the complainant under the withholding tax provisions of Section 153(1)(c). This failure to explain the rationale behind the reassessment was deemed arbitrary and unlawful.\nMaladministration:\nThe action of the Additional Commissioner was considered a maladministrative action, as it was found to be in violation of the principles of fairness and transparency. Specifically, it was held to be in violation of Section 2(3)(i) of the Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000), which deals with maladministration.\nRecommendations Made to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR):\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman made several recommendations to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR):\nAction under Section 122-A of the Income Tax Ordinance should be taken as per the law, and any refund due should be issued to the complainant within 21 days.\nThe Additional Commissioner should be asked to explain within 15 days why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him.\nThe Additional Commissioner should be given an opportunity to be heard in person.\nThe FBR should examine the desirability of re-opening an order that had already been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance. It was questioned why a junior officer (Additional Commissioner) re-opened the case after it had been previously decided by the Commissioner (Appeals).\nCompliance with these recommendations should be reported back within 30 days.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found the actions of the Additional Commissioner to be arbitrary, unlawful, and amounting to maladministration under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance. Consequently, the Ombudsman made recommendations to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), including the issuance of a refund, a request for explanations from the Additional Commissioner, and a review of why the case was re-opened by a junior officer after being set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Ombudsman’s decision aimed to ensure that the matter was handled according to the law and to hold the concerned officials accountable for their actions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,122,124,153,170,122(5A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3)(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 88/KH/IT (23)/469/2010, decision dated: 14-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "M/S. SHAKEEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH MASOOD AHMED ABBASI, KARACHI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "82", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVjPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 72 = 2011 SLD 72 = 2011 PTD 1178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVjPQ", + "Key Words:": "This case involves the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), particularly Sections 120, 122(5-A), 122-A, along with the Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), including Sections 2(3), 9, 10, and 16. The complainant, initially placed under the Presumptive Tax Regime, had their status changed in 2007 to that of a manufacturer/supplier of automotive parts. The department, however, rejected the complainant's refund claim and initiated an action under Section 122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, which was challenged for being arbitrary and unlawful.\nKey Points:\nBackground of the Case:\nThe complainant had been operating under the Presumptive Tax Regime until the tax year 2006. In 2007, the complainant's status was changed to that of a manufacturer/supplier of automotive parts.\nHowever, the department rejected the complainant's refund claim and initiated an action under Section 122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nThe Additional Commissioner passed an order under Section 122(5-A) without pointing out any patent error in the earlier Section 120 order. This was seen as arbitrary and unfair, especially considering that the complainant was duly registered with the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) as a manufacturer.\nArbitrary and Vindictive Action:\nThe department's action was described as arbitrary and vindictive in nature. There was no valid reason provided for the rejection of the complainant's refund claim, and the change in status was not accepted.\nThe order under Section 122(5-A) was found to be unlawful because it failed to point out any specific errors in the original assessment order made under Section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nThe departmental functionaries seemed to have made up their minds early on to obstruct the refund claim, which pointed to maladministration.\nViolation of Law:\nThe actions of the Additional Commissioner were found to be in violation of the legal framework governing the issue, and the Ombudsman concluded that the order should have been vacated under Section 122-A of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nThe complainant had rightfully contested the treatment by the department, arguing that they were a registered manufacturer, and as such, the denial of their status and refund was arbitrary.\nMaladministration and Recommendations:\nThe Ombudsman ruled that the arbitrary treatment meted out to the complainant amounted to maladministration, as defined under Section 2(3)(ii) of the Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance. This was due to the unlawful rejection of the complainant's rightful status and refund claim.\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman made several recommendations to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR):\nThe Chief Commissioner should take action in accordance with Section 122-A of the Income Tax Ordinance to correct the wrong done to the complainant within 21 days.\nThe officials involved in the unlawful conduct should be directed to explain within 15 days why action under Section 16 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance should not be initiated against them.\nThe officials should also be given an opportunity to be heard in person regarding their actions.\nThe FBR should submit a compliance report within 30 days.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the Additional Commissioner's actions were arbitrary and unlawful, particularly because the complainant's status as a manufacturer/supplier was correctly recognized by the Federal Board of Revenue, but was nonetheless rejected by the department. The Ombudsman concluded that this constituted maladministration, and made recommendations to the Federal Board of Revenue to rectify the situation, issue the refund within a specified period, and take disciplinary actions against the involved officials. The Ombudsman's order sought to ensure that the actions of the department were aligned with the law and that the complainant was treated fairly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122,122(5A),122A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 315/LHR/IT(261)/566/2010, decision dated: 14-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "NAVEED ILYAS\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "83", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVZPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 73 = 2011 SLD 73 = 2011 PTD 1196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVZPQ", + "Key Words:": "The complaints arose from the departmental rejection of declarations filed belatedly by the complainants under the Investment Tax scheme for undisclosed income. The complainants had made the Investment Tax payment on time but filed the declarations 33 days late.\nUnder the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically Section 214-A, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had the discretion to condone delays in filing declarations, but the department did not exercise this power. Additionally, Section 120-A and Section 214-A were referenced to challenge the rejection of the complainants' late declarations, which violated the principles of natural justice.\nThe Tax Ombudsman found the department's refusal to provide an opportunity to be heard and their rejection of the declarations as arbitrary, violating Section 2(3) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, which defines maladministration.\nAs a result, recommendations were made to the Federal Board of Revenue to:\nProvide an opportunity of hearing to the complainants.\nDecide the case on merit, considering the President's decision in complaint No. 1069-2007.\nComplete this process within 30 days and report compliance within 45 days.\nRelevant legal references:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sections 120-A (Income tax returns), 214-A (Late filing of returns), and Section 122 (Amendment of assessment).\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Section 2(3), which defines maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120A,214,214A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 275-279/LHR-IT(233-237)492-496/2010, decision dated: 28-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "SH. ZAFAR ABBAS AND 4 OTHERS\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "84", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVFPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 74 = 2011 SLD 74 = (2011) 104 TAX 110 = 2011 PTD 1219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVFPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 233 & 131\nTaxing Service Charges - Amendment of Assessment\nFacts:\nThe taxpayer, a private limited company engaged in air transport services, was charged with income tax under Section 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for service charges received from the Army Welfare Trust (AWT). The taxpayer provided chartered flights, and the service charges were paid by AWT as per an agreement between the parties.\nLegal Issue:\nThe issue revolved around whether the amount received by the taxpayer should be taxed under Section 233 (related to brokerage and commission) or as service charges. The taxpayer’s counsel contended that the amount received was not commission or brokerage but rather service charges, as per the agreement with AWT.\nKey Points:\nSection 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 specifically relates to income arising from brokerage and commission.\nAccording to the agreement between the taxpayer and AWT, the taxpayer received service charges at a 5% profit margin, subject to a maximum of Rs. 500,000 per contract, in addition to actual expenses. The charges were defined as service charges, not brokerage or commission.\nNo justification existed to treat the service charges as income under Section 233 since it was explicitly agreed upon as such in the contract and was paid accordingly.\nDecision:\nThe Commissioner had erroneously treated the service charges as commission income, applying Section 233.\nThe Taxation Officer’s original order was correct, as it followed the nature of the payment as service charges, not commission.\nThe impugned order by the Commissioner was vacated, and the Taxation Officer’s order was annulled, as the agreement clearly defined the payment as service charges and not commission.\nLegal References:\nSection 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Relates to taxation of brokerage and commission.\nSection 131 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Relates to powers of the Commissioner to amend assessments.\nThe case highlights the importance of contract terms and the proper classification of income to determine the correct taxation under the law. The agreement between the taxpayer and AWT established the correct treatment of the income, making the Commissioner’s assessment incorrect.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),131,153(1)(C),233 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 867/IB of 2010, decision dated: 8-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Zahid Hussain, ACMA\nRespondent(s) by: Zia Ullah Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/S. ASKARI AVIATION (PRIVATE) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-I), ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "85", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVBPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 76 = 2011 SLD 76 = 2011 SCMR 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVBPQ", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Sections 32 & 156(4)\nConstitution of Pakistan, Article 184(3)\nSupreme Court Constitutional Jurisdiction - Import of Poultry Feed Containing Traces of Pork Meat/Bones\nFacts:\nThe case involved the import of poultry feed that contained traces of pork meat/bones, which violated the import policy of the country. Customs authorities imposed penalties under Section 156(4) read with Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The matter was taken up by the Supreme Court in exercise of its suo motu powers.\nLegal Issues:\nThe issue at hand was the importation of goods (poultry feed) in violation of the import policy and the imposition of penalties by the customs authorities. The Supreme Court had to determine the appropriate action in response to this violation, including penalties and potential re-export or destruction of the consignment.\nKey Points:\nSuo Motu Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court exercised its constitutional powers under Article 184(3) to address the issue of imported poultry feed containing pork meat/bones, which contravened import policies.\nPenalties under the Customs Act: The Customs Act, 1969 allows the imposition of penalties under Section 156(4) for violation of import regulations. Importers were penalized accordingly.\nOutcome:\nThe importers were required to pay penalties imposed under the relevant sections of the Customs Act.\nThe Customs Department and the importers were barred from further contesting the matter within the hierarchy of customs or before the High Court. The orders of adjudication were deemed final.\nImporters who could manage to re-export the consignment within three weeks would do so at their responsibility, after obtaining necessary permissions.\nIf the consignment was not re-exported within the given period, the goods would be destroyed under the supervision of the Customs Department and the importers, with damages to be paid by the importers.\nImporters had to provide an undertaking that they would be more careful in the future, and any future violations would result in strict action.\nTimeline for Compliance: The Supreme Court directed that all actions be completed within four weeks under the supervision of the Member Customs of the Federal Board of Revenue.\nLegal References:\nSection 32 & Section 156(4) of the Customs Act, 1969: Relating to penalties for violations of import regulations.\nArticle 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan: Granting the Supreme Court suo motu jurisdiction to take cognizance of matters of public interest.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court, exercising its suo motu powers, directed the resolution of the matter by imposing penalties on the importers for violating import policies and directed the destruction or re-export of the consignments. The Court also made the orders final and binding, ensuring compliance within a specified timeline.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,156(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=184(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 2482 of 2007 and Suo Motu Case No. 15 of 2007, decision dated: 7-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF JUSTICE, CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE AND MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "POULTRY FEEDS CONTAINING PIG MEAT IN RE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "86", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVNPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 77 = 2011 SLD 77 = 2011 PTD 1225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVNPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 53, 54, 55 & 122(5-A)\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) - Sections 2(3)(i), 9 & 10\nFacts:\nThe complainant, a taxpayer, had been granted tax exemption for the relevant year. However, despite this exemption, a fictitious demand for tax was created by the Tax Department by invoking inapplicable provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, particularly under Section 122(5-A). The complainant sought the cancellation of this erroneous demand and the rectification of the decision by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and Chief Commissioner.\nLegal Issues:\nThe complainant argued that despite the tax exemption being available, the tax authorities created a fictitious demand by incorrectly applying provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nThe actions of the tax officials were deemed arbitrary, unlawful, and oppressive, leading to unnecessary litigation for the taxpayer.\nKey Points:\nFictitious Tax Demand: The Tax Department created a fictitious demand by invoking provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 that were not applicable, despite the taxpayer's entitlement to tax exemption for the year in question.\nArbitrary Conduct of Officials: The omission and commission by departmental officials demonstrated arbitrary, unlawful, and oppressive behavior, resulting in the taxpayer being subjected to unwarranted and protracted litigation.\nMaladministration: The actions of the tax officials were found to be in violation of the principles of fair administration, and their behavior amounted to maladministration as defined in Section 2(3)(i) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nRecommendations:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to cancel the erroneous demand and report compliance with the Ombudsman’s earlier recommendations within 7 days.\nThe FBR was further recommended to adopt transparent measures to prevent mala fide practices, particularly with regard to blocking the issuance of large refunds.\nThe Ombudsman also recommended that an enquiry be conducted and disciplinary action be taken against the officials responsible for the biased, arbitrary, and mala fide actions. Compliance reports were to be submitted within 10 days for the first recommendation and 45 days for the second and third.\nLegal References:\nSections 53, 54, 55, 122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Relating to the creation of tax demands and rectification of tax assessments.\nSection 2(3)(i) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000: Defining maladministration due to arbitrary and oppressive conduct by officials.\nConclusion:\nThe tax authorities' actions were found to be arbitrary and unlawful, leading to unnecessary litigation for the taxpayer. The Federal Tax Ombudsman intervened and directed the Federal Board of Revenue to cancel the erroneous tax demand, adopt transparent measures, and take disciplinary action against the officials responsible.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=53,54,55,122,122(5A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3)(1),9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 31/KH1/IT(08)/190 of 2010, decision dated: 10-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "M/S. PORT QASIM AUTHORITY, KARACHI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "87", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVJPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 1 = 2010 SLD 1 = 2010 PTCL 564 = 2010 PTD 2086", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVJPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Section 179 - Power of Adjudication\nIssue: The jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector or Additional Collector to issue a show-cause notice or to make an adjudication was questioned due to their lack of authority.\nLegal Provision: Section 179 of the Customs Act, 1969 specifies that adjudicatory powers regarding customs matters should be exercised by the Deputy Collector or higher-ranked officers as per the monetary limit defined in the law.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Additional Collector had no authority to issue a show-cause notice or a corrigendum since the powers were granted specifically to the Deputy Collector, not the Additional Collector. Any actions or orders made by the Additional Collector were deemed illegal, unlawful, and without jurisdiction.\nLegal Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the show-cause notice and corrigendum were vacated. The orders issued by the Additional Collector were set aside as they exceeded the scope of authority prescribed in Section 179.\nRelevant Cases:\nKhalid Saeed v. Shamim Rizwan, 2003 SCMR 1505\nAbida Rasheed v. Secretary, PLD 1995 Kar. 587\nRashid Ahmed v. The State, PLD 1972 SC 271\n(b) Power of Adjudication under Section 179 of the Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nIssue: Can the power to hear and decide appeals be delegated to officers other than those notified by the competent authority, namely the Central Board of Revenue (CBR)?\nLegal Provision: Section 179 of the Customs Act, 1969 prescribes the power to adjudicate certain matters. The CBR has the statutory authority to appoint officers through gazette notifications.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal affirmed that the power to adjudicate appeals or to take decisions could not be conferred by consent to officers other than those notified by the CBR.\nLegal Outcome: The appointment of an officer not authorized by the CBR to adjudicate was invalid.\nRelevant Cases:\nAbida Rasheed v. Secretary, PLD 1995 Kar. 587\nRashid Ahmed v. The State, PLD 1972 SC 271\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 162 & Section 148 - Recovery of Tax by Customs Department\nIssue: Can the Customs Department recover tax from a person who was not the original taxpayer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?\nLegal Provision: Section 162 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 vests the power of recovery in the Commissioner of Income Tax, and Section 148 only provides for the collection of taxes at the point of entry (Customs).\nRuling: The Customs Department did not have the authority to pursue recovery of tax after it had been collected under Section 148. Only the Commissioner of Income Tax could take action for default or non-payment under Section 162.\nLegal Outcome: The Customs Department's attempt to recover tax was deemed invalid and without jurisdiction, as recovery powers lie with the Income Tax Department.\nRelevant Case:\nBlack’s Law Dictionary\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 148(5) & (6), 162(1) - Recovery of Tax by Customs Department\nIssue: Whether the Customs Department has the authority to recover income tax from the importer when the tax was not collected or was under-collected.\nLegal Provision: Sections 148(5) and (6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 pertain to advance tax collection, and Section 162(1) empowers the Income Tax Commissioner to initiate recovery proceedings for any shortfall.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Customs Department does not have the authority to change the nature of tax and convert it into Customs Duty. The Commissioner of Income Tax alone has the authority to initiate proceedings for recovery of income tax under Section 162.\nLegal Outcome: The Customs Department's action to recover tax and its adoption of the recovery procedure were declared illegal, unjustifiable, and set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.\nRelevant Cases:\n1994 CLC 1612\n1990 PTD 29\n2005 PTD 23\nCollector of Sales Tax and Federal Excise v. Messrs Qasim International Container Terminal, 2007 PTD 250\nXen Shahmir Division v. Collector Sales Tax (Appeals), 2008 PTD 1973\nKey Takeaways:\nJurisdiction of Officers: Under Section 179 of the Customs Act, only designated officers such as the Deputy Collector have the authority to issue show-cause notices and make adjudications. Any action outside this jurisdiction is invalid.\nRecovery of Income Tax: The Customs Department cannot act as a recovery agency for Income Tax. While they can collect taxes under Section 148, recovery due to default must be handled by the Income Tax Commissioner under Section 162.\nPower Delegation: The power to adjudicate and decide on appeals under the Customs Act cannot be delegated by consent to officers outside the list notified by the Central Board of Revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=148,162,162(1),148(5)(6) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.187/CU/IB of 2008, decision dated: 31st July, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "HAFIZ AHSAAN AHMED KHOKHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Farhat Nawaz Lodhi\nRespondent(s) by: Majeeb-ur-Rehman Warraich and Faiz Ali, DC/DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "88", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUwPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 2 = 2000 SLD 2 = 2000 PTD 1299 = (2000) 81 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUwPQ", + "Key Words:": "The case relates to various Income Tax appeals decided on 1st October, 1999, involving a number of Income Tax Ordinance provisions, such as S.65, S.17, S.32(1), S.62, and others, as applied in the context of taxation issues, particularly involving the banking sector, capital gains, exemptions, and deductions. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:\n(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.65, S.17, S.32(1), & S.62\nAdditional Assessment: The issue revolved around whether the Income Tax assessment could be reopened under S.65 of the Ordinance based on new information, such as a change in accounting methods for income from securities.\nMercantile System of Accounting: The assessee used the mercantile system, recording income on an accrual basis. The assessment was initially finalized under S.62 on the receipt basis, but was reopened based on discrepancies between the accrual and receipt basis.\nRe-opening of Case: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that proceedings initiated under S.65, based on the same facts as the original assessment, were void ab initio (invalid from the beginning). The Tribunal referred to judgments where definite information could only refer to new, binding judgments from superior courts, not the same facts as the initial assessment.\nAppeal Outcome: The Tribunal allowed the appeal and cancelled the impugned orders.\n(b) Capital Gains on Government Securities - S.27(2)(a), S.2(12), & S.80-D\nChargeability of Capital Gains: The Appellate Tribunal confirmed that the gain on the sale of government securities should be treated as capital gains under S.17 of the Ordinance.\nNature of the Securities: Government securities, such as stocks and shares, were considered capital assets under S.2(12). The Tribunal held that the tax treatment should not exclude these gains under the provisions for turnover tax under S.80-D.\nAppeal Outcome: The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, treating the profit on the sale of government securities as capital gains.\n(c) Interest on Borrowed Capital - S.23(1)(vii)\nAllowable Expenditure: The interest incurred on borrowed capital used for investments (e.g., in prize bonds) was ruled to be an allowable expense.\nAppeal Outcome: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of such interest as a valid expenditure.\n(d) Bad Debts Deduction - S.23(1)(x)\nDisallowance of Bad Debts: The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction of bad debts based on a letter from the Pakistan Banking Council, which only approved the bank's audited accounts but did not certify the bad debts under the Central Board of Revenue's 1993 circular.\nAppeal Outcome: The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing that the required certification from the State Bank of Pakistan for bad debts was missing.\n(e) Exemption for Export Processing Zone Income - S.14 & Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance\nExemption of Income: The assessee, a bank with a branch in an Export Processing Zone, claimed exemption from tax on income generated in that zone.\nAppeal Outcome: The Appellate Tribunal directed that the income from the Export Processing Zone branch be exempted from tax, overturning the Assessing Officer's decision.\n(f) Income from WAPDA Bonds\nTax on WAPDA Bonds: The assessee, a bank, earned income from WAPDA Bonds, which was taxed by the department.\nAppeal Outcome: The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order, directing the issue to be reconsidered after seeking clarification from the Central Board of Revenue.\n(g) Bearer National Fund Bonds (BNFBs) - Capital Gains\nTax Treatment of BNFBs: The case focused on whether the income from Bearer National Fund Bonds, arising from the difference between discounted price and redeemable value, should be treated as capital gains or interest.\nAppeal Outcome: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the gain from BNFBs should be treated as capital gains under S.27, confirming the First Appellate Authority's decision.\n(h) Definition of Transfer in Relation to BNFBs\nMeaning of Transfer: The Tribunal discussed the term transfer, interpreting it to include redemption of securities, including BNFBs.\nLegal Reference: The Tribunal referred to legal dictionaries and the Public Debt Act to define transfer. \n(i) Failure to Deduct Tax - S.86 & S.50\nAdditional Tax for Non-Deduction: The bank was levied an additional tax for failing to deduct tax on import values at the time of clearance.\nAppeal Outcome: The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, finding that the bank's role was merely as a government treasury, and it was not liable for additional tax.\nSummary of Legal Principles:\nRe-opening Assessments: A case can be reopened only based on definite information, such as a binding superior court judgment, not on the same facts available at the time of the original assessment.\nCapital Gains Tax: Profit from the sale of government securities is treated as capital gains under the Income Tax Ordinance, as securities qualify as capital assets.\nAllowable Expenses: Interest on borrowed capital used for investment in securities (like prize bonds) is deductible as an allowable expense.\nBad Debts: Deductions for bad debts require proper certification from the State Bank of Pakistan.\nExemption for Export Processing Zones: Income from branches in Export Processing Zones is exempt from tax.\nBearer National Fund Bonds: Gains from BNFBs are treated as capital gains, and redemption is considered a transfer. \nTax Deduction Obligations: Financial institutions like banks cannot be held liable for tax deductions they are not required to make under the law.\nThese appeals clarify important tax principles, particularly regarding the treatment of income from securities, capital gains, exemptions for export zones, and the authority of various departments in tax recovery.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,14,17,23,27,32,50,62,65,80,86,2(12),23(1)(vii),23(1)(x),27(1),27(2)(a),32(1),80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.27/KB to 31/KB of 1995-96, 1352/KB, 1353/KB, 1512/KB,1513/K13 of 1994-95, 2439/KB, 2196/KB of 1996-97 487/KB of 1997-98 and 592/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 1st October, 1999. Date of hearing: 21st August, 1999.", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khaliqur Rehman, C.A. for Appellant (in I.T. As. Nos.27/KB to 29/KB of 1995-96).\nFahimul Haque, D.R., Tariq Masood, D.R., Ayaz Elahi, D.R. and Javed Farooqi for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.27/KB to 29/KB of 1995-96).\nFahimul Haque, D.R., Tariq Masood, D.R., Ayaz Elahi, D. R. and Javed Farooqi for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1352/KB and 13531KB of 1994-95).\nKhaliqur Rehman, C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1352/KB and, 1353/KB of 1994-95).\nKhaliqur Rehman, C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1512/KB, 1513/KB of 1994-95, 30/KB, 31/KB of 1995-96, 2439/KB of 1996-97, 487/KB of 1997-98 and 592/KB of 1998-99).-\nFahimul Haque, D.R., Tariq Masood, D.R., . Ayaz,. Elahi, D. R. and Javed Farooqi for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.. 1512/KB, 1513/KB of 1994-95, 30/KB, 31/KB of 1995-96, 2439/KB of 1996-97, 487/KB of 1997-98 and 592/KB of 1998-99).\nFahimul Haque, D.R., Tariq Masood, D.R., Ayaz Elahi, D.R. and Javed Farooqi for Appellant (in I.T.A. No-2196/KB of 1996-97).\nKhaliqur Rehman, C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No.2196/KB of 1996-97).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "89", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV3PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 78 = 2011 SLD 78 = (2011) 104 TAX 19 = 2011 PTD 1250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV3PQ", + "Key Words:": "The case involves an appeal concerning the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), specifically focusing on sections 122(5-A), 129, and 131, which deal with amendments to assessment orders, remanding of cases, and the powers of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals).\nKey Facts and Contentions:\nAppellant's Allegation:\nThe appellant (taxpayer) argued that the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) had acted wrongly by remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The appellant contended that the power to remand cases had been omitted from section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nTax Department's Argument:\nThe department's representative argued that the Taxation Officer had correctly assessed the difference between the retail price and hire purchase income under the head Income from Other Services . There was no justification for allowing the deduction of bad debts as requested by the taxpayer.\nTaxpayer's Argument:\nThe taxpayer's counsel argued that the Taxation Officer had improperly treated finance income from hire purchase as income from other sources, without sufficient justification. The taxpayer contended that the income should instead be classified as business income, as the accounts were maintained similarly in previous and subsequent years without objections from the tax department.\nThe taxpayer provided evidence, including previous and subsequent year's orders, showing consistent treatment of the issue by the department, which had not been contested in appeal for those years.\nCourt's Decision:\nRemanding the Case: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) had improperly directed a remand of the matter. Since the same issue had been addressed in both prior and subsequent years without dispute, and the tax department had not raised any objections in those years, the Tribunal ruled that there was no need to reconsider the issue.\nConsistency Across Years: Given that the issue had already been adjusted in the prior and subsequent years without any action from the department, the Tribunal decided that the matter should not be revisited. The consistency of the tax treatment over multiple years formed a strong basis for this decision.\nFinal Order:\nThe Tribunal vacated the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals)'s remand order, agreeing with the taxpayer that the Taxation Officer's assessment under S.122(5-A) was consistent with previous years and should not have been altered.\nAppeal Outcome: The taxpayer's appeal was allowed, and the department's cross-appeal was dismissed.\nLegal Implications:\nSection 122(5-A) allows the amendment of an assessment order, but the Tribunal held that if the issue has been previously settled and not contested in subsequent years, a deviation from that settled position was not justified.\nSection 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, which covers the powers of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), had been amended, removing the power to remand cases. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the remand decision was not legally sustainable under the current law.\nRelevant Case References:\n2004 PTD 3020; 2006 PTD (Trib.) 356; and (2010) 102 Tax 554 (Trib.) were cited as precedents supporting the Tribunal's ruling. These cases provided context for the consistent treatment of similar issues in tax assessments and the need to respect settled positions unless there was a substantial reason for change.\nConclusion:\nThe decision clarified the application of tax laws under the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), particularly regarding the powers of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) to remand cases and the consistency of tax assessments over time. It reinforced the idea that where the department has consistently treated an issue in a certain way, and there has been no dispute in subsequent years, it is inappropriate to deviate from this settled position without new substantial grounds.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,129,131,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 724/KB of 2010, decision dated: 11-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MALIK ABDUL SAMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Shahid Iqbal Baloch, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/S. UNITED SALES (PRIVATE) LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL DIVISION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "90", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVVPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 3 = 2000 SLD 3 = 2000 PTD 1320 = (2000) 81 TAX 466", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVVPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Sections 13(1) & 136 – Addition – Reference – Encashment of Cheque:\nFacts:\nThe assessee (a company) made a payment after withdrawing cash from the bank via a bearer cheque. However, the cheque was issued in the name of a different party, not the party to whom the payment was made.\nThe Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition to the income on the grounds that the payment was made from an undisclosed source, as the cheque was in the name of another party and not the intended recipient.\nThe assessee explained that the payment was made from the amount received via the bearer cheque from the company’s Accounts Department and handed over to the accountant for further payment to the intended party. However, the identity of the party in whose name the cheque was issued was not verified.\nTribunal's Ruling:\nThe Assessing Officer failed to verify the identity of the person who received the payment or the reason why the cheque was issued in another party's name.\nThe assessee proved that the amount was recorded in the company's account books and later debited in favor of the recipient. This amount matched the one received through the cheque in question.\nAs the funds were not from an undisclosed source, and since the payment made was properly recorded and reconciled with the bank’s transaction, there was no justification for adding it to the assessee's income.\nConclusion:\nThe addition to the income made by the Assessing Officer was found to be unjustified. The actions of the authorities were contrary to the law and could not be sustained. Therefore, the addition was deleted.\nCited Cases:\nLalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1959 (37 ITR 288)\nIndustrial Management Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, PLD 1978 Kar. 673\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 135(1) – Powers of the Appellate Tribunal:\nSummary:\nThe Appellate Tribunal has the authority to cause further enquiries by the Assessing Officer if it is not satisfied with the enquiry conducted by the AO.\nHowever, the Tribunal cannot itself proceed to hold an enquiry. The Tribunal can only direct the AO to conduct further investigations, not perform those actions itself.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 136 – Scope of Reference & Misconstruction of Evidence:\nSummary:\nUnder Section 136, the High Court has the power to examine the findings of facts based on evidence available on record.\nIf the findings are based on misreading or misconstruction of evidence, they can be disturbed by the High Court.\nFindings based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations, or those based on conjectures and surmises, can also be set aside by the High Court.\nHowever, findings that are supported by evidence and not suffering from misreading or misconstruction are protected from scrutiny under Section 136.\nCited Cases:\nHormones Laboratories v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1988 PTD 84\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Saeeda Nasreen, 1994 PTD 949\nLal Chand Bhagat v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1959 (37 ITR 288)\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in the case of the encashment of a cheque, emphasizing the importance of reconciling the payment with the company's records and bank transactions.\nThe powers of the Appellate Tribunal were clarified, noting that while it can direct further inquiries by the Assessing Officer, it cannot conduct such inquiries itself.\nThe High Court's role under Section 136 is to examine factual findings, and it can intervene if those findings are based on misreading or irrelevant material.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),135,135(1),136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 104 of 1991, decision dated: 15th December; 1998", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE AND S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Sirajul Haque\nRespondent(s) by: Shaikh Haider", + "Party Name:": "M/S. KENHILL LTD. KARACHI\nVS\nTHE I.T.O., CO. CIR. A 3, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "91", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVRPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 79 = 2011 SLD 79 = (2011) 103 TAX 437 = 2011 PTD 1351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVRPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Sections 37(50), 122(5), 177, 117(1) – Capital Gain – Amendment of Assessment:\nFacts:\nThe Taxpayer purchased land (739 kanals) for the purpose of a housing project, which required a total of 2579 kanals.\nTaxation Officer sought to tax the capital gain from the sale of this land, asserting that 39% of the total land (2579 kanals) was to be used for the housing scheme. Therefore, the same proportion of the gain from the sale of the 739 kanals of land should be treated as taxable business gain.\nThe taxpayer, however, explained that the land was purchased with the intention to develop a housing project, but the project was never realized due to financial constraints, leading to the sale of the land.\nThe taxpayer had no prior history of land dealings and the land was sold after four years without any value addition. The gain from the sale was the result of capital appreciation rather than a business activity.\nTribunal's Ruling:\nThe Taxation Officer's assumption that part of the land was intended for the housing project and thus should be treated as taxable business gain was arbitrary and unjustified.\nThere was no definite evidence or information supporting the claim that the land purchased was specifically intended for construction of houses. The taxable gain could only be established if the taxpayer had purchased the full 2579 kanals for the project and subsequently sold it.\nThe taxpayer’s sole intention was to develop a project, but due to compelling financial circumstances, the land was sold after four years without any improvements or additions.\nApportioning the gain based on the proportion of land intended for housing was not reasonable in this case as the project never materialized.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal cancelled the order of the Taxation Officer under Section 122(5) and vacated the First Appellate Authority's order to remand the case for fresh consideration.\nCited Cases:\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Section 37 – Capital Gain – Exemption Principles:\nThe principles for exemption of capital gains are as follows:\nIntention at the Time of Purchase:\nIf land was purchased with the sole intention of executing a project (e.g., hotel, plaza, construction project), and the project could not materialize, resulting in the sale of the land under compelling circumstances, then the gain is considered exempt capital gain.\nBurden of Proof:\nIn the case of a solitary transaction, the burden of proof is on the revenue to establish that the transaction was a business transaction, and the receipts arising from it are business receipts.\nPeriod of Ownership:\nIf the immovable property is sold after a considerable period, this fact serves as undeniable evidence that the gain is a capital gain rather than business income.\nHistory of Land Dealing:\nIf a company has no history of dealing in land transactions and engages in a one-off transaction for reasons other than regular business activity, the gain from the sale is treated as capital gain.\nNo Value Addition:\nIf the immovable property is sold in the same condition as it was purchased (without any value addition or improvements), the gain is considered capital gain.\nCompelling Circumstances:\nIf the land is sold due to compelling financial circumstances and the intention at the time of sale was to recover blocked funds, the resulting gain is considered capital gain and is exempt from tax.\nCited Cases:\n1990 PTD (Trib.) 671\n1988 PTD Trib. 354\nPLD 1990 SC 399\n1990 PTD 155 (SC Pak.)\n2006 PTD 1422 (SC Pak.)\n1989 PTD (Trib.) 460\n1984 PTD (Trib.) 127\n1994 PTD (Trib.) 1034\n2007 PTD 82 (SC Pak.)\n1991 PTD (Trib.) 786\n2008 PTD 226 (Trib.)\n1992 SCMR 250 = 1992 PTD 1 (SC of Pakistan)\n1975 PTD (Trib.) 6\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer's action in treating the gain as taxable business income was unjustified, as the taxpayer demonstrated that the sale was due to compelling financial circumstances and the intended project never materialized.\nThe principles for exemption of capital gain highlight that gains from isolated land transactions, where there is no history of such transactions and no value addition to the property, should be treated as capital gain.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=37,117,122,177,117(1),122(5),37(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 441/LB of 2011, decision dated: 9-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER TABBANA SAJustice(s)AD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Qamar Rasheed, C.A.\nRespondent(s) by: Naeem Hussain, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "A & A (PVT.) LIMITED, DHA, LAHORE\nVS\nC.I.R., RTO-1, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "92", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVjPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 80 = 2011 SLD 80 = (2011) 104 TAX 67 = 2011 PTCL 901 = 2011 PTD 1377 = 2011 PTR 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVjPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Taxation: Examination of Facts Based on Surrounding Circumstances\nPrinciples: In taxation matters, the facts of a case must be examined based on the surrounding circumstances specific to that case. This means that the intent of the taxpayer, the nature of the transaction, and other related factors must be considered in context. A holistic approach is required, where each case is analyzed based on the facts, circumstances, and intent relevant to it.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 22 – Sale of Plot: Income Arising from Sale\nScope of Section 22:\nThe sale of a plot can give rise to income, but whether this income is classified as business income, an adventure in nature of trade, or a capital gain depends on the intention of the taxpayer at the time of purchase and the circumstances surrounding the sale.\nAdventure in the Nature of Trade or Business Transaction:\nIf the plot is purchased with the intention to resell it for profit, it would fall within the category of an adventure in the nature of trade, meaning that the gain from the sale would be taxable as business income.\nHowever, if the assesse was not a habitual trader or dealer in plots, and the sale was not made as part of regular trading activities, but instead to convert an un-remunerative asset into a remunerative one, then the gain from such a sale would be considered capital gain and thus exempt from tax.\nImportance of Intention:\nThe taxpayer's intention at the time of purchase plays a crucial role in determining whether the sale constitutes an adventure in nature of trade or not.\nIf the intention was to resell the plot for profit (i.e., for trading purposes), the transaction would be considered adventure in the nature of trade.\nIf the intention was not to resell, but the plot was sold due to attending circumstances, such as financial need or a change in plans, the resulting profit is not considered business income.\nOnus of Proof:\nThe onus of proof to establish whether the sale is an adventure in nature of trade lies with the Revenue. This means that the tax authorities need to provide sufficient evidence to show that the taxpayer intended to treat the sale as part of a business activity rather than a one-off sale.\nIllustration:\nFor example, if a person purchases a plot with the intention of building a house but later sells it due to unforeseen financial constraints or a change in circumstances, the gain would typically be considered capital gain, exempt from tax.\nOn the other hand, if someone buys plots regularly with the aim of reselling them at a profit, the gain from such sales would be treated as business income.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(11),22,27(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 231 of 2005, decision dated: 4-05-2011, hearing DATE : 21st April, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Lubna Pervez\nRespondent(s) by: Jawaid Farooqui", + "Party Name:": "MAJOR GENERAL (RETD.) M. JALALUDDIN\nVS\nACIT, CIR VI, ZONE C, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "93", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVZPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 81 = 2011 SLD 81 = 2011 PTD 1386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVZPQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Sections 161 & 236-A – Charge of Advance Tax on Sale of Property\nIn this case, the complainant faced a tax demand from the department under Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for failing to pay withholding tax under Section 236-A at the time of selling property. The department raised a demand amounting to Rs. 52,277,542 for the failure to withhold advance tax on the sale of property.\nKey Points:\nApplication of Section 236-A:\nSection 236-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was amended by the Finance Act, 2009, referring specifically to sale of confiscated or attached property or goods. The complainant, however, was not involved in the sale of confiscated or attached property, and the department's application of this provision was found to be misguided.\nFurthermore, the amendments introduced through the Finance Act, 2010 were prospective, meaning they applied only from the date of the Act and could not be applied retroactively to earlier transactions.\nFailure to Follow Procedural Requirements:\nThe department failed to associate the complainant in the assessment proceedings, which was a fatal flaw in the process. The audi alteram partem maxim, which means hear the other side, dictates that both parties must have the opportunity to present their case. This principle of procedural fairness was violated in this instance, leading to the mal-administration of the tax demand.\nThe department did not adhere to due process while raising the advance tax demand, resulting in mal-administration, as defined in Section 2(3)(i)(a) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nRecommendation:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman made recommendations to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to direct the Chief Commissioner to exercise his revisionary powers under Section 122-B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and issue a fresh order after affording the complainant a proper hearing.\nThe Ombudsman also directed the FBR to report compliance with these recommendations within 30 days.\nLegal Precedents Cited:\nThe ruling referred to earlier case law to emphasize the importance of procedural fairness and ensuring that due process is followed in tax matters:\nPLD 2004 441\nPLD 1982 Lah. 1\nPLD 2008 SC 663\n2005 SCMR 1841\n2005 SCMR 678\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes – Standard Rule of Interpretation\nThe standard approach to statutory interpretation is to adopt the plain meaning of the text of the statute. The plain reading rule suggests that the words used in the statute should be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. This is the starting point for interpreting any statute.\nKey Points:\nWhen interpreting statutes, the literal or grammatical rule of interpretation is often used. This means that the court or authority will rely on the plain and natural meaning of the words used in the statute.\nIn cases where the meaning of the text is clear, the statute should be applied as written, without looking for external meanings or assumptions.\nConclusion:\nIn the tax case, the department's tax demand under Section 236-A was found to be improper due to failure to comply with procedural requirements and the misapplication of the statute. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the matter be reconsidered with due process.\nAs for statutory interpretation, the plain meaning of the statute is the standard rule unless there are strong contextual reasons to interpret it differently.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,161,236,122B,236A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3)(1)(a),9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 490//LHR/IT(411)874/2010, decision dated: 15-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi Advisor, Dealing Officer", + "Party Name:": "PUNJAB PRIVATIZATION BOARD, LAHORE\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "94", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVFPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 82 = 2011 SLD 82 = 2011 PTD 1396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVFPQ", + "Key Words:": "Denial of Refund Claim & Rental Income\nRelevant Legal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 15, 68(2), 74, 132(5), 155(1)(2), 169(1), 170(4), & 171(1)\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 – Sections 2(3), 9, & 10\nFacts of the Case:\nThe complainant had filed refund applications along with their tax returns for the assessment years 2006-2008; however, the tax department did not respond to the refund claims. The complainant's representative argued that the refund should have been processed or a valid order under Section 170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 should have been passed within the prescribed time. The failure to process the refund claim and the delay in issuing refunds were claimed to amount to maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nKey Issues and Arguments:\nFailure to Process Refund Claim:\nThe complainant's representative argued that the failure to issue refunds and the non-passing of any order under Section 170(4) was a clear violation of procedural requirements under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nTax Deducted in Advance: The representative emphasized that tax on rental income was required to be paid for one financial year, while advance tax was deducted for the succeeding years. This created the right to compensation for the complainant due to the delay in issuing the refund.\nDeprivation of Taxpayer's Money:\nThe complainant's money was withheld by the department without justifiable reason, leading to an unnecessary delay in refunding the tax paid. The complainant argued that this delay deprived the taxpayer of his money before it was due, which would entitle the taxpayer to compensation.\nCompensation for Delayed Refund:\nSection 171(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 allows for compensation at a prescribed rate on delayed payments of refunds. The complainant’s representative argued that this provision should also be applicable to advance tax deductions, as the tax was withheld by the department in advance but was not refunded in a timely manner.\nFailure to Rectify Assessments:\nThe department had failed to rectify the assessments in light of appellate decisions for the assessment years 1994-95 and 2000-01. The complainant argued that this delay was a result of gross negligence under Section 2(3) of the Establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nKey Legal Findings:\nThe tax department failed to issue the refund or make an order under Section 170(4) within the prescribed time, which amounted to maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nDepriving the taxpayer of their money before it was due entitles them to compensation. Under the principles of natural justice, the complainant had a right to compensation for the delayed refund of advance tax.\nThe department's failure to rectify assessments based on appellate decisions for the assessment years 1994-95 and 2000-01 was found to be an instance of gross negligence.\nRecommendations:\nThe Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) was recommended to pay compensation on the advance tax deducted on rental income for tax years 2006-2008, as per the relevant provisions of the law.\nThe Chief Commissioner was directed to rectify the assessments for the assessment years 1994-95 and 2000-01 and issue the refunds and compensation due as per the law.\nThe FBR was instructed to ensure compliance with these recommendations within 30 days, and to provide an update on the matter.\nRelevant Case Law and Precedents:\nPLD 2004 441\nPLD 1982 Lah. 1\nPLD 2008 SC 663\n2005 SCMR 1841\n2005 SCMR 678\nThese precedents emphasize the procedural fairness and the necessity of timely action by the department to fulfill its obligations under the law.\nConclusion:\nThe failure of the tax department to issue timely refunds and to rectify assessments led to recommendations for the payment of compensation on the delayed refunds, and for the rectification of assessments as per the law. The department's actions were found to be in violation of the principles of due process and maladministration, warranting intervention by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=15,68,74,132,155,169,170,171,132(5),155(1)(2),169(1),170(4),171(1),68(2) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,9,10,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 129/1st/IT(110)/569/2010, decision dated: 2-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Irshad Shaheen, Advisor, Dealing Officer.\nTariq Rashid, FCA, Authorized Representative.\nAnwar Zeb, DCIR and Malik Muhammad Sarwar, Officer Inland Revenue, Departmental Representative.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID RANDHAWA\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "95", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVBPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 712 = 1979 SLD 712 = 1979 PLD 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVBPQ", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - Service of Summons and Ex Parte Decree\nLegal Provisions:\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order IX, Rule 13 (Ex parte decree and setting aside)\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order V, Rule 20 (Substituted service of summons)\nLimitation Act, 1908 – Article 164 (Limitation for setting aside ex parte decree)\nFacts of the Case:\nEx Parte Decree: The defendant was absent at the hearing, leading to the ex parte decree against him. The defendant contended that he was not properly served with the summons.\nKnowledge of the Suit: The defendant had knowledge of the suit and the date fixed for hearing, and therefore, the court considered the second proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which specifically addresses cases where a party has knowledge of the suit and the date of hearing but fails to appear.\nKey Legal Issues and Findings:\n(a) Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree – Knowledge of the Defendant:\nThe second proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 is applicable when the defendant has knowledge of the suit and the date of hearing.\nIn this case, it was established that the defendant was aware of the suit and the date for appearing in court. Therefore, even if there was an irregularity in the service of summons, it would not be material.\nAs the defendant knew about the suit, the court found that the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 was fully applicable, and the ex parte decree could not be set aside on the basis of irregular service.\n(b) Limitation for Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree:\nLimitation for setting aside an ex parte decree begins from the date of the decree itself.\nIn this case, the court found that the defendant’s knowledge of the suit and the date of hearing supported the conclusion that he had been duly served.\nLimitation for filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree started from the date the decree was passed, as per Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908.\n(c) Substituted Service – Newspaper Publication:\nOrder V, Rule 20 allows for substituted service of summons, including publication in a newspaper, as a valid form of service.\nThe court held that publication of summons in a newspaper falls within the scope of alternative service permitted by the words “or in such other manner as the court thinks fit,” under Order V, Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.\n(d) Service of Summons – Date for Framing of Issues:\nOrder V, Rule 1 and Order IX, Rule 6 read together, mandate the proper service of summons before the framing of issues.\nThe court held that the summons had been correctly issued and served, ensuring that the process for framing issues followed the established procedure.\nConclusion:\nThe defendant’s knowledge of the suit and the date of hearing meant that the second proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 applied, which prevented the setting aside of the ex parte decree.\nThe limitation for filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree began from the date of the decree itself, in accordance with Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908.\nThe substituted service through newspaper publication was valid and within the court’s discretion under Order V, Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.\nThe court ruled that the service of summons and the framing of issues adhered to the required legal provisions and procedural rules.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 678 of 1978, decision dated: 2nd December 1978. dates of hearing: 24th and 26th September 1978.", + "Judge Name:": "AFTAB HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Raja Said Akbar Khan and Sh. Riazul Haq\nRespondent(s) by: Khalid Mahmood", + "Party Name:": "SHEIKH ABDUL HAQUE\nVS\nSYED MUHAMMAD ANWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "96", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVNPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 83 = 2011 SLD 83 = (2010) 101 TAX 97 = 2011 PTD 1414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVNPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Refund Claim and Rectification of Mistake\nLegal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Section 170 (Rectification of Mistakes)\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Section 221 (Refund of Tax)\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 – Sections 9 & 10 (Maladministration)\nFacts of the Case:\nRefund Claim: The complainant (taxpayer) had submitted several letters and reminders to the tax authorities requesting the disposal of his refund claim. Despite these efforts, no action had been taken by the authorities.\nMaladministration: The complainant argued that the failure to process the refund claim amounted to maladministration. He requested that the relevant authorities be directed to issue the refund and compensate him for the delay.\nLack of Documents: The taxpayer contended that the relevant documents (such as the original IT.30 Forms) were allegedly submitted to the Taxation Officer, but could not be found. As the case was old, the taxpayer could not be held solely responsible for the missing documents.\nKey Legal Issues and Findings:\nRefund Claim and Rectification of Mistake:\nThe complainant had followed the required procedures for the refund claim, including sending numerous reminders, but had not received any response or action from the authorities.\nThe Taxation Officer had determined the refund for the relevant tax year based on available documents, but the original documents were reportedly missing from the records.\nFailure of Authorities to Produce Documents:\nThe authorities had failed to provide an explanation for the absence of the relevant documents, particularly the IT.30 Forms issued for the refund. This raised concerns about the proper maintenance of assessment records by the department.\nThe authorities did not show any effort to locate the missing documents or to search for the relevant records in the department's file.\nMaladministration:\nThe lack of action by the authorities, as well as their failure to provide any explanation for the missing documents, amounted to maladministration under Section 2(3)(i)(a) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nRecommendations of the Ombudsman:\nThe Ombudsman recommended that the tax authorities should issue the refund to the complainant as per the law, based on the available records, and compensate the taxpayer for the delay in processing the refund claim.\nThe authorities were directed to take immediate action to rectify the issue and ensure that the relevant IT.30 Forms or orders determining the refund were issued in accordance with the law.\nThe Ombudsman further recommended that the compliance with these directions be reported within 30 days from the receipt of the Ombudsman’s findings.\nConclusion:\nThe Ombudsman found that the inaction on the part of the tax authorities, coupled with their failure to maintain proper records or provide any explanation for the missing documents, amounted to maladministration.\nThe Ombudsman directed the tax authorities to process the refund claim for the complainant and report compliance within the stipulated time frame, ensuring that the taxpayer's rights were upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,170,221 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1620-L of 2008, decision dated: 26-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Waheed Shehazad Butt\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor, Dealing Officer", + "Party Name:": "M/S. SPEL FUJIYA LTD. THROUGH PRINCIPAL OFFICER\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "97", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVJPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 84 = 2011 SLD 84 = (2011) 103 TAX 455 = 2011 PTD 1419", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVJPQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Amendment of Assessment and Deletion of Additions\nLegal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 7, 21(c), 111, 122, 131, 152\nSection 177(4)(d) - Selection for Audit\nFacts of the Case:\nAssessee's Business: The complainant was a freight forwarding agent and provided logistics services.\nAudit Selection: The assessee was selected for audit under Section 177(4)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nAmendment of Assessment: Following the audit proceedings, the department amended the assessment under Section 122(1) by making additions to the income:\nFreight payments to shifting companies and airlines were added back for non-deduction of tax under Section 152 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nAdditions were also made under Section 111 of the Ordinance.\nAppeal to Commissioner (Appeals): The department, aggrieved by the amendments, filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted both the additions.\nKey Legal Issues:\n1. Application of Section 152:\nSection 152 deals with the deduction of tax at source on payments made to non-residents.\nThe department had added back freight paid to non-resident entities (shifting companies and airlines) on the grounds that tax was not deducted at source under Section 152.\nHowever, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the non-resident parties were not chargeable to tax under the double taxation treaties between Pakistan and countries like China and the USA.\nAs the non-resident carriers were exempt from tax under these treaties, Section 152(2) was not applicable. Therefore, the additions were rightly deleted by the Commissioner.\n2. Violation of the Right to be Heard:\nMandatory Requirements for Adding Income: Under the law, before making any additions to an assessee's income, the concerned person must be provided an opportunity to be heard.\nIn this case, the department failed to confront the assessee with the issues before making additions under Section 111 and Section 152. This violation of the right to a fair hearing rendered the amendments invalid.\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed that no additions could be made without providing the necessary opportunity for the assessee to present their case.\nFindings and Conclusion:\nSection 152 Not Applicable: The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed that Section 152 did not apply because the non-resident entities were exempt under double taxation treaties.\nViolation of Right to be Heard: The department failed to follow the procedural requirement of confronting the taxpayer before making additions. This violation rendered the amendments invalid.\nOrder of Commissioner (Appeals) Upheld: The Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the additions was confirmed.\nCase Precedents Cited:\n2010 PTD 1159\n2010 PTD 704\n2009 PTD 1791\nIn conclusion, the case reaffirms that:\nTax authorities must ensure due process and provide taxpayers with an opportunity to be heard before making any amendments to assessments.\nExemption under Double Taxation Treaties prevails over local tax provisions when applicable to non-resident entities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=7,21,21(c),111,122,131,152,177,122(1),152(2),177(4)(d),21(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 13/KB of 2010, decision dated: 1st April, 2011", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Nemo.\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Mehtab Khan and Muhammad Javed Alvi", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), KARACHI\nVS\nSCANWELL LOGISTIC PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "98", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUwPQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 85 = 2011 SLD 85 = (2012) 105 TAX 172 = 2011 PTD 1439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUwPQ", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Assessment Order – Setting Aside by Commissioner (Appeals)\nLegal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 – Sections 114(4), 121, 127, 131\nFacts of the Case:\nTaxpayer's Non-Compliance: The taxpayer had not filed their tax return for the relevant tax year.\nTaxation Officer's Action: The Taxation Officer issued a notice under Section 114(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, asking the taxpayer to file their return. The taxpayer was given only a single opportunity to comply.\nEx Parte Assessment: Following the taxpayer's failure to respond, the Taxation Officer passed an ex parte assessment order under Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. However, the order was passed without providing the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity to be heard and without any material evidence to support the assessment.\nShortcomings in the Assessment: The Taxation Officer passed an assessment order with just six lines, without providing a basis for the estimation of income or presenting any evidence regarding the taxpayer’s business activity or volume.\nBusiness Duration: The taxpayer had only conducted business for two months during the tax year in question, yet the Taxation Officer estimated income for the entire year without presenting any material or reasonable basis to justify this estimation.\nLegal Issues:\nLack of Opportunity to be Heard: The principle of audi alteram partem (the right to a fair hearing) was not followed by the Taxation Officer. Only a single opportunity was given to the taxpayer to file the return, and no further opportunity was afforded before passing the ex parte order.\nLack of Material Evidence: The Taxation Officer failed to bring any material evidence or information to support the assessment. There was no mention of the business's volume or any evidence that could justify the estimation made.\nFailure to Follow Departmental Procedure: The Taxation Officer’s order lacked essential details, such as the basis for the income estimation and any supporting material. This failure violated standard departmental procedure and the legal requirement for a proper assessment.\nFindings and Conclusion:\nSetting Aside of the Ex Parte Assessment: The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the ex parte assessment order, stating that it was made without giving the taxpayer a proper opportunity to be heard and without any evidence to support the income estimation.\nUnjustified and Unsupported Assessment: The Taxation Officer made an estimation without justification, based solely on a brief and unsupported order. This approach was deemed unjustified and unlawful.\nCommissioner’s Ruling: The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that the Taxation Officer’s action was not supported by law or proper procedure. Therefore, the order was rightly set aside and could not be interfered with.\nTaxation Officer’s Duty: The Taxation Officer should have provided detailed reasons for the assessment and made use of available information to accurately estimate taxable income. In this case, the failure to do so rendered the assessment illegal.\nLegal Principles Reaffirmed:\nPrinciple of Audi Alteram Partem: The taxpayer must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any ex parte assessment is made.\nDuty of Taxation Officer: The Taxation Officer must justify their estimation of income, providing evidence or a basis for the decision, and follow the required procedural steps for a fair and lawful assessment.\nSetting Aside of Unjustified Orders: Where an assessment is made without proper reasoning, evidence, or in violation of procedural fairness, it may be set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer's ex parte assessment order was set aside due to procedural irregularities and a lack of supporting evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly concluded that the order was not sustainable and could not be upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(4),121,127,131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 62/IB of 2011, decision dated: 1st March, 2011", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Nadir Mumtaz DR\nRespondent(s) by: Masood Khan", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R. (APPEALS), ABBOTABAD\nVS\nM. MASOOD KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "99", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV3PQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 86 = 2011 SLD 86 = (2011) 103 TAX 461 = 2011 PTD 1452 = 2011 PTR 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV3PQ", + "Key Words:": "e-assessment After Reference to High Court\nLegal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 – Sections 66 & 136(8)\nFacts of the Case:\nBackground of the Dispute:\nThe assessee had filed an application for reference to the Appellate Tribunal, which was not entertained.\nConsequently, the assessee filed a Reference in the High Court under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Reference was still pending.\nRe-assessment Order:\nDuring the pendency of the Reference before the High Court, the Taxation Officer passed a re-assessment order.\nThe assessee had informed the Taxation Officer that the Reference was pending in the High Court and contended that re-assessment could not be carried out while the Reference was pending.\nDepartment's Position:\nThe Department argued that the assessee failed to provide evidence showing that the Reference had been filed in the High Court.\nThe re-assessment order was passed by the Taxation Officer despite this.\nLegal Issues:\nWhether Re-assessment Can Be Conducted During the Pendency of a Reference?\nThe key question was whether the Taxation Officer could pass a re-assessment order while a Reference to the High Court was pending.\nThe assessee contended that the reference pending before the High Court should stay further proceedings, including re-assessment, until the Reference was decided.\nProvisions of Section 136(8):\nSection 136(8) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 specifies that the legal proceedings or assessments should not be hindered unless an order has been issued by the High Court specifically staying the recovery proceedings.\nCourt's Analysis:\nStay of Recovery and Re-assessment:\nSection 136(8) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 clearly states that there is no bar on conducting re-assessment proceedings if the reference is pending, unless there is an order by the High Court to stay recovery proceedings.\nThe mere pendency of the Reference did not automatically preclude the Taxation Officer from passing the re-assessment order, as there was no stay order from the High Court to halt the proceedings.\nNo Evidence of Stay:\nThe assessee failed to produce any order from the High Court indicating that the proceedings were stayed.\nThe Taxation Officer could therefore lawfully proceed with the re-assessment as long as there was no stay order.\nLegal Provisions Interpretation:\nThe use of the words showing of stay for recovery in Section 136(8) suggests that re-assessment could proceed unless the High Court had issued a stay. If the legislature intended to prevent any re-assessment during the pendency of a Reference, it would not have included the reference to stay for recovery in this provision.\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer's action of passing the re-assessment order was not illegal, as there was no stay issued by the High Court during the pendency of the Reference.\nThe re-assessment order was set aside by the First Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal challenging this.\nTherefore, the Taxation Officer’s decision to proceed with the re-assessment, despite the pending Reference, was valid under the provisions of Section 136(8), and no stay was issued by the High Court to prevent it.\nLegal Principle:\nSection 136(8) allows re-assessment proceedings to continue despite the pendency of a Reference unless a stay order has been issued by the High Court. The absence of a stay order means that legal proceedings cannot be withheld solely because a Reference is pending.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,136,136(8) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 822/IB of 2005, decision dated: 24-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Waseem Ahmed Siddique, FCA,\nRespondent(s) by: Mrs. Aysha Khalid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "MUNIR FAZLA, PROPRIETOR\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) ZONE II, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 87 = 2011 SLD 87 = (2011) 104 TAX 104 = 2011 PTD 1455 = 2011 PTR 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQw", + "Key Words:": "Selection of Case for Audit and Pre-selection Notice\nLegal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Section 177(4)\nFacts of the Case:\nAudit Selection:\nThe Tax Department selected the taxpayer's case for audit under Section 177(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nFirst Appellate Authority's Decision:\nThe First Appellate Authority declared the selection of the taxpayer’s case for audit as illegal.\nThis decision was based on the fact that no notice was issued to the taxpayer before the case was selected for audit.\nThe First Appellate Authority followed the High Court's decision which emphasized the requirement of issuing a pre-selection notice before selecting a case for audit.\nDepartment's Argument:\nThe Department contended that there was no legal requirement to issue a notice before selecting a case for audit.\nThe Department argued that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had expunged the requirement of such a notice, and thus the First Appellate Authority's reliance on the High Court's judgment was misplaced.\nLegal Issues:\nWhether a Notice is Required Before Selecting a Case for Audit?\nThe central issue was whether the Tax Department was required to issue a notice to the taxpayer before selecting their case for audit under Section 177(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nSupreme Court's Stance on Pre-selection Notice:\nThe Department relied on a Supreme Court decision which supposedly expunged the need for a pre-selection notice.\nThe First Appellate Authority, however, relied on an earlier High Court ruling which required such a notice.\nCourt's Analysis:\nPre-selection Notice Requirement:\nThe Department's contention that no notice was required before the selection of a case for audit was refuted. The High Court had ruled that a notice should be issued before selecting a case for audit to confront the taxpayer with the potential audit action.\nThe High Court relied on the principle that any action detrimental to the taxpayer's interest must be preceded by notice, even if the statute does not explicitly mention it.\nThe Supreme Court's decision, as referred by the Department, did not overturn the requirement for a notice. The High Court’s ruling was still relevant and needed to be followed.\nCompliance with High Court Ruling:\nThe First Appellate Authority had correctly followed the High Court's judgment, which clarified the necessity of a pre-selection notice.\nEven if the statute did not explicitly require it, the Court found that the taxpayer should be informed before the case is selected for audit to ensure fairness and transparency.\nConclusion:\nThe Department's appeal was rejected as it lacked merit.\nThe First Appellate Authority's decision to declare the selection of the taxpayer's case for audit as illegal was upheld.\nThe case law referred by the Department was distinguished, and the findings of the High Court and First Appellate Authority were deemed valid and in accordance with the principle of natural justice.\nLegal Principle:\nPre-selection notice must be issued before a case is selected for audit, as it is considered a fundamental procedural requirement to ensure fairness and transparency in actions that may affect the taxpayer's rights. Even if the statute does not explicitly mandate this, it is inferred from the principle of natural justice and previous case law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,113A,114,115(4),177,177(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 488/IB of 2010, decision dated: 15-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Zia Ullah Khan, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Abid Mehmood, ITP", + "Party Name:": "C.I.R., (LEGAL), R.T.O., RAWALPINDI\nVS\nWASEEM IQBAL ANSARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 88 = 2011 SLD 88 = (2011) 104 TAX 78 = 2011 PTD 1460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRA", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Freight Charges in Relation to Cargo Embarked Outside Pakistan\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Sections 7, 11, 107, 143\nBills of Lading Act (IX of 1856): Sections 1 & 2\nAvoidance of Double Taxation Agreements (DTA): With countries like France and Denmark\nKey Facts:\nCargo Movement:\nCargo was embarked outside Pakistan and carried to Pakistan on ships operated by non-resident shipping companies/charterers.\nThe sale of cargo to Pakistani buyers was conducted on an FOB (Free On Board) basis.\nFreight charges were paid by the Pakistani buyers to the shipping carriers upon the arrival of cargo in Pakistan.\nTaxation Issue:\nThe Tax Department sought to impose income tax on the freight charges paid by Pakistani buyers for cargo that was embarked outside Pakistan and was intended for Pakistan.\nThe issue arose concerning the tax liability of the shipping companies (carriers) on the freight charges.\nLegal Issues:\nTaxability of Freight Charges:\nWhether the freight charges for cargo embarked outside Pakistan, but received in Pakistan, should be subject to taxation under Section 7(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nLiability of Foreign Carriers:\nThe extent to which foreign carriers, operating in accordance with FOB contracts and receiving payments in Pakistan, are liable to pay tax on such freight charges under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nApplication of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAs):\nWhether payments received by foreign shipping carriers are subject to tax in Pakistan considering the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) Pakistan has with countries like France and Denmark.\nCourt’s Analysis and Conclusion:\nFreight Charges and Section 7 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\nSection 7(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance applies to freight charges for cargo embarked in Pakistan, regardless of where the payment is made. This also extends to freight charges for cargo embarked outside Pakistan, provided that the freight is received or receivable in Pakistan.\nIn this case, the freight charges were paid by Pakistani buyers to the carriers in Pakistan, fulfilling the conditions for taxation under Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance.\nFreight Charges Under FOB Contracts:\nUnder FOB contracts, the buyer (Pakistani importers) are considered to have a direct relationship with the carrier, often through a Bill of Lading. The carrier, in turn, has a lien on the goods until the freight charges are paid.\nSince the cargo was released to the buyers upon payment of freight, it was concluded that the freight charges were effectively received by the carriers in Pakistan within the meaning of Section 7(1).\nDouble Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAs):\nPakistan’s Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAs) with France and Denmark designate the source state as the state in which the payment is made. Since the payment for freight charges was made in Pakistan, Pakistan is considered the source state and thus entitled to tax the freight charges.\nThe profits earned by the foreign carriers from their international shipping business fall under industrial or commercial profits in the context of the DTA. These profits are thus liable to be taxed in Pakistan, as the payment was made in Pakistan, and there was no bar in the DTA against taxing such payments under Section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance.\nInterpretation of Fiscal Statutes:\nInterpretation of Tax Law: The principle of strict construction of tax exemptions was applied. The taxpayer (carrier) bears the onus to show that an exemption from taxation applies, but since no exemption was applicable, the tax liability under Section 7(1)(b) was enforced.\nThe interpretation of fiscal statutes generally favors revenue when there is ambiguity, but in this case, the interpretation favored taxation on freight charges as per the law.\nLegal Precedents and References:\nThe court relied on various case precedents, including:\nMahabir Commercial Company Ltd. v. CIT (1972) – Case law from India on similar tax matters.\nIshikawajma Harima Heavy Industries v. Director of Income Tax (2007) – Indian case, referencing international shipping business and tax.\nOECD Model Tax Convention – International standard for interpreting DTAs.\nCIT v. Unilever PLC (2002) – Referring to foreign companies and profits derived from within Pakistan.\nConclusion:\nThe freight charges paid by Pakistani buyers for cargo embarked outside Pakistan and received in Pakistan are subject to tax under Section 7(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nThe foreign carriers are liable to pay tax on such freight charges in Pakistan, as payment was made in Pakistan, and this was consistent with Pakistan’s DTAs with other countries.\nThe tax liability under the Income Tax Ordinance and the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements was upheld.\nImplications:\nForeign shipping companies operating in Pakistan and receiving freight charges for cargo delivered to Pakistan are liable to pay income tax on such payments, regardless of where the cargo was originally embarked, as long as the payment is made within Pakistan.\nThe principle of taxation is upheld as consistent with international treaties and national tax law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=4,7,11,101,107,143,4(1),7(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Applications Nos. 205 of 2007 and 882 to 942 of 2008, decision dated: 27-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikramul Haq for Applicant (in ITRA 205 of 2007 and connected Reference Applications (in relation to the Danish DTA)). Makhdoom Ali Khan and Najeeb Jamali for the Applicant (in ITRA 882 of 2008 and connected Reference Applications (in relation to the French DTA)). Aga Faquir Muhammad and Aga Zafar Muhammad for the Applicant (in ITRA 6 of 2008 and connected Reference Applications (in relation to the Japanese DTA). Jawaid Farooqui for Respondent (in all the Reference Applications).", + "Party Name:": "A.P. MOLLER THROUGH AGENT\nVS\nTAXATION OFFICER OF Income Tax AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 89 = 2011 SLD 89 = (2011) 104 TAX 164 = 2011 PTCL 914 = 2011 PTD 1558", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQQ", + "Key Words:": "Vested Rights and Income Tax Audit Procedure\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Sections 74, 120, 177, 214-C, 174(3)\nSales Tax Act (VII of 1991): Sections 25 & 32-A\nConstitution of Pakistan: Article 199\nKey Facts:\nThe case concerns the audit of income tax affairs under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, particularly regarding the selection of taxpayers for audit and the retrospective application of tax provisions.\nComputer ballot selection for audit was conducted on December 11, 2009, for the tax year 2008. However, the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (specifically Section 177) had been amended by the Finance Act 2009, creating a conflict with the taxpayer’s vested right under the provisions as they stood on July 1, 2008.\nLegal Issues:\nSelection of Taxpayers for Audit:\nWhether the taxpayer could be selected for audit based on Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, as amended by the Finance Act 2009, or whether the audit had to be conducted based on the provisions in effect on July 1, 2008 (the first day after the tax year 2008).\nVested Rights and Retrospective Legislation:\nWhether the taxpayer had a vested right in the application of tax law as it stood on July 1, 2008 and whether changes made by subsequent legislation could affect the taxpayer’s rights.\nConstitutionality of Audit Procedure:\nWhether the computer ballot for the audit of tax year 2008 held on December 11, 2009 was lawfully conducted and whether such a procedure violated the taxpayer’s vested right to a fair and consistent selection for audit.\nCourt’s Analysis and Conclusion:\nAudit Selection Under Section 177:\nSection 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance governs the selection of cases for audit. The Court noted that each tax year is treated as a separate unit of assessment.\nFor the tax year 2008, the relevant provisions of Section 177 were those in effect on July 1, 2008, not the amended version from December 2009.\nThe amended Section 177 (as part of the Finance Act 2009) introduced changes to the audit selection process, including computerized selection. However, these changes could not apply to the tax year 2008, as they were not in effect when that tax year ended.\nThe taxpayer had a vested right under the provisions of the law that applied as of July 1, 2008. This vested right included the method of selection for audit, and the audit should be conducted based on the law as it existed at the time of filing the return for the tax year in question.\nVested Rights and Past and Closed Transactions:\nThe Court emphasized the concept of vested rights in fiscal matters, noting that a vested right does not always equate to a closed transaction.\nIn this case, the taxpayer's rights were vested under the law as it stood on July 1, 2008, and the audit could only proceed in a manner consistent with that vested right.\nThe selection for audit through computer ballot on December 11, 2009, was not in line with the taxpayer’s vested rights for the tax year 2008.\nThe audit procedure conducted under the new system, which came into force after the end of the tax year 2008, violated the taxpayer’s vested rights. The audit could not be reopened or selected for a second time under the new procedure, as it had already been closed as a past and closed transaction.\nConstitutionality of the Audit Procedure:\nThe Court held that the selection of cases for audit by the computer ballot was not lawful for the tax year 2008, as the provisions governing the audit had changed after the taxpayer’s return had been filed.\nAs such, the audit selection for the tax year 2008 was deemed to be an unlawful exercise of power.\nThe taxpayer had already been selected for audit under the old provisions, and the tax year 2008 had become a past and closed transaction.\nThe Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) lacked the statutory power to re-select the taxpayer for audit under the new amended rules.\nRetrospective Application of Fiscal Statutes:\nThe Court held that fiscal statutes generally apply prospectively, and while some beneficial provisions can be retrospectively applied, the change in law regarding the audit procedure could not be applied retroactively to affect the taxpayer's vested rights.\nConstitutional Petition:\nThe Court determined that the constitutional petition was maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the case involved an important question of law of general application regarding the validity of audit selection.\nThe High Court accepted the constitutional petition and ruled in favor of the taxpayer, declaring the audit selection process by computer ballot to be without lawful authority.\nLegal Precedents and References:\nNoble (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federal Board of Revenue (2009) – Previous case reference on audit procedures.\nMolasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (1993) – Vested rights and past transactions.\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Media Network (2006) – Case relating to audit selection.\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer’s vested right under the Income Tax Ordinance of 2001 was protected, and the audit of tax year 2008 could not be conducted under the amended provisions of Section 177 introduced in 2009.\nThe computer ballot conducted for the audit of tax year 2008 was ruled to be invalid as it violated the taxpayer's vested rights under the law as it stood at the close of that tax year.\nThe High Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, holding the audit selection process to be unlawful, and the taxpayer could not be re-selected for audit under the new procedures.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=74,120,143,174,177,214,143(3),174(3),214C ", + "Case #": "C.P. No. 973 of 2010, decision dated: 6-04-2011.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha, Dr. Farogh Naseem, Ms. Sana Minhas and Abid Shirazi for Petitioners. Jawaid Farooqui, Ali Mumtaz Shaikh, Syed Riaz-ud-Din and Sibtain Mahmuds AND Umer Hayat Sandhu, Deputy Attorney General.", + "Party Name:": "SHAHNAWAZ (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR FINANCE\nVS\nPAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 90 = 2011 SLD 90 = 2011 PTD 1606", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQg", + "Key Words:": "Case Summary: Retrospective Application of Section 122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Section 122(5-A)\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000): Sections 2(3), 9, 10 & 11\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979): Repealed provisions under which the assessment for the year 2002-2003 was finalized.\nKey Facts:\nThe Income Tax assessment for the assessment year 2002-2003 was finalized by the Income Tax Authorities under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance of 1979.\nFinance Act 2003 introduced Section 122(5-A) into the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which allowed for the amendment of assessments.\nThe Income Tax Authorities sought to amend the already finalized assessment using Section 122(5-A), which had been inserted retrospectively by the Finance Act 2003.\nThe complainant contested this, arguing that Section 122(5-A), being inserted after the finalization of the assessment, could only be applied prospectively, not retrospectively, to amend the assessment.\nThe complainant filed a constitutional petition, which was accepted by the High Court, ruling that Section 122(5-A) could not be applied retroactively to amend the finalized assessment.\nLegal Issues:\nRetrospective Application of Section 122(5-A):\nWhether Section 122(5-A), inserted by the Finance Act 2003, could be applied retroactively to amend an assessment that was already finalized under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance of 1979.\nConstitutional Petition and High Court Decision:\nWhether the High Court’s decision correctly interpreted the prospective application of Section 122(5-A) and protected the finalized status of the assessment made under the old law.\nFederal Board of Revenue’s Appeal:\nWhether the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) was correct in filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s ruling.\nCourt’s Analysis and Conclusion:\nRetrospective vs. Prospective Application of Section 122(5-A):\nThe Court agreed with the complainant's argument that Section 122(5-A), which was inserted by the Finance Act 2003, should be applied prospectively, not retrospectively.\nThe assessment for tax year 2002-2003 had already been finalized under the Income Tax Ordinance of 1979 before the enactment of Section 122(5-A).\nApplying the new provisions retrospectively would violate the principle that tax law changes should apply only to future transactions unless explicitly stated otherwise by the legislation.\nThe High Court ruled that the amendment of the finalized assessment could not be done under Section 122(5-A), as it was introduced after the assessment had been completed, and therefore the provision had no retrospective effect.\nConstitutional Petition and High Court Ruling:\nThe High Court’s ruling was correct and consistent with the law, which requires that legal provisions, particularly tax provisions, cannot alter past transactions unless they explicitly provide for retrospective application.\nThe amended assessment was based on provisions introduced after the relevant tax year, and the Court found that there was no legal basis for the amendment of the assessment under the new law.\nFederal Board of Revenue’s Appeal:\nThe Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) chose to file an appeal against the High Court’s decision, despite the ruling being prima facie correct. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, and the FBR’s appeal was dismissed.\nThe complainant's contention was that the FBR's appeal was unnecessary and wasteful, as the legal interpretation was clear and had already been properly adjudicated by the High Court.\nSystemic Issues in Filing Appeals:\nThe case highlighted broader concerns regarding the Federal Board of Revenue’s approach to legal challenges. The FBR’s strategy of filing appeals to higher courts even when the law seemed clear led to avoidable legal battles and wasted resources.\nThe legal wing of the FBR was recommended to review its screening process for filing appeals and references. The recommendation was to evaluate the legal merit of each case before deciding to proceed with appeals and to ensure that appeals were only filed when there was a genuine legal issue to resolve.\nThere was a suggestion to improve the legal training of FBR officers to avoid the mindset of “passing the buck” and to ensure that officials took responsibility for their decisions.\nRecommendations for Federal Board of Revenue:\nReview Appeal Filing Process: The FBR should establish a more rigorous evaluation system for deciding whether to file references or appeals, ensuring that only legally meritorious cases are escalated.\nTraining of Tax Lawyers: The FBR’s legal wing should comprise competent tax lawyers who can scrutinize cases to ensure that appeals are filed based on sound legal principles.\nMonitoring Appeals: Regular monitoring of appeals and references should be implemented to assess the success or failure of cases and to discipline officers who habitually recommend appeals without proper justification.\nCultural Shift: A cultural shift is needed within the FBR to move away from the “save your skin” mentality to a more efficient, responsible, and transparent approach to tax administration.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court's ruling that Section 122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could not be applied retroactively to amend an already finalized assessment was upheld by the Supreme Court.\nThe Federal Board of Revenue's appeal was unsuccessful, and the case highlighted the need for a reform in the way the FBR handles legal appeals and tax administration to reduce wasteful legal battles and improve efficiency in the system.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 523-L/2009, decision dated: 13-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor, Dealing Officer.\nSirajuddin Khalid, Authorized Representative.\nMs. Saima Ejaz, DCIT Departmental Representative.", + "Party Name:": "SIRAJUDDIN KHALID\nVS\nTHE SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 91 = 2011 SLD 91 = 2011 PTD 1611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRw", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Provident Fund Income and Withholding Tax Treatment\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Sections 12 & 149\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000): Sections 2(3), 9, 10 & 11\nKey Facts:\nComplainant's Situation: The complainant, a salaried person, received income not only from his salary but also an additional 18% of his Provident Fund balance as income from the trust.\nTax Treatment of Provident Fund Income: The complainant pointed out that 12.5% of the investment income from the Provident Fund was exempt from tax, while the remaining balance was considered part of his salary income under Section 12(2)(e)(iv) and Section 149 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. This portion was subjected to withholding tax.\nImpact on Taxation: The addition of the Provident Fund income increased the overall salary income, which placed the complainant in a higher tax bracket, thereby increasing the tax rate on his income.\nTax Rate Concern: The complainant observed that his effective tax rate was 11%, much higher than the average tax rate of 4%. He requested that the tax amount be either deducted directly from his salary to prevent a reduction in his Provident Fund or be deducted from the Provident Fund balance at the average tax rate.\nKey Issues:\nTax Treatment of Provident Fund Income:\nWhether the taxable income from Provident Fund should be treated differently from other income sources and whether it should be subject to withholding tax as part of the salary income.\nDiscrepancies in Tax Treatment:\nThe complainant pointed out that different public corporations, such as PIAC and PNSC, were treating the Provident Fund income differently, leading to confusion and discrimination in tax treatment.\nRequest for Clarity and Uniformity:\nThe complainant asked the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to clarify whether the tax rate applied to the Provident Fund income was appropriate and in line with equity and justice. He also requested a clear understanding of whether the income from Provident Fund should be treated as income from other sources or interest on a fixed return from the Provident Fund balance.\nCourt’s Analysis and Recommendations:\nSystemic Issue and Need for Clarification:\nThe FBR was advised to address the systemic issue raised by the complainant. The confusion surrounding how income from Provident Funds is treated by different organizations needed to be clarified to ensure fair and consistent tax treatment for employees across various corporations.\nThe inconsistency in tax treatment, where some employees were taxed at higher rates than others for similar income, appeared to be unjust and required the FBR to provide clear guidance.\nTax Rate on Provident Fund Income:\nThe higher rate of tax arbitrarily attributed to the profit from the Provident Fund balance for deduction from the employee’s balance seemed unjustified. The complainant's argument that this taxation method was causing financial loss to employees, especially in public corporations, was valid.\nFBR Recommendations:\nThe FBR was urged to clarify the following points:\nWhether the Provident Fund income should be subjected to a higher tax rate or if it should be treated as “income from other sources” in the interest of fairness.\nWhether the taxable profit from Provident Fund could be classified as “Profit on debit/interest” and thus potentially be subjected to the threshold under Clause 3(b) of Part 1 of the Sixth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nWhether the term “interest” should be defined in a way that includes any fixed return received by an employee from the Provident Fund maintained by a recognized trust.\nThe FBR was also asked to monitor the correct application of these tax rules across different organizations to ensure uniform treatment and compliance with the law.\nMonitoring and Reporting:\nThe FBR was instructed to report the findings and the status of compliance within 60 days to ensure that the tax treatment of Provident Fund balances and related income was standardized and followed correctly by all organizations, preventing confusion and discrimination.\nConclusion:\nThe issue raised by the complainant regarding the tax treatment of Provident Fund income pointed to a broader systemic issue that needed immediate attention from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).\nThe recommendations called for a uniform and fair approach to how Provident Fund income should be taxed, with clear guidelines on whether it should be considered income from other sources or interest from the fund, and whether the tax rate applied was appropriate.\nIt was essential for the FBR to provide clarity and monitor the implementation of tax laws to ensure equity and justice in the treatment of employees across different organizations regarding their Provident Fund income.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,149,131,132,12(2)(e)(iv),132(2) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2005=20,20(2) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 266/KHI/IT(110)797/09, decision dated: 31st March, 2010", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Ahmad, Advisor Dealing Officer", + "Party Name:": "MEHFOOZ ALI\nVS\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 92 = 2011 SLD 92 = 2011 PTD 1629", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSA", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Appeal Dismissed in Default\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Sections 131 & 132(2)\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2005: Rule 20(2)\nKey Facts:\nDismissal of Appeal in Default: The taxpayer's appeal was dismissed in default due to their non-appearance on the scheduled date of hearing, which was 27-9-2010.\nClaim of Inadvertent Error: The taxpayer filed an application for restoration of the appeal, stating that the date of the hearing had been inadvertently noted as 29-9-2010 in their diary, rather than the actual hearing date of 27-9-2010.\nNon-appearance: The taxpayer explained that their non-appearance on the hearing date was not wilful or intentional, and the mistake was purely an error on their part.\nAffidavit Submitted:\nThe taxpayer provided an affidavit in support of their claim, asserting that the mistake was accidental and not deliberate. The affidavit confirmed that the taxpayer had no intention of missing the hearing and that the error was due to a diary entry mistake.\nCourt’s Decision:\nRestoration of Appeal: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the application for restoration of the appeal, finding that the taxpayer’s failure to appear was not intentional or wilful.\nThe Tribunal emphasized the importance of justice and fair play and allowed the restoration of the appeal.\nThe earlier ex parte order (dismissal of the appeal) was recalled, and the appeal was restored to its original number for a fresh hearing.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's decision to restore the appeal underscores the principles of justice, fairness, and equity in administrative matters. Even though the appeal had been dismissed in default, the Tribunal recognized the inadvertent nature of the taxpayer’s mistake and took a lenient approach by restoring the appeal.\nThe restoration was allowed, aligning with the legal principles that appeal proceedings should not be dismissed without proper consideration of circumstances where an error was unintentional, especially when supported by an affidavit and the interest of justice required it.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,132(2) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2005=20(2) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 468/LB of 2010, decision dated: 2-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": " M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Khubaib Ahmad. Dr. Sheryar, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "M/S. NAVEED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD \nVS\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (RTO), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 93 = 2011 SLD 93 = 2011 PTD 1666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRQ", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration and Confiscation of Goods - Maladministration in Customs Procedures\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nCustoms Act, 1969: Sections 25, 80, 81, 168, 216, and 217\nCustoms Rules, 2001: Rule 389\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000: Sections 2(3), 9, 10, and 11\nKey Facts:\nImport of Goods: The complainant imported a consignment declared as Yellow Sulphur clay under H.S. Code 2503.0000.\nDepartment's Dispute: The Customs department disputed the declaration, classifying the substance as Sulphur Powder 99.9% pure (Midas SP.25) under H.S. Code 2802.0010.\nShow-cause Notice: The complainant was issued a show-cause notice for mis-declaration of the goods.\nConfiscation: As a result of the mis-declaration charge, the goods were confiscated under the order-in-original.\nAppeal Outcome:\nAppeal Decision: The complainant filed an appeal, which was accepted by the Collector (Appeals). The redemption fine was remitted, and the goods were ordered to be released based on the declared value.\nComplaint Against Maladministration:\nIssue Raised: The complainant filed a complaint alleging maladministration, specifically regarding the mis-declaration charge and the detention of goods. The complainant argued that the consignment was first detained for violation of Rule 389 of the Customs Rules, 2001, and then a penalty was imposed on the basis of a mis-declaration charge.\nLack of Evidence: The key issue was that the Customs department issued the show-cause notice based on an examination report, but the laboratory report was not available at the time. The complainant pointed out that without the laboratory report, the issuance of the show-cause notice was unjust.\nFailure to Supply Evidence: The Adjudicating Officer neither supplied the evidence to the complainant nor mentioned the evidence in the order-in-original, which was a procedural failure. This meant that the show-cause notice and the subsequent adjudication were based on incomplete evidence, contravening the established principles and procedures.\nLegal and Procedural Issues:\nDeparture from Established Principles: The complainant argued that the issuance of the show-cause notice and the adjudication without the laboratory report was a departure from the established customs procedures.\nSection 81 of the Customs Act, 1969: In the absence of the laboratory report, the Customs Act, 1969, specifically Section 81, could have been used to expedite the release of the goods and mitigate port and container charges. This would have prevented further financial loss for the complainant due to the prolonged detention of the goods.\nLiability of Customs Department: The department argued that its actions were taken in good faith and were protected under Sections 216 and 217 of the Customs Act, 1969, which shield the department from liability for actions taken in good faith. However, the complainant contended that the actions were not bona fide, and the Adjudicating Officer had engaged in acts of commission and omission that amounted to maladministration.\nRecommendations:\nExplanation from Adjudicating Officer: The Federal Board of Revenue was recommended to direct the Adjudicating Officer to explain why the loss caused to the complainant due to the maladministration should not be recovered from the officer, along with appropriate compensation and costs under Section 22 of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nRefund of Demurrage and Charges: The Board was also advised to arrange for a refund of the demurrage and container charges that the complainant incurred due to the detention of goods. The refund should be processed within 21 days.\nCompliance Report: A compliance report was to be submitted to the Ombudsman within 21 days.\nConclusion:\nThis case highlights significant issues of maladministration within the Customs department. The lack of a laboratory report at the time of issuing the show-cause notice and the failure to follow due process led to unnecessary detention of goods, causing financial loss to the complainant. The Tribunal emphasized the need for adherence to established procedures and the importance of justice and fairness in customs matters. The recommendations for further action focus on accountability, the need for better procedural oversight, and the provision of fair treatment to taxpayers and importers.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=60,122,170,221,122A,60A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Compliant No. 178/Isd/IT/(149)/1130 of 2010, decision dated: 25-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Irshad Shaheen, Advisor, Dealing Officer.\nAltaf Muhammad Khan, ITP and Salim Ahmad, Deputy Manager (Finance), Authorized Representative.\nFawad Hyder, IRO, RTO Islamabad, Departmental Representative.", + "Party Name:": "M/S. T.F. PIPES, ISLAMABAD\nVS\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 94 = 2011 SLD 94 = (2011) 104 TAX 1 = 2011 PTD 1672", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRg", + "Key Words:": "Defects in Electronic Income Tax Return – Maladministration in the Design of Tax Forms\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: Sections 114 & 153\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000: Sections 2(3), 9, 10, and 11\nKey Facts:\nComplainant: The complainant, a practicing advocate, filed a public interest complaint regarding defects in the electronic Income Tax Return form, specifically the I.T.2 (Return of Total Income/Statement of Final Taxation).\nIssue Raised: The complainant contended that the electronic return was misleading, particularly for taxpayers providing services (e.g., lawyers, architects, doctors, accountants). The form did not report tax payable correctly for professional income derived from such services.\nAmendment in Law: As per the Finance Act, 2009, all professional income from services became regular income for tax purposes starting in Tax Year 2010. However, the electronic return form for 2010 failed to reflect the correct tax payable for taxpayers in the service sector.\nProblems Identified:\nUnderstating Tax Payable: The previous electronic return form (for Tax Year 2010) resulted in an understatement of the tax payable by service-sector taxpayers, which led to a loss of revenue for the government.\nLack of Recouping Mechanism: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had not devised any mechanism to recover the lost revenue from service-sector returns filed until October 2010. This failure left a gap in ensuring correct tax collection from those professional taxpayers.\nDefective Electronic Return Form: The electronic return form placed on the FBR web portal appeared defective. It did not correctly calculate the tax payable in the normal course and required users to perform improvisations to get the correct result. This issue was problematic for ordinary taxpayers with little or no technical knowledge.\nMaladministration: The failure to design an accurate and user-friendly electronic return form for professional service-sector taxpayers was seen as inefficient and indicative of maladministration under Section 2(3) of the Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nRecommendations:\nFix Defects in Electronic Return Form: The Federal Board of Revenue was recommended to ensure that the apparent defects in the electronic return form available on the FBR's web portal were rectified. This would allow the form to correctly calculate tax payable when all fields are filled out.\nRecover Lost Revenue: The FBR was urged to issue appropriate instructions to ensure the retrieval of any lost revenue from service-sector returns that were filed up to October 2010. This would help in recouping the loss caused by the errors in the electronic tax return form.\nCompliance Report: The FBR was directed to submit a compliance report on these actions within 15 days.\nConclusion:\nThis case underscores the importance of designing accurate and user-friendly tax forms for taxpayers, particularly for those in the service sector, whose tax liabilities can be complex. The defects in the electronic Income Tax Return form led to incorrect tax reporting and a loss of revenue. The failure to address these issues in a timely manner was deemed maladministration by the Federal Tax Ombudsman. The recommendations call for immediate corrective actions to ensure that the system works efficiently, fairly, and transparently for all taxpayers, particularly those without technical expertise.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,153 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 719/LHR/IT(594)/1258 of 2010, decision dated: 25-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor, Dealing Officer.\nWaheed Shahzad Butt, Authorized Representative.\nMujahid Naeem, Manager (Automation) PRAL and Khurram Ali Qadri, DCIR, Departmental Representatives.", + "Party Name:": "WAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT\nVS\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 715 = 1979 SLD 715 = 1979 PLD 356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSw", + "Key Words:": "Specific Performance and Civil Procedure Matters\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nSpecific Relief Act, 1877: Section 21\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908: Sections 10, 100, and Order VI, Rule 4; Order XIV, Rule 1(5)\nKey Legal Issues & Findings:\nSpecific Performance of Contract (S. 21, Specific Relief Act, 1877):\nThe plaintiff sought the specific performance of a contract for the sale of property.\nIn the plaint, the property was described by its khewat, khatauni, khasra numbers, and details such as area and boundaries, but the description did not specifically mention the property as a house or shop. \nThe defendants, in their written statement, admitted the correctness of the description provided by the plaintiff.\nThe defendants' plea that they had not authorized the sale of the house was not raised at any earlier stage, including in their written statement or grounds of appeal. The defendants later admitted, as witnesses, that they had agreed to sell the entire property, including the house.\nHeld: The defendants' plea raised in second appeal was deemed an afterthought and could not be entertained. The defendants had entered into an agreement for the sale of the entire property, and the admission during the trial was upheld.\nMaxim – Secundum altegata et probata:\nLegal Principle: Before anything can be proved in a case, it must first be alleged.\nThe plea of the appellants (defendants) was not raised at earlier stages of the trial and could not be raised for the first time before the High Court. It was not allowed to be introduced in the second appeal.\nNotice Requirement under S. 21, Specific Relief Act:\nThe defendants contended that no notice had been served by the respondent requesting the registration of the sale deed within a specified time.\nHeld: The respondent was not legally obliged to serve such notice, as no specific condition for notice was stipulated in the agreements. Therefore, the non-service of notice was not fatal to the specific performance suit.\nStay of Suit under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code:\nThe appellants filed a subsequent suit for declaration regarding the same subject matter and involving the same parties.\nHeld: The trial Court did not need to stay the suit under appeal simply because a declaratory suit was filed. There was no merit in the contention that the suit should be stayed pending the decision of the other suit.\nPlea of Fraud or Misrepresentation under Order VI, Rule 4, CPC:\nThe appellants raised a plea of fraud and misrepresentation but did not provide adequate particulars of the fraud or misrepresentation.\nHeld: A general, non-specific allegation of fraud was insufficient. Courts require specific details or particulars to be provided for fraud or misrepresentation to be actionable.\nFraming of Issues under Order XIV, Rule 1(5), CPC:\nThe appellants argued that the trial court had failed to frame an issue regarding whether a document was bogus or fictitious.\nThe trial court had framed a general issue but did not specifically address the matter of the document's authenticity.\nHeld: Since the general issue covered the subject, and the parties were aware of the controversy, the failure to frame a specific sub-issue was not significant. The appellants also did not request the issue to be recast or raise it in the appellate stage, so it could not be raised at the second appeal stage.\nSecond Appeal and Concurrent Findings of Fact:\nConcurrent findings of fact were made by both the lower courts after a careful appraisal of the evidence.\nHeld: These findings of fact were not open to challenge in second appeal, as the appellate court does not re-evaluate facts if the findings are based on a fair assessment of the evidence on record.\nConclusion:\nThe case involved several key legal principles relating to specific performance of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and the pleading requirements in civil litigation. The defendants' late plea in the second appeal was rejected as it was raised after the trial and was not supported by the earlier stages of the case. The plaintiff's claim for specific performance was upheld despite the defendants' later arguments. Further, procedural aspects related to stay of suits, framing of issues, and second appeals were clarified, emphasizing the importance of specific allegations, proofs, and particulars in legal proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=21 ", + "Case #": "Regular Second Appeal No. 524 of 1978, heard on 19th November 1978, hearing date: 19th November 1978.", + "Judge Name:": " MEHBOOB AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Mustaqims..\nM. Rashid Chaughtai.", + "Party Name:": "FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND 5 others\nVS\nSHEIKH NASIM AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 2 = 2010 SLD 2 = (2010) 101 TAX 101 = 2010 PTD 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Rectification and Appeal Process\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: Sections 131, 221\nInterpretation of Statutes\nKey Legal Issues & Findings:\nRectification of Mistakes under S. 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\nA Taxation Officer noticed mistakes in the calculation of tax and the tax liability on income assessed for a taxpayer (respondent).\nThe Taxation Officer issued a notice to the taxpayer under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, pointing out the mistakes apparent on record.\nAfter considering the taxpayer’s reply as unsatisfactory, the Taxation Officer proceeded to rectify the assessment under S.221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nThe taxpayer filed appeals before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), who cancelled the rectification order under S.221.\nHeld: Inadvertent mistakes in orders made by authorities are common and rectification of such mistakes is an essential part of the principle of natural justice. The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal solely on technical grounds and did not address the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner was not sustainable.\nThe matter was remanded back with a direction for the Commissioner to pass a speaking order considering all grounds of appeal and the taxpayer’s arguments.\nInterpretation of Statutes – Harmonious Construction:\nThe court emphasized that no provision of law should be presumed to be redundant or superfluous.\nAccording to the principle of harmonious construction, provisions of a law should be interpreted in a way that allows them to work together cohesively, ensuring that the entire statute remains a well-knit, integrated, and workable piece of legislation.\nThis approach ensures that no part of the statute is ignored or rendered unnecessary but is considered within the overall framework of the law.\nConclusion:\nThe case primarily revolves around the rectification of mistakes under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, where the Taxation Officer's actions were questioned after the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) cancelled the rectification. The court found that the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds, without addressing the merits of the case, which led to the remand for a more comprehensive decision.\nAdditionally, the case underscores the principle of harmonious construction in interpreting statutes, emphasizing that no provision should be considered redundant, and laws should be read together to maintain the statute’s integrity and workability.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122,131,221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 868/LB, 869/LB and 870/LB of 2008, decision dated: 30-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Asif, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 3 = 2010 SLD 3 = (2010) 101 TAX 133 = 2010 PTD 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQw", + "Key Words:": "Setting Aside of Assessment under Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: Sections 120, 122, and 131\nKey Legal Issues & Findings:\nAppeal and Setting Aside of Assessment:\nThe appellant/assessee, a non-resident company, filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), where the assessment finalized by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was set aside.\nThe contention of the appellant was that instead of setting aside the assessment, the Commissioner should have adjudicated the matter and passed a speaking order addressing the pertinent aspects of the case.\nProcedure for Assessing Undisclosed Income:\nThe Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the disclosure of undisclosed income made by the appellant.\nThe Assessing Officer should have first rejected the declaration of undisclosed income filed by the appellant company, and only after that should have proceeded to assess the income.\nHowever, the assessment order did not include any discussion to show that the undisclosed income disclosed by the company in its declaration for the relevant year was not covered by the assessed income.\nThe failure to address this in the assessment led to the setting aside of the assessment by the Commissioner.\nDecision by the Appellate Tribunal:\nThe Appellate Tribunal, after considering the appeal, accepted the appellant’s contention.\nThe finalized assessment was cancelled by the Tribunal, agreeing that the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) should have addressed the relevant aspects through a speaking order rather than setting aside the assessment.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the Commissioner should have provided a reasoned and detailed judgment (a speaking order) rather than merely setting aside the assessment. Additionally, the Assessing Officer should have dealt with the undisclosed income declaration more thoroughly, either rejecting the declaration outright or properly justifying its inclusion in the assessment. The Appellate Tribunal cancelled the assessment, effectively rectifying the procedural shortcomings in the original tax assessment process.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122,131 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2423/LB of 2004, decision dated: 25-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Shahbaz Butt\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent." + }, + { + "Case No.": "111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 4 = 2010 SLD 4 = 2010 PTD 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURA", + "Key Words:": "Non-Payment of Income Tax Refund\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: Sections 114(6), 115(4), 122, 153(1)(b), and 170(4)\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000: Sections 10 & 11\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973: Article 24(1)\nKey Legal Issues & Findings:\nClaim for Income Tax Refund:\nThe complainant had claimed income tax refunds for the years 2003 to 2006, which were due to tax withheld under Sections 153 and 235 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nThe taxpayer had paid tax through deduction and had also filed the necessary statements under Section 115(4), as required by the law.\nThe refund was due because the taxpayer had paid more tax through deduction than was actually owed.\nViolation of Constitutional Rights:\nThe denial of the refund was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to a violation of Article 24(1) of the Constitution, which safeguards property rights. Article 24(1) states: No person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with the law. \nThe failure to pay the refund was found to be unlawful, as the taxpayer was entitled to the excess amount of tax that had been deducted.\nBelated Refund Claim:\nThe tax authorities argued that the refund claim was belated, but this was rejected. The Ombudsman held that the time limit for issuing refunds was directory and not mandatory, meaning that the claim for the refund was not barred by time limitations.\nRecommendations by the Ombudsman:\nThe Ombudsman issued the following recommendations:\nSecretary, Revenue Division: Ensure that the refund is issued to the complainant in accordance with the provisions of law.\nOfficer concerned: Pass a speaking order under Section 170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, stating that the tax return filed by the complainant for the tax year 2003 is not affected by the limitation provisions, allowing the complainant to avail appellate remedies if necessary.\nCompliance report: The Ombudsman required a compliance report within 30 days.\nConclusion:\nThe Ombudsman found that the failure to issue the income tax refund to the complainant violated the constitutional protection of property rights under Article 24(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan. The belated refund claim was not barred by time limits, as the time frame for issuing refunds was directory, not mandatory. The Ombudsman recommended immediate issuance of the refund, along with the passing of a speaking order by the concerned officer to address the issue of limitation in the tax year 2003 and to ensure that the complainant could exercise his right of appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,115,122,153,170,235,114(6),115(4),153(1)(b),170(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 241-L of 2009, decision dated: 29-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raashid Umar for Complainant. Umar Farooq, ACIT Enforcement 14 RTO, Faisalabad for the Respondent (DR). Muhammad Daud Khan, Advisor (Dealing Officer).", + "Party Name:": "M/S. AMIN AND SONS TAILOR, MIANWALI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 5 = 2010 SLD 5 = (2010) 101 TAX 216 = 2010 PTD 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQQ", + "Key Words:": "Apportionment of Deductions and Amendment of Assessment\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: Sections 67, 122(5-A)(9)\nIncome Tax Rules, 2002: Rules 13, 231(1)(6), 131\nKey Legal Issues & Findings:\nApportionment of Expenditure:\nThe taxpayer in this case was required to apportion certain expenses between taxable income and exempt income, specifically relating to dividend income and exempt capital gains.\nThe Taxation Officer failed to provide any concrete evidence linking specific expenses to the dividend income or exempt capital gains declared by the taxpayer.\nThe Taxation Officer based the apportionment solely on the assumption that if the taxpayer had not invested in shares, the available funds would have been invested in business operations. However, this reasoning was not substantiated by any evidence, making the apportionment impractical and speculative.\nThe Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) rightly deleted the apportionment because the Taxation Officer could not establish the relative nature of the expenses in question, as required under Section 67 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The apportionment was based on imagination, not on evidence or logical reasoning.\nMisinterpretation of Tax Rules:\nThe Taxation Officer also misinterpreted Rule 231(1)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 2002, by incorrectly including export rebates within the total profit. This was contrary to Section 154(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which specifically addresses export rebates and their treatment for tax purposes.\nThe Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) found the Taxation Officer's interpretation to be incorrect and dismissed the appeal filed by the department.\nAppeal Outcome:\nThe department's appeal against the decision of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the apportionment issue was dismissed.\nThe order passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), which deleted the apportionment, was confirmed.\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the Taxation Officer's apportionment of expenses was found to be unjustified, as it was based on assumptions rather than evidence. The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) correctly deleted the apportionment, and the appeal filed by the department was dismissed. Additionally, the misinterpretation of tax rules by the Taxation Officer concerning export rebates was also corrected. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) was upheld, emphasizing the need for a reasonable and evidence-based approach in apportioning expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=67,122,154,122(5A),122(9),154(4) Income Tax Rules, 2002=13,131,231,231(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 167/KB of 2006, decision dated: 15-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehmatullah Khan Wazir and Farrukh Ansari, DRs.\nIrfan Saadat Khan.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 6 = 2010 SLD 6 = (2009) 100 TAX 374 = 2010 PTD 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQg", + "Key Words:": "Best Assessment and Issuance of Notice under S.121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: Sections 120(1), 121, 177(6)\nKey Legal Issues & Findings:\nIssuance of Notice under S.121 and Best Judgment Assessment:\nThe Taxation Officer issued a notice under Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to the assessee, suggesting certain alterations or amendments to the previously filed tax return. The assessee did not attend the audit proceedings, leading the Taxation Officer to pass an ex parte assessment order under Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nThe assessee argued that the Taxation Officer could not pass a new assessment order, as there was already a deemed assessment order in place (either by default or due to previous proceedings).\nValidity of New Assessment:\nThe assessee contended that once an assessment order is in the field, the Taxation Officer could not pass a fresh assessment order without cancelling the previous one.\nUnder Section 177(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, it is specifically provided that after the completion of an audit (under Section 177(5) or Section 177(8)), the Commissioner may, if necessary, amend the assessment after obtaining the taxpayer's explanation on the issues raised during the audit. The assessment can be amended under Section 121(1) or Section 121(4), but only after the existing order is cancelled.\nTherefore, once an assessment order is in place (whether deemed or otherwise), a new assessment order cannot be issued unless the previous order is cancelled in accordance with the law.\nDepartment’s Argument:\nThe department argued that once a case was selected for total audit, and it was found that the taxpayer's case did not meet the criteria for acceptance of the return, the Taxation Officer was fully authorized to pass a new assessment order, and the previous order would automatically become invalid.\nThis argument was rejected, as the legal framework does not allow for an automatic invalidation of the previous order without a formal cancellation.\nFinal Decision:\nThe First Appellate Authority had cancelled the ex parte order passed by the Taxation Officer, and this decision was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\nThe department’s appeal against the cancellation of the order was dismissed, reinforcing that a new assessment order cannot be passed while an existing assessment order remains in effect unless the previous order is formally cancelled in accordance with the law.\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the Taxation Officer's ex parte assessment was deemed invalid because there was already a prior assessment order in place. According to Section 177(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, a new assessment can only be passed after cancelling the previous one. The department's argument that a new assessment could automatically invalidate the prior order was rejected. The decision of the First Appellate Authority to cancel the assessment order was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, and the department's appeal was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121,122,177,120(1),121(4),122(4),177(5),177(6),177(8) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 567/LB of 2009, decision dated: 20-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": " MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: M. Tariq, D.R..\nRespondent(s) by: Kh. Riaz Hussain", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 4 = 2000 SLD 4 = 2000 PTD 1328 = (2000) 81 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURw", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income and Conversion of Liabilities into Shares under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Sections 25(b) and 25(c)\nKey Legal Issues & Findings:\nIssuance of Shares to Discharge Liabilities:\nThe assessee, a public limited company, obtained a loan from financial institutions and defaulted on payments. To discharge its liabilities, the company issued fully paid-up shares to the financial institutions under a buy-back agreement.\nThe assessee contended that the financial charges owed were settled through the issuance of its fully paid-up ordinary shares, which it claimed discharged its liabilities, and thus, no deemed income should be recognized.\nDeemed Income under Section 25(c):\nThe Assessing Officer treated the liabilities converted into fully paid-up shares as deemed income under Section 25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, on the grounds that the arrangement between the parties was collusive, implying the company was avoiding payment of its liabilities.\nThe First Appellate Authority upheld this order, confirming the assessment that the conversion of liabilities into shares amounted to deemed income.\nValidity of the Deemed Income Addition:\nThe company argued that the conversion of liabilities into shares was a legitimate transaction, not a collusive arrangement. It was argued that the accrued financial charges were effectively paid through the issuance of shares, thus discharging the liabilities to the financial institutions.\nThere was no evidence to show that the buy-back agreement involved any concession or preferential treatment that would justify treating this as a deemed income. Furthermore, the company was not bound by any obligation to repurchase the shares, and there was no evidence of a collusive arrangement.\nAppellate Tribunal’s Decision:\nThe Appellate Tribunal found that the liabilities had been fully discharged through the issuance of paid-up ordinary shares. The Tribunal ruled that the addition to the company's account made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable both in law and facts.\nThe Tribunal deleted the addition, as the transaction did not fall under the category of deemed income as defined by Section 25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\nThe conversion of liabilities into fully paid-up ordinary shares issued to the financial institutions was not deemed income under Section 25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Appellate Tribunal found that there was no collusive arrangement, and the liabilities had been legitimately settled through the issuance of shares. As such, the Assessing Officer's addition of deemed income was invalid, and the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=25,25(b),25(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 966/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 28-07-1999, hearing DATE : 29-05-1999. Date of hearing: 29th May, 1999", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I. N. Pasha for Appellant.\nMs. Shahida Taj, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 7 = 2010 SLD 7 = (2010) 101 TAX 11 = 2010 PTD 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSA", + "Key Words:": "Various Disallowances and Income Tax Issues under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\nLegal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: Sections 21, 149, 165, 233\nWorkers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971: Section 3\nKey Issues and Tribunal’s Findings:\n(a) Disallowance of Other Expenses :\nThe assessee argued that all required details and supporting documents, including bills and vouchers, were submitted and verified. However, the Taxation Officer disallowed the expenses based on stock phrases, such as partial unverifiability and alleged personal use. \nTribunal’s Decision: The Appellate Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified because the Taxation Officer did not point out any specific unverifiable claims or defects. Disallowance based on assumptions was not acceptable, and as the assessee was a legal entity, it required stricter tests to establish any personal use of facilities by employees or directors.\nResult: The disallowance of other expenses was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.\n(b) Disallowance of Advertisement Expenses :\nTaxation Officer disallowed advertisement expenses due to the assessee not providing evidence.\nTribunal’s Decision: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance as there was no supporting evidence furnished by the assessee.\nResult: The disallowance of advertisement expenses was maintained.\n(c) Disallowance of Travelling Expenses :\nTaxation Officer disallowed travelling expenses despite the assessee submitting complete details. The disallowance was made using vague stock phrases without specifying any unverifiable claims.\nTribunal’s Decision: The Appellate Tribunal found the manner of disallowance unsustainable. Specific instances of unverifiable claims had not been pointed out.\nResult: The disallowance of travelling expenses was deleted.\n(d) Disallowance of Collection Charges :\nThe assessee incurred charges for credit facilities and discounts on credit card payments. The Taxation Officer disallowed the claim citing violations of withholding tax provisions, though scheduled banks are exempt from withholding tax on such receipts.\nTribunal’s Decision: The Appellate Tribunal found no violation of Section 21(c) and confirmed that the banks had declared their receipts as taxable and offered them for taxation.\nResult: The disallowance of collection charges was deleted.\n(e) Levy of Workers' Welfare Fund:\nThe assessee argued that the Workers' Welfare Fund could not be levied for the tax year 2004 because it was not explicitly referenced under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nTribunal’s Decision: The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the assessee as the levy of the workers' welfare fund under the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 was applicable only to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, not the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the tax year in question.\nResult: The levy of the workers' welfare fund was deleted.\n(f) Disallowance of Salaries Paid to Contractor:\nFirst Appellate Authority found that tax was deducted on payments made to the contractor and disclosed in the statement under Section 165. The disallowance was based on the incorrect assumption that the payments were related to deductions under Section 149.\nTribunal’s Decision: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the findings of the First Appellate Authority, confirming that tax on contractor payments was correctly disclosed under Section 165.\nResult: The disallowance of salaries paid to the contractor was deleted.\n(g) Disallowance of Financial Charges :\nTaxation Officer disallowed financial charges on the grounds that the claim exceeded a fixed rate of 10%, despite the assessee submitting a detailed breakup of the charges supported by bank statements.\nTribunal’s Decision: The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the First Appellate Authority, noting that the claim was supported by bank statements and was fully verifiable. There was no finding that the loan was used for non-business purposes.\nResult: The disallowance of financial charges was deleted.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal found the disallowances made by the Taxation Officer to be unjustified in most instances, either due to lack of specific evidence, improper application of the law, or incorrect assumptions. In each case, the Tribunal sided with the assessee, confirming that the disallowances were not supported by sufficient factual evidence or legal grounds, and thus, the disallowances were deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,149,165,233,21(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 620/KB and 640/KB of 2008, decision dated: 2-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha and Nadeem Ahmed Dawoodi for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 620/KB of 2008). Rehmatullah Khan Wazir for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 620/KB of 2008). Rehmatullah Khan Wazir for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 640/KB of 2008). Iqbal Salman Pasha and Nadeem Ahmed Dawoodi for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 640/KB of 2008).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 8 = 2010 SLD 8 = (2010) 101 TAX 203 = 2010 PTD 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURQ", + "Key Words:": "Legal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: Sections 205, 221, 131, and 156\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Section 62\nKey Issues and Tribunal's Findings:\n(a) Rectification of Mistake and Liability for Additional Income Tax:\nIssue: The appellant (taxpayer) informed the Taxation Officer that it had a refund of Rs.18,08,012 available from the tax years 1990-91 to 1999-2000. The taxpayer requested Rs.338,841 to be adjusted against the tax liability for the year 2000-01.\nTaxation Officer's Finding: The Taxation Officer found that only a refund of Rs.4,28,875 was due for the 1999-2000 assessment year, and no further refund was available. Based on this, the officer imposed additional tax under Section 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nTribunal's Finding: The Appellate Tribunal found that substantial refunds, including Rs.10,47,120 issued to the appellant on 30-6-2000, proved that more refunds were due. The Taxation Officer's observation was factually incorrect, as the record had not been properly reviewed, leading to the wrongful imposition of additional tax.\nResult: The Tribunal set aside the Taxation Officer’s order and remanded the case, directing the Taxation Officer to carefully examine the appellant's records. If the refund amount was sufficient to cover the tax liability, additional tax under Section 205 should not be charged.\n(b) Rectification of Assessment Under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001:\nIssue: The appellant/department challenged the order of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), which had canceled the Taxation Officer’s decision under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Taxation Officer had attempted to rectify an assessment made under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nAppellate Tribunal's Finding: The assessment in question was finalized under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on 12-3-2003. The limitation period for rectification under Section 156 of the 1979 Ordinance expired on 11-3-2007. However, on 1-7-2003, the provisions of Section 221(A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 came into effect. Since the assessment was still open and had not become a closed transaction by 30-6-2003, the Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 221 of the 2001 Ordinance applied.\nResult: The Tribunal vacated the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)'s order and restored the Taxation Officer’s order, confirming that the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, provisions were applicable for rectification.\nConclusion:\nIn the first case, the Appellate Tribunal found that the Taxation Officer had wrongly charged additional tax due to an incorrect examination of the appellant’s records and the refunds due. The matter was remanded for further examination and appropriate action.\nIn the second case, the Tribunal confirmed that the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (particularly Section 221) applied to the assessment and rectification of mistakes, even for assessments made under the repealed Ordinance, 1979, provided the relevant period for rectification had not expired when the new provisions came into force.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=62,131,156 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=205,221 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1175/LB of 2008 and 867/LB of 2008, decision dated: 1st October, 2009", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif, D.R. in I.T.A. No. 1175 of 2008", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 9 = 2010 SLD 9 = (2009) 100 TAX 357 = 2010 PTD 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURg", + "Key Words:": "Legal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Section 62\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001: Relevant sections regarding disallowances and assessment procedures\nKey Issues and Tribunal's Findings:\n(a) Rejection of Trading Results Based on Past History:\nIssue: The Taxation Officer rejected the assessee’s declared trading results based on the previous history, even though that history had been modified by the High Court in a prior case. The assessee argued that the same treatment should be applied for the current year.\nAppellate Tribunal's Finding: The Appellate Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority had already reviewed the history of the case, and the relevant facts, such as the amount maintained and other details, had remained the same. Given this consistency, the Tribunal directed that the assessee’s declared trading version be accepted, as there was no justification for rejecting it.\nResult: The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, accepting the declared trading results.\n(b) Non-Confrontation of Assessee on the Issue of Payment from Parent Company:\nIssue: The assessee challenged an addition made on account of payments received from its parent company. The assessee argued that he had not been confronted with this issue by the Taxation Officer, referencing the assessment order and the notice under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nAppellate Tribunal's Finding: The Appellate Tribunal found that the Taxation Officer had neither mentioned in the assessment order nor in the notice under Section 62 that the assessee was confronted on this issue. As no proper confrontation had taken place, the Tribunal deleted the addition.\nResult: The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the addition.\n(c) Addition of Other Income:\nIssue: The assessee contended that similar additions made in previous years had been deleted by the Appellate Tribunal, arguing for consistency in treatment.\nAppellate Tribunal's Finding: In light of the settled position that had been established in previous years, the Tribunal deleted the addition on account of other income.\nResult: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessee’s contention and deleted the addition.\n(d) Disallowance of Repair and Maintenance Expenses:\nIssue: The assessee challenged a disallowance made by the Taxation Officer out of repair and maintenance expenses. The First Appellate Authority had previously reduced the disallowance by 25% in a similar case from the previous year.\nAppellate Tribunal's Finding: The Tribunal followed the precedent from the previous year and directed that the disallowance be restricted to 25% of the claim, as had been done in the prior assessment year.\nOther Expenses: The Tribunal also set aside the disallowance made in respect of other expenses, noting that similar disallowances in the previous year had been set aside. The Taxation Officer was directed to reconsider the disallowance, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.\nResult: The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the repair and maintenance expenses, and set aside the disallowance of other expenses for fresh consideration.\nConclusion:\nIn the first case, the Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's trading results, rejecting the Taxation Officer's reliance on past history.\nIn the second case, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim that it was not properly confronted regarding the addition on payments from the parent company, leading to the deletion of the addition.\nIn the third case, the Tribunal deleted an addition to other income based on the settled history in previous years.\nIn the fourth case, the Tribunal directed that the repair and maintenance disallowance be restricted to 25% of the claim, following the precedent set in the previous year, and set aside the disallowance of other expenses for reconsideration by the Taxation Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1630/KB of 2005, decision dated: 24-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Irfan Saddat\nRespondent(s) by: Dr. Abdus Sattar Abbasi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 10 = 2010 SLD 10 = (2010) 101 TAX 118 = 2010 PTD 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSw", + "Key Words:": "Legal Provisions Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Sections 9, 10, 80-D, 80-DD, 50(5), and relevant parts of the First Schedule\nKey Issues and Tribunal's Findings:\n(a) Minimum Tax under Presumptive Tax Regime:\nIssue: The assessee was taxed under the Presumptive Tax Regime under Sections 80-D and 80-DD. The question was whether the final tax liability should be calculated under the normal tax regime, as the assessee had filed a return in accordance with the law.\nTribunal's Finding: The Tribunal found that the final tax liability should indeed be calculated under the normal tax regime, considering the total income, as the assessee had filed the return appropriately under the law.\nResult: The Tribunal ruled that the normal tax regime should apply for the calculation of the final tax liability, as the assessee followed the required legal procedure.\n(b) Levy of Surcharge under Presumptive Tax Regime:\nIssue: Whether a surcharge could be levied when the assessee had already paid tax under the Presumptive Tax Regime (under Sections 80-D and 80-DD) and the tax paid was already higher than the normal tax regime tax liability.\nTribunal's Finding: The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Sections 80-D and 80-DD applied only if the tax under the normal regime was less than the tax deducted under Section 50(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance. If the tax paid under the presumptive regime (including income tax and surcharge) was higher, then no further surcharge should be levied. The Tribunal emphasized that surcharge should only apply when the tax paid under the Presumptive Tax Regime was less than the normal tax liability.\nResult: The Tribunal ruled that no surcharge should be imposed if the assessee had already paid tax at a higher rate under the Presumptive Tax Regime.\n(c) Surcharge and Charge of Income Tax:\nIssue: Whether surcharge could be levied if income tax was not levied under Section 9 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nTribunal's Finding: The Tribunal ruled that no surcharge could be levied under Section 10 unless income tax had been levied under Section 9, as both sections were linked and read together. Since surcharge is applied to the income tax payable, if no income tax was assessed, surcharge would not apply.\nResult: The Tribunal held that no surcharge could be levied in the absence of income tax under Section 9.\n(d) Nexus Between First Schedule and Relevant Sections:\nIssue: The Tribunal examined the connection between the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and the inducing sections of the Ordinance (i.e., Sections 9 and 10), particularly in relation to surcharge.\nTribunal's Finding: The First Schedule had a direct nexus with Sections 9 and 10, which control the tax and surcharge rates. The Tribunal affirmed that these inducing sections regulate the application of the surcharge rates listed in the First Schedule.\nResult: The Tribunal confirmed the importance of Sections 9 and 10 in applying the tax and surcharge rates.\n(e) Charge of Super Tax and Surcharge:\nIssue: Whether surcharge could be levied based on the assessed total income when the tax was not levied under the basis of total income.\nTribunal's Finding: The Tribunal ruled that surcharge under Section 10 could only be levied on the assessed total income. If tax was not calculated based on the assessed total income, no surcharge could be imposed.\nResult: The Tribunal upheld that no surcharge could be levied if tax was not calculated based on assessed total income.\n(f) Clarification on Presumptive Tax Regime and Surcharge:\nIssue: The Tribunal reviewed the provisions in the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, regarding the Presumptive Tax Regime.\nTribunal's Finding: The Tribunal clarified that the Presumptive Tax Regime (as per Sections 80-D and 80-DD) is separate and independent of the First Schedule provisions. The First Schedule provisions related to the Presumptive Tax Regime only clarify that the income covered by the Presumptive Tax Regime would be excluded from the normal income under the tax regime.\nResult: The Tribunal concluded that surcharge provisions in the First Schedule did not directly apply to the Presumptive Tax Regime under Sections 80-D and 80-DD.\nConclusion:\nFinal Tax Calculation: The final tax liability of the assessee under the Presumptive Tax Regime should be calculated under the normal tax regime on the total income, as the assessee had filed a return in accordance with the law.\nSurcharge and Tax Liability: If the tax paid under the Presumptive Tax Regime (including income tax and surcharge) exceeds the tax liability calculated under the normal regime, no surcharge should be imposed.\nSurcharge Levy on Assessed Total Income: The Tribunal held that surcharge could only be levied when income tax is charged under Section 9 of the Income Tax Ordinance, and it should be applied to the assessed total income.\nNexus of First Schedule and Surcharge: The Tribunal reinforced the direct nexus between Sections 9 and 10 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and the surcharge provisions in the First Schedule.\nPresumptive Tax Regime and Surcharge: The Tribunal clarified that Sections 80-D and 80-DD of the Income Tax Ordinance do not directly relate to the surcharge provisions of the First Schedule, as they are separate and independent provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,80D,9,80,50(5),80DD,50,10, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1609/KB, 1610/KB, 1611/KB and 1612/KB of 2005, decision dated: 20-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRMAN AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amin-ud-Din Ansari for Appellant. Rehmatullah Khan Wazir, D.R. and Farrukh Ansari, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 706 = 1979 SLD 706 = 1979 PLD 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTA", + "Key Words:": "Legal Provisions Involved:\nCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): Section 401\nPunjab Government Notification No. 14(2)-S.O. Pre-II (HD)/70, dated 5-1-1972\nJail Manual (for comparison purposes)\nKey Issues and Legal Findings:\n(a) Remission of Sentence - Conditions of Eligibility:\nIssue: The eligibility conditions to avail remission of sentence under the Punjab Government Notification were different from those stated in the Jail Manual. The question was whether the notification could be examined independently of the Jail Manual.\nTribunal's Finding: The Court held that the conditions for remission as stated in the notification should be evaluated independently, as they were distinct from the Jail Manual provisions.\nResult: The notification’s conditions were treated as separate and required an independent interpretation, disregarding the Jail Manual's criteria.\n(b) Interpretation of the Notification - Language of Clauses:\nIssue: The language used in Clauses (b) and (c) of the notification was intentionally different from that used in Clause (a). The issue was to understand the reason behind this difference and its implications for prisoners who were not in custody at the time of the notification's enforcement.\nTribunal's Finding: The Court concluded that the language in Clauses (b) and (c) was intentionally crafted to benefit prisoners who were not in custody at the time the notification came into effect. This allowed them to still benefit from the remission provisions once they surrendered or were taken into custody.\nResult: The Court interpreted the language differences to conclude that the notification intended to include prisoners who were under sentence but not physically in custody at the time of enforcement.\n(c) Meaning of Under Sentence :\nIssue: The interpretation of the phrase under sentence in Clauses (b) and (c) of Paragraph 4 of the notification was questioned, specifically in the context of prisoners who were not in custody at the time of sentencing or when the notification was issued.\nTribunal's Finding: The Court interpreted under sentence to apply to those individuals who had been sentenced but had not yet surrendered or been taken into custody. The Court cited relevant precedents, such as Po Kun v. The King (1939) and Sohan Singh Nand Singh v. The State (1965), to support this interpretation.\nResult: The Court ruled that the phrase under sentence was intended to apply to individuals who were found guilty and sentenced but had not yet been taken into custody.\n(d) Applicability of Remission for Petitioners Not in Custody:\nIssue: The petitioners were not in custody when the sentence of 10 years' R.I. was awarded to them, nor were they serving their sentence when the notification was issued. However, they were still under sentence of imprisonment until they surrendered or were taken into custody. The issue was whether they were entitled to the remission benefit in such circumstances.\nTribunal's Finding: The Court held that although the petitioners were not in custody at the time of sentencing or the notification's enforcement, they were still considered to be under sentence until they physically surrendered or were taken into custody. Thus, they were entitled to the remission as per Clause (c) of Paragraph 4 of the notification, which provides a remission of two months per year of the sentence imposed.\nResult: The Court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of remission, calculated from the date they were sentenced, even though they had not been in custody when the notification was issued.\nConclusion:\nThe notification regarding remission of sentence is to be examined independently from the provisions of the Jail Manual due to different eligibility conditions stated in the notification.\nClauses (b) and (c) of the notification were deliberately worded differently from Clause (a) to allow prisoners not in custody at the time of the notification’s enforcement to still benefit from the remission once they surrendered or were taken into custody.\nThe phrase under sentence in the notification applies to those who have been sentenced but not yet taken into custody, and they are still considered under sentence until they physically surrender or are apprehended.\nPetitioners who were not in custody at the time of the sentence or notification were still entitled to remission under the notification, as they were considered under sentence until their physical surrender or apprehension.\nThis decision highlights the importance of interpreting notification language and legal terms in the context of sentence and remission eligibility for prisoners under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and Punjab Government notification.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=401 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3418 of 1978, decision dated: 15th January 1979, hearing date: 10th January 1979", + "Judge Name:": "ZAKIUDDIN PAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. H. Manto for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 11 = 2010 SLD 11 = (2010) 101 TAX 69 = 2010 PTD 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQw", + "Key Words:": "Key Legal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Sections 38, 131, 221\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXXI of 1979): Section 80-D, Section 80-CC\nRectification of Mistake: Section 221 of Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nKey Issues and Findings:\n(a) Rectification of Mistake by Taxation Officer:\nIssue: The department filed two appeals against the consolidated order of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), which had deleted the additions under Section 80-D of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance (1979) concerning the gain on sale of land.\nCommissioner's Order: The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) noted that Section 80-D of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance (1979) clearly stated that where no tax was payable by the company, the minimum tax payable would be 5% of the turnover of the assessee. Since the tax payable under Section 80-CC was lower than 5% of the turnover, the original assessment under Section 62 of the repealed Ordinance charged tax as per this minimum tax rate.\nRectification by Taxation Officer: The Taxation Officer had rectified the order under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, without adequate justification. This rectification was done despite the fact that for the assessment year 2002-2003, the assessee's contention regarding the tax treatment had already been accepted by the Taxation Officer.\nTribunal's Decision: The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)' decision, holding that the tax under Section 80-D of the repealed Ordinance was correctly charged in the original assessment. The Commissioner had rightly held that the tax was chargeable based on the turnover of the assessee and not on the capital gains from the sale of land, as capital gains did not form part of the turnover.\n(b) Taxation on Gain from Sale of Land:\nIssue: The gain on the sale of land was treated as capital gain by the assessee, and it was not included in the turnover for purposes of tax calculation under Section 80-D of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance (1979). The Taxation Officer had originally charged tax on this gain under Section 80-D, but this was contested by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals).\nTribunal's Finding: The Appellate Tribunal had already determined that the gain on the sale of land was a capital gain, which is not chargeable to tax under Section 80-D. The tax under Section 80-D is specifically based on turnover, and capital gains do not constitute part of the turnover, thus no tax under Section 80-D could be imposed on the sale of land.\n(c) Impact of Rectification under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001):\nIssue: The Taxation Officer had sought to rectify the order under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001). However, this action was found to be unjustified, as the assessable tax for the 2002-2003 assessment year had already been accepted based on previous assessments.\nTribunal's Conclusion: The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) had rightly ruled that tax under Section 80-D was chargeable on the turnover of the assessee and not on capital gains, which were excluded from turnover. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this position, and the decision to delete the tax charge on the capital gains from the sale of land was confirmed.\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer's rectification under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) was found to be unjustified because the matter had already been settled in previous assessments, and there was no basis to modify the assessment.\nTax under Section 80-D of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance (1979) is chargeable on the turnover of the assessee, not on capital gains, such as those arising from the sale of land.\nThe Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) correctly deleted the tax under Section 80-D imposed on the gain from the sale of land since capital gains do not form part of the turnover and therefore cannot be subjected to tax under that section.\nThus, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the deletion of the tax on the capital gain from the sale of land, reinforcing the correct application of Section 80-D in this context.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=38,131,221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,62,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 552/LB and 553/LB of 2007, decision dated: 3rd October, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant, Yousaf Saeed, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 12 = 2010 SLD 12 = (2009) 100 TAX 167 = 2010 PTD 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRA", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Findings:\n(a) Rectification of Mistake - Un-adjudicated Ground of Appeal:\nIssue: The assessee filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of an earlier order by the Appellate Tribunal. The issue was that the ground of appeal regarding the gross profit rate had not been adjudicated by the Tribunal, which was a mistake apparent on the face of the record.\nAppellate Tribunal's Decision: The Appellate Tribunal found that the ground of appeal on the gross profit rate had indeed remained unadjudicated in its earlier decision. As this was a clear mistake apparent on the face of the record, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application and recalled the earlier order, thereby giving the matter proper consideration.\n(b) Rejection of Accounts and Gross Profit Rate:\nIssue: The Assessing Officer had rejected the assessee's declared gross profit rate without providing plausible reasons. The Assessing Officer relied on parallel cases from different cities, which were not relevant or comparable, as they were not located in the same locality as the assessee's business.\nAppellate Tribunal's Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal found that the rejection of the declared version and the application of a different gross profit rate was not in accordance with the law. The Assessing Officer failed to consider parallel cases from businesses within the same locality and instead cited cases from other cities, which were not comparable in the strict sense.\nReasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer's approach was flawed because the locality factor was not taken into account. The gross profit rate should have been considered based on businesses in the same locality, and citing unrelated cases from different cities was legally unsound.\nOutcome: The Tribunal vacated the order of the First Appellate Authority and directed the Assessing Officer to accept the declared gross profit rate as the correct measure, thereby ensuring compliance with the law and proper consideration of local market conditions.\nCited Precedents:\nThe Tribunal referred to the following cases in support of its decision:\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 2106\n2002 PTD 407\n1985 PTD 516\n1984 PTD 150\n2009 PTD (Trib.) 838\n1994 PTD 123\n2003 PTD (Trib.) 1972\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 1972\nThese precedents reaffirm the importance of considering local business conditions when comparing gross profit rates and ensuring that decisions are made based on relevant cases.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal found that the gross profit rate applied by the Assessing Officer was incorrect due to reliance on non-parallel cases and a lack of justification for rejecting the assessee's declared gross profit rate.\nThe Tribunal rectified the earlier mistake by considering the unadjudicated ground and ruled that the declared gross profit rate should be accepted, thereby reinstating the assessee's declared accounts.\nThe Assessing Officer was directed to accept the gross profit rate as declared by the assessee, ensuring a fair and lawful tax assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M.As. (A.G.) Nos. 18/LB of 2008 to 22/LB of 2008, 451/LB of 2008 to 455/LB of 2008, I.T.As. Nos. 7029/IB of 2005 to 7030/LB of 2005, 5156/LB of 2003, 1031/LB of 2004 and 5072/LB of 2005, decision dated: 11-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for Appellant, S.A. Masood Raza Qazilbash, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 5462/LB of 2003 and 1039/LB of 2004). Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 5462/LB of 2003 and 1039/LB of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 13 = 2010 SLD 13 = (2010) 101 TAX 1 = 2010 PTD 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQQ", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Findings:\n(a) Cash Withdrawals and Withholding Tax:\nIssue: The Taxation Officer made an addition to the assessee's income on the grounds that cash withdrawals from the bank attracted the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. This was despite the fact that the bank had already deducted withholding tax under Section 231-A of the Ordinance.\nThe assessee explained that the withdrawals were below the threshold of Rs. 25,000 for each withdrawal, and the bank had excluded those amounts when calculating the tax. Additionally, the assessee utilized part of the withdrawn amount for payment of salaries to various employees, with the remaining balance being re-deposited in the bank.\nTaxation Officer's Assumption: The Taxation Officer made an addition to the income of the assessee based on the assumption that cash withdrawals would fall under Section 21(1), which does not allow deductions in certain cases.\n(b) Assessee's Evidence:\nThe assessee produced books of accounts, bank statements, deposit slips, and date-wise statements of deposits as evidence.\nAssessee's Explanation: The assessee clarified that the withdrawals were used for legitimate purposes, such as paying salaries and re-depositing the balance in the bank. No claims were made under the second proviso of Section 21(1), as it did not apply to their situation.\n(c) Failure of Taxation Officer to Prove Discrepancies:\nThe Taxation Officer failed to provide any evidence or reasoning that would dispute the assessee's statement or show discrepancies in the books of accounts or bank records.\nAssumption-based Addition: The Taxation Officer made the addition based on assumptions and presumptions, rather than on concrete evidence. The assessee had provided comprehensive documentation, but the Taxation Officer did not substantiate the addition with facts or proof of unreported expenses or cash expenditures.\n(d) First Appellate Authority's Ruling:\nThe First Appellate Authority upheld the Taxation Officer's decision, despite the lack of any clear evidence or justification.\nAppellate Tribunal's Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal found that the Taxation Officer had misdirected himself by making an addition based on assumptions without proving any errors in the assessee's records.\nThe Appellate Tribunal concluded that the addition under Section 21(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not justified and vacated the order of the First Appellate Authority. The addition made by the Taxation Officer was deleted.\nCited Precedents:\n1970) 21 Tax (S.C. Pak): Reference to case law indicating that the addition based on mere presumptions is not acceptable.\n1998 PTD 2969: Further reference to established case law regarding the handling of bank withdrawals and deductions.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Taxation Officer had made an addition to the assessee's income based on presumptions without any factual basis or proper verification of the assessee's records.\nThe assessee had provided all required documents, including bank statements and books of accounts, which showed that the cash withdrawals were legitimate and in compliance with tax provisions.\nSince the Taxation Officer failed to establish any discrepancies or unreported expenses, the Appellate Tribunal vacated the addition under Section 21(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and ordered that the addition be deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,21(e),21(l),120,120(1),122(5A),122(9),231,231A,231A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 186/KB of 2009, decision dated: 25-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sulman Pasha, along with Nadeem Ahmed Daudi for Appellants. Rehmatullah Wazir, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 5 = 2000 SLD 5 = 2000 PTD 1356 = (1999) 239 ITR 587 = (2000) 81 TAX 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQg", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues and Findings:\n1. Scope of Section 195:\nSection 195 applies when payments are made to non-residents, and it provides that the person making the payment must deduct tax at source.\nThe deduction must be based on the gross sum payable to the non-resident, and it is the responsibility of the payer to ensure this deduction is made.\n2. Application for Determination of Taxable Sum:\nPayer’s Obligation: The payer can apply to the Assessing Officer for a determination of the sum chargeable to tax. This can be done under:\nSection 195(2): For determining the sum chargeable to tax.\nSection 195(3): For a determination of the appropriate proportion of the sum that is chargeable to tax.\nSection 197: For seeking a certificate to authorize the recipient to receive payment without tax deduction or at a lower rate.\nNon-filing of Application: If the payer does not file an application for determination under these provisions, the payer is still legally obligated to deduct tax on the entire gross sum, even if only part of the sum is taxable.\n3. Tentative Deduction and Regular Assessment:\nThe purpose of Section 195(1) is to ensure that the sum which is chargeable to tax under Section 4 (which relates to the levy of income tax) is subject to tax deduction at source before being paid to a non-resident.\nThe deduction is tentative, meaning that the exact tax liability will be determined at the time of regular assessment.\nTaxation of Income: The income may consist of both taxable and non-taxable amounts, as seen in payments like commissions or contractor payments, where only part of the sum may be income.\n4. Safeguarding of Rights:\nProtection for Payee/Recipient: The rights of the recipient (non-resident) are protected by the provisions of Sections 195(2), 195(3), and 197:\nIf the recipient believes that part of the payment should not be subject to tax, or if a lower rate of tax should apply, they can seek determination through the Assessing Officer.\nIf the Assessing Officer agrees, the non-resident can receive the payment without the full tax deduction or with a reduced deduction.\n5. Consequences of Non-Compliance:\nStatutory Obligation: If the payer does not seek a determination from the Assessing Officer and does not apply for a lower deduction certificate (under Section 197), they must deduct tax on the entire amount before making the payment to the non-resident.\nCase Law References:\nCIT v. Superintending Engineer, Upper Sileru (1985) 152 ITR 753: This case was affirmed, which discussed the obligations of the payer to deduct tax at source.\nP.C. Ray & Co. (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A. C. Mukherjee, I.T.O. (1959) 36 ITR 365 (Cal.): This case was approved, where the principle of deducting tax at source from payments made to non-residents was upheld.\nConclusion:\nSection 195 mandates that tax be deducted at source from payments made to non-residents, with the payer responsible for ensuring the deduction of tax on the gross sum.\nIf the payer does not apply for a determination of the taxable amount, the payer is required to deduct tax on the full amount.\nThe rights of the recipient (non-resident) are safeguarded by the provisions under Sections 195(2), 195(3), and 197, allowing them to seek relief in case only part of the payment is taxable.\nFailure to apply for a lower deduction certificate or determination does not absolve the payer from the legal obligation to deduct tax at source.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.594 to 596 of 1985, decision dated: 17-08-1999, (Appeals from the judgment and order; dated July 2, 1984, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R. C. Nos.203 to 205 of 1978).", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. WADHWA AND M. B. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A. P. LTD. and another\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 14 = 2010 SLD 14 = (2009) 100 TAX 390 = 2010 PTD 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Amendment of Assessment - Repeated Notices and Validity under Section 122(5A):\nIssue: Whether the repeated notices issued by the Taxation Officer under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) were valid for the purpose of amending the taxpayer's assessment.\nFindings:\nThe second notice issued by the Taxation Officer claimed that errors had been highlighted which caused prejudice to the Revenue. However, this notice was essentially an admission that the first notice was inadequate.\nThe third notice further demonstrated that the first two notices were legally deficient. The repeated notices were seen as fishing inquiries, where the Taxation Officer was unsure of the issues raised in the first notice.\nThe Appellate Tribunal concluded that such repetitive and unfounded inquiries could not be used as a basis for invoking Section 122(5A), as this would amount to a misuse of the legal provision.\nThe Tribunal held that mere suspicion was not sufficient to invoke Section 122(5A), emphasizing that the notices failed to meet the legal requirements necessary to amend the assessment.\n(b) Deduction for Payment of Gratuity under Sections 21(f) & 21(e):\nIssue: Whether the taxpayer’s claim for gratuity paid during the year could be deducted as a business expense.\nFindings:\nThe Taxpayer had paid the gratuity during the year and deducted tax on the amount, fulfilling the requirements of Section 21(f) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Therefore, the payment was considered a valid business expense.\nThe Department's Argument: The Department argued that since gratuity was an ascertained liability, the expense should be allowed when it was incurred, not when it was paid.\nTribunal's Ruling: The Tribunal rejected this argument, affirming that the gratuity payment was a legitimate business expense that had already been paid, and the claim should be allowed.\nFurthermore, the Department had previously allowed the provision for gratuity as a legitimate expense in a prior year, and therefore, the taxpayer should not be penalized for making the payment in the current year. The principle of consistency was applied, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, allowing the expense.\n(c) Deduction for Income from Other Sources under Sections 40 & 67:\nIssue: Whether the taxpayer could claim deductions for expenses incurred in earning income under the head “Income from Other Sources”.\nFindings:\nThe taxpayer was not permitted to claim certain expenses associated with income from other sources due to the disallowance of expenses attributable to local sales, which amounted to only 0.822% of the expenses claimed.\nThe Tribunal ruled that even with such a small percentage (0.822%), the taxpayer could not be said to have failed to incur expenses to earn income of over Rs. 7.6 million. It was highlighted that the provisions under Sections 40 and 67 of the Ordinance, read with Rule 13 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002, were specifically designed to allow the allocation of admissible deductions between different income categories.\nThe Tribunal found that the disallowance of these expenses was improper, as the law clearly provides for the deduction of expenses related to income from other sources.\n(d) Non-Confrontation of Issues and Invalid Notices under Section 122(5A):\nIssue: Whether the Taxation Officer’s action under Section 122(5A), based on notices that did not properly confront the issues with the taxpayer, was valid.\nFindings:\nThe initial notice issued by the Taxation Officer merely pointed out deficiencies in the taxpayer's return without confronting specific issues or giving the taxpayer an opportunity to explain or provide evidence.\nThe subsequent order was found to be based on unsubstantiated suspicions and failed to meet the twin prerequisites of being both erroneous and prejudicial, which are essential to invoke Section 122(5A).\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the initial notice was legally insufficient, and thus all proceedings or orders stemming from it were void.\nThe Tribunal annulled the order under Section 122(5A) and restored the deemed amended assessment under Section 122(3), highlighting that proper confrontation of issues was required before invoking Section 122(5A).\nCase Law References:\n1999 PTD 3899: Referring to cases on the consistency of expense claims and validity of Taxation Officer’s actions.\n1992 SCMR 763: In connection with proper documentation and substantiation of claims.\n1981 PTD (Trib.) 168: Referencing the need for clear evidence in tax assessments.\n2006 PTD 460: Supporting consistency in the treatment of expenses and liabilities.\n2004 PTD 244; 2004 PTD 422; 2008 PTD 1491: Cases emphasizing the importance of confrontation of issues before assessment adjustments.\nConclusion:\nSection 122(5A) can only be invoked if the Taxation Officer properly confronts the issues and provides adequate grounds for the assessment changes. Repeated and unsubstantiated notices are insufficient for amending assessments.\nGratuity payments made by the taxpayer were legitimate business expenses, and the Department could not reverse its treatment of similar claims from previous years.\nExpenses related to income from other sources were properly incurred and should be allowed, even if only a small percentage of total expenses are attributable to the income in question.\nThe Tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer in each case, emphasizing proper procedural conduct, consistency, and the validity of legitimate business expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,40,67,122(5A),122(9),21(e),21(f) Income Tax Rules, 2002=13 Corporate Assets Tax=122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 448/KB and 420/KB of 2008, decision dated: 23rd June, 2009.", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Riazuddin for the Appellant (in I.T.A. No.448/KB of 2008).\nFarooq Ansari, DR and Rehmatullah Khan Wazir DR for Respondents (in I.T.A. No.448/KB of 2008).\nFarooq Ansari, DR and Rehmatullah Khan Wazir DR for Appellants (in I.T.A. No.420/KB of 2008).\nS. Riazuddin for Respondent (in I.T.A. No.420/KB of 2008).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 15 = 2010 SLD 15 = (2010) 101 TAX 280 = 2010 PTD 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 131 & 221\nBackground:\nTaxpayer: A private limited company, with an assessment for the subject year completed in 2002 under Section 62 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nDeclared Income: Total income of Rs. 1,787,824, and export proceeds of Rs. 4,807,040.\nIssue: After the completion of the assessment, the Taxation Officer issued a show-cause notice and subsequently rectified the assessment order under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The rectification was based on the argument that export freight expenses were mistakenly included in the expenses related to normal sales, which should have been excluded when prorating expenses between normal sales and export sales.\nTaxpayer's Objection: The taxpayer contested the rectification order, arguing that the assessment was finalized under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and that the rectification under Section 221 of the 2001 Ordinance was a change of opinion and, therefore, not permissible.\nTaxpayer's Arguments:\nCompletion under Repealed Ordinance: The taxpayer contended that the assessment was completed in March 2002 under Section 62 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and the rectification notice issued under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 represented a change of opinion.\nChange of Opinion: The taxpayer argued that since the Taxation Officer had already applied his mind during the initial assessment, any subsequent change—especially one that increased the tax liability or was detrimental to the taxpayer—amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law.\nDecision:\nThe Taxation Officer’s Action: The Taxation Officer, after issuing a show-cause notice, rectified the order under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, based on a mistake regarding the prorating of export freight expenses. However, this rectification was challenged by the taxpayer.\nCommissioner Income Tax (Appeals): The Commissioner upheld the Taxation Officer's rectification under Section 221, rejecting the taxpayer’s appeal.\nLegal Findings:\nLegality of the Action: The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the Taxation Officer's action under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the Commissioner’s order were without legal basis. The rectification was deemed invalid because it represented a change of opinion by the same officer, which is not allowed under the law once the officer has applied their mind during the original assessment.\nChange of Opinion: The Tribunal held that the rectification was not valid because the officer had already considered the issue during the original assessment. Any action that resulted in a change of opinion was deemed impermissible. Moreover, the law prohibits changing an assessment based on an opinion once the assessment has been finalized unless there is a genuine mistake apparent on the record.\nConclusion:\nThe orders of both the Taxation Officer and the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) were annulled by the Appellate Tribunal.\nThe Taxation Officer was directed to re-examine the issues involved and take further action in accordance with the law, providing the taxpayer with an opportunity to be heard before any action was taken.\nThe case was resolved by emphasizing the principle that rectification under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, should not be used to change the opinion formed during the original assessment unless there was an error on the face of the record.\nCase Law Reference:\n2008 PTD 253: Similar cases that reinforce the legal stance on the issue of change of opinion and rectification under tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1134/KB of 2007, decision dated: 31st August, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Mehtab Khan for Appellant\nGohar Ali, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 16 = 2010 SLD 16 = (2010) 101 TAX 37 = 2010 PTD 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 131, 143-B, and 221\nBackground:\nTaxpayer: A private limited company that had filed statements under Section 143-B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The statements were deemed to be accepted as filed.\nIssue: The Assessing Officer observed that the taxpayer-company had received interest from banks and had deducted tax at 10%, instead of the normal rate of 43% (for the first two years) or 45% (for the next two years), which applied to the taxpayer as a private limited company.\nAssessment Action: The Assessing Officer initiated a rectification action under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to correct the tax deduction error and applied a higher tax rate on the interest income.\nTaxpayer’s Appeal:\nThe taxpayer, aggrieved by the treatment meted out by the Assessing Officer, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Commissioner Income Tax).\nThe Appellate Authority cancelled the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 221, declaring it null and void.\nCommissioner Income Tax’s Order:\nFirst Three Assessment Years (1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02): The Appellate Authority correctly found that these assessments could not be rectified under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as more than five years had passed since the original assessments were made.\nThe Appellate Authority maintained the cancellation of the assessment for these years, and the Appeal to Appellate Tribunal in respect of these years was dismissed because the action of the Appellate Authority was found to be justified.\nAssessment for Year 2002-03:\nFiling under Section 143-B: The taxpayer had filed a statement for the assessment year 2002-03 under Section 143-B, and the tax deducted at source was considered the final discharge of liability.\nAppellate Authority’s Error: The Appellate Authority wrongly cancelled the order regarding the 2002-03 assessment, stating that:\nThe assessments for the years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03 should have been deemed to have been accepted under Section 59-A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and thus, could not be rectified under Section 221(1-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nThe orders passed under the repealed Ordinance could not be rectified after four years, as per the provisions of Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nAppellate Tribunal’s Findings:\nAssessment for the First Three Years: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Appellate Authority's order for the years 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02, maintaining the cancellation of the assessments as the rectifications under Section 221 were not permissible after the lapse of five years from the date of the assessment order.\nAssessment for Year 2002-03: The Tribunal disagreed with the Appellate Authority's decision regarding the 2002-03 assessment. The Appellate Tribunal found that the taxpayer had filed the statement under Section 143-B, which discharged the liability. Therefore, the Taxation Officer could not change the assessment unless there was a genuine mistake or error in the tax calculation.\nThe Revenue's Appeal regarding the 2002-03 assessment was accepted, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh order, ensuring that all available grounds are considered, and the taxpayer is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.\nConclusion:\nFirst Three Assessment Years: The Commissioner Income Tax's cancellation of the assessment for the years 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 was upheld, as the assessments were final and could not be rectified under Section 221 due to the lapse of more than five years.\nAssessment for 2002-03: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the 2002-03 assessment should not have been cancelled by the Appellate Authority. The case for 2002-03 was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), who must consider all available grounds and provide a hearing to the taxpayer.\nLegal References:\n2005 PTD 1316, 2006 PTD 734, 2005 PTD 14: Citations referring to earlier cases and principles regarding the rectification of tax assessments and time limitations under the Income Tax Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,143,143B,221 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 199/LB to 202/LB of 2008, decision dated: 31st August, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Latif, D.R. for Appellant\nYousaf Ali Ch. I.T.P. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 17 = 2010 SLD 17 = (2009) 100 TAX 84 = 2010 PTD 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 2(65), 161, 182, 205, 239(2)\nBackground:\nThis case revolves around the validity of assessments for the tax years 2003 to 2007 carried out by a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, a designation that was not in line with the legal provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nKey Issues:\nDesignated Authority for Assessments:\nThe assessments in question were made by an official with the title of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, a position which was initially included in the definition of Taxation Officer under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. This was done to address cases that still fell under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, during a transitional phase.\nHowever, the law was amended through the Finance Act, 2002, where the Taxation Officer (the official authorized to complete assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) was clearly defined as a separate role from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, who had previously been authorized under the repealed ordinance.\nJurisdictional Issue:\nAssessments for the years 2003 to 2007 were meant to be framed under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, by an official carrying the designation of Taxation Officer, not a Deputy Commissioner.\nSince the assessments were made by a Deputy Commissioner and not a Taxation Officer as required by law, the assessments were determined to have been made without jurisdiction and lawful authority.\nAssessment Procedure Under the Old and New Laws:\nThe transition from the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 created a situation where assessments pertaining to tax years ending on or before June 30, 2002 could still fall under the authority of the Deputy Commissioner as per the repealed law.\nAfter July 1, 2002, Section 239(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provided that the assessments for income years ending on or before June 30, 2002, could still be handled by the competent income tax authority under the newly promulgated ordinance. However, the procedures specified in sections 59, 59A, 61, 62, and 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 would still apply.\nThe Taxation Officer was empowered to carry out the assessments under the new law for the tax years from 2003 onward.\nLegal Findings:\nVoid Assessments:\nThe assessments made by the Deputy Commissioner were ruled to be void because they were not made by the Taxation Officer, the official designated under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for framing assessments.\nThe assessments were coram non judice (without jurisdiction), meaning they were conducted by an authority that lacked the power to do so under the law. Therefore, the assessments were deemed null and void.\nThe Role of the Appellate Tribunal:\nThe First Appellate Authority had made decisions based on the invalid assessments, but since the assessments were void, the Appellate Tribunal vacated the assessments and declared them as having been made without lawful authority.\nThe Appellate Tribunal also clarified that limitation did not run against void orders, meaning that any subsequent appeal or review of a void order was permissible, as time constraints would not apply to orders that lacked jurisdiction.\nAssessment Procedures and Legal Authority:\nTaxation Officers, and not Deputy Commissioners, were the legally empowered authorities for assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the years 2003 to 2007.\nSection 2(65), which defines Taxation Officer, made clear that only officials with that designation had the authority to frame assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nThe Transitory Period:\nDuring the transitory period from the old law to the new law, Deputy Commissioners had authority to handle assessments that fell under the purview of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. However, after the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 came into force, the Taxation Officer became the proper authority for assessments from 2003 onward.\nConclusion:\nAssessments Made by Deputy Commissioner: The Deputy Commissioner had no authority to frame assessments for tax years 2003 to 2007 under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The assessments made by such officials were therefore void and lacked jurisdiction.\nAppeal Decision: The Appellate Tribunal annulled the assessments made by the Deputy Commissioner and found that such assessments were made without lawful authority. Since these orders were void, they could not stand, and the Tribunal directed that the assessments should be reviewed and re-framed by the Taxation Officer.\nLegal Precedents:\n2006 PTD (Trib.) 995 and I.T.A. No.6935/LB of 2005 were cited in reference to cases where the designation of the Taxation Officer had been crucial in determining the jurisdiction of assessments.\n2002 PTD 87, Rehmat Bibi v. Punna Khan, and Syed Haji Abdul Wahid v. Syed Sirajuddin were also referenced in relation to the voidness of orders passed without legal authority.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,59,61,62,63,161,182,205,239,2(65),239(2),59(A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 635/LB to 640/LB of 2008 and M.A. No.91/LB to M.A. No.96/LB of 2008, decision dated: 7-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Appellant. S.A. Masood Raza Qazilbash, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 18 = 2010 SLD 18 = (2009) 100 TAX 282 = 2010 PTD 278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSw", + "Key Words:": "Extra Depreciation Allowance for Multiple Shift Working - Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nRelevant Provisions:\nSection 23 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 relates to the depreciation allowance for assets used in business or profession.\nThe Third Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, specifically deals with the calculation of depreciation under different circumstances, including the extra depreciation available for machinery used in multiple shifts.\nRules 1(2) and 1(3) under the Third Schedule provide guidelines on how the extra depreciation for double or triple shift working should be calculated.\nKey Principles:\nExtra Depreciation for Multiple Shifts:\nExtra depreciation is available when machinery, plant, or building is used for double or triple shifts.\nThe extra depreciation allowance is proportional to the number of days during which the machinery or plant is used in a double or triple shift.\nThis means that if a machine is used for a double or triple shift for a specific number of days, the depreciation claim should be calculated based on the actual days of such multiple shift usage, rather than assuming full-year usage.\nProportionality of Depreciation:\nThe extra depreciation allowance for multiple shift working must be proportional to the actual working time of the shifts.\nThis ensures that the depreciation is not claimed for periods when the machinery was not actually used in a double or triple shift.\nRestrictive Nature of the Provision:\nSub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 1 of the Third Schedule are restrictive. They clarify that depreciation can only be claimed for the period when the machinery, plant, or building was actually used for business or professional purposes.\nThis means that depreciation is calculated only for the time the machinery is used, and extra depreciation is only allowed for the time it is used in double or triple shifts.\nActual Working of Shifts:\nThe claim for double or triple shift working must be based on the actual working of the shifts, meaning the actual time period during which the machinery or plant was used in double or triple shifts.\nThis prevents taxpayers from over-claiming depreciation for time periods when the machinery was not used in multiple shifts.\nConclusion:\nThe extra depreciation allowance for multiple shifts is determined by the actual usage of the machinery in double or triple shifts, with depreciation being granted proportionally to the number of days or shifts worked. The guidelines in Section 23 and the Third Schedule, particularly in Rule 1(2) and 1(3), ensure that depreciation claims are only allowed for the period the machinery was used in business, and any extra depreciation for shift work is strictly tied to the actual time of such usage.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,ThirdSchedULE,Rr.1,3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.235 of 1998, decision dated: 3rd June, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE AND ARSHAD SIRAJ MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Qureshi holding brief on behalf of Jawaid Farooqui for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSANAULLAH WOOLLEN MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 6 = 2000 SLD 6 = 2000 PTD 1365 = (1999) 237 ITR 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTA", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Income under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nRelevant Provisions:\nSection 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides an exemption for income derived from the letting out of godowns or warehouses, provided the letting out is for the storage, processing, or facilitating marketing of commodities.\nKey Issues:\nWhether income earned from interest on fixed deposits and other miscellaneous sources by the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation qualifies for exemption under Section 10(29).\nInterpretation of the words used in Section 10(29) and the scope of the exemption.\nFacts of the Case:\nThe Orissa State Warehousing Corporation received Rs. 1,74,383 as interest on fixed deposits for the assessment year 1983-84.\nThe Corporation also had to pay interest of Rs. 1,08,063 to banks, resulting in a net income of Rs. 66,320.\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) added this Rs. 66,320 to the taxable income of the Corporation, concluding it was not exempt under Section 10(29), which was challenged by the Corporation.\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the ITO’s decision.\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had initially ruled that the income was exempt under Section 10(29), but the High Court overruled this, holding that the interest was not exempt.\nCourt’s Ruling:\nSupreme Court's Decision:\nThe interest income earned by the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation from fixed deposits was not exempt under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act.\nThe Court emphasized the restrictive nature of the exemption in Section 10(29), stating that the exemption applies only to income derived from the letting out of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities.\nSince the interest income was from fixed deposits, which had no connection with the activities mentioned in the section, it did not qualify for exemption.\nSimilarly, income derived from procurement of grains for the FCI/State Government and miscellaneous income were also not entitled to exemption under Section 10(29).\nInterpretation of Section 10(29):\nThe literal interpretation of the section is key. The section clearly restricts exemption to income derived from the actual letting out of godowns or warehouses for specific purposes: storage, processing, or facilitating marketing of commodities.\nThe words any income derived therefrom were interpreted restrictively. This means the exemption applies only to income directly resulting from the letting out of godowns or warehouses for the stated purposes, and not to other income sources.\nThe Legislature's intent was clear in using the word derived from , which implies a direct connection between the income and the specific purpose of letting out the premises. Interest income and miscellaneous income do not meet this requirement and therefore are not exempt.\nLegal Precedents:\nThe Supreme Court referred to several cases where income from other sources, like interest or procurement activities unrelated to the storage or marketing of goods, was not eligible for exemption under Section 10(29).\nThe Court distinguished this case from prior cases (such as M.P. Warehousing Corporation v. CIT and Union of India v. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation) where broader interpretations might have been applied, emphasizing the clarity of the legislative language in Section 10(29).\nConclusion:\nThe interest income and other miscellaneous income earned by the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation were not exempt under Section 10(29).\nThe exemption applies only to income derived directly from the letting out of godowns or warehouses for the specific purposes outlined in the section (storage, processing, or facilitating marketing of commodities).\nThe Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing the appeal by the Corporation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=10(29) ", + "Case #": "(Civil Appeal No. 3476 of 1993 was by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 8, 1993 of the Orissa High Court in S. J. C. No. 76 of 1990) C. As. Nos. 4042 to 4048 of 1994", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. S, Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor-General for the Commissioner AND Dr. V. Gauri Shanker and Dr. D. P. Pal, Senior Advocates. AND S. Rajappa, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, N. L. Garg, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Pallav Shishodia, Abhijat P. Medh, C. V. Subba Rao and B. K. Prasad, Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nAND\nRAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 19 = 2010 SLD 19 = (2009) 100 TAX 41 = 2010 PTD 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Amendment of Assessment under S.122(5A)\nIssue: The legality of orders passed under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the tax year 2003 was questioned.\nDecision: Since S.122(5) did not apply to the tax year 2003, the order passed under S.122(5A) was declared illegal and annulled by the Appellate Tribunal.\n(b) Taxation of OGRA Income\nIssue: Whether OGRA’s income is taxable under the head Income from other sources under S.11 & 39 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nDecision: OGRA’s income, consisting of consultancy charges and fees from regulatory activities in the oil and gas sector, was deemed business income, not income from other sources. Therefore, OGRA was taxable under the business income category.\n(c) Deductions for OGRA’s Income\nIssue: Deductions available for OGRA’s income.\nDecision: OGRA was entitled to claim all deductions admissible for business income under S.18 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as its income was classified as business income, similar to that of consultancy companies.\n(d) Definition of Local Authority under the General Clauses Act\nIssue: Whether OGRA qualifies as a local authority under S.3(28) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.\nDecision: OGRA was not considered a local authority. A local authority is defined as an entity with specific powers and jurisdiction within a local area, which OGRA did not have. OGRA was a national regulatory body, not a local entity.\n(e) OGRA’s Status as a Local Authority \nIssue: The status of OGRA concerning its role and function in the oil and gas sector.\nDecision: OGRA was confirmed not to be a local authority due to its broad national mandate in regulating the oil and gas sector, not fitting the definition of a local authority, which typically operates within a specific locality.\n(f) OGRA's Fund as a Local Fund \nIssue: Whether OGRA’s fund could be considered a local fund under the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002.\nDecision: The fund of OGRA was not a local fund because its activities were not confined to a specific local area but were national in scope. It was classified as a national fund. \n(g) Regulatory Authority vs. Local Authority\nIssue: The nature of OGRA’s operations compared to a local authority.\nDecision: OGRA’s operations were distinct from those of a local authority. Local authorities focus on municipal services within a limited area, while OGRA regulates a national industry. Therefore, OGRA was not a local authority but a regulatory authority.\n(h) Retrospective vs. Prospective Effect of Statutory Amendments\nIssue: Whether amendments to the law can be applied retrospectively.\nDecision: Unless a statute explicitly provides for retrospective application, amendments to substantive law are applied prospectively. In this case, the amendment under S.49(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 applied prospectively from its date of insertion.\n(i) Effect of Amendment under S.49(4)\nIssue: Whether the amendment under S.49(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is retrospective or prospective.\nDecision: The amendment was substantive and had a prospective effect. It created new tax liabilities and was not meant to apply retrospectively unless clearly stated by the legislature.\n(j) Substantive Provisions and Prospective Application\nIssue: Whether the substantive provision in law should apply retrospectively.\nDecision: Substantive provisions, such as new tax burdens, apply prospectively unless the legislature specifies otherwise.\n(k) Nature of Amendment in S.49(4)\nIssue: Whether the amendment in S.49(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was explanatory or substantive.\nDecision: The amendment was substantive and created new tax burdens, which should be applied prospectively.\n(l) Substantive Law and Retrospective Application\nIssue: When does substantive law have retrospective application?\nDecision: Substantive law provisions should be applied prospectively unless the legislature clearly states they have retrospective effect.\n(m) Exemption under S.49(4)\nIssue: Whether OGRA qualifies for tax exemption under S.49(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nDecision: Since OGRA was not considered a local authority, it did not qualify for tax exemption under S.49(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n(n) Exemption and Prospective Effect\nIssue: Whether the new taxation rules under S.49(4) apply prospectively or retrospectively.\nDecision: The amendment had prospective effect, and OGRA did not qualify for tax exemption under the provision, as it was not a local authority.\n(o) Tax Status of OGRA\nIssue: Whether OGRA can claim exemption from tax as a local authority under S.49(2).\nDecision: OGRA’s claim for exemption was not upheld, as it was not a local authority and thus not eligible for tax exemption under S.49(2).\n(p) OGRA’s Status as a Company for Tax Purposes\nIssue: Whether OGRA can be treated as a company for tax purposes.\nDecision: OGRA, although not registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, was treated as a public company for taxation under S.80(2)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as it is a body corporate under the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002.\nThese interpretations clarify OGRA’s tax status and the effect of legislative amendments, ensuring its income is categorized as business income, and that it does not qualify for exemptions meant for local authorities or other specific entities under the Income Tax Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=49,11,18,39,40,80,122,122(5A),49(2),49(4),80(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 537/IB to541/IB of 2008, decision dated: 31st March, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRMAN, MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Mohammad Ilyas, F.C.A. and Imran Ilyas, F.C.A. for Appellants and Mohammad Asif, DR and Mohammad Sajid, Taxation Officer, for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 3 = 2009 SLD 3 = (2010) 101 TAX 177 = 2009 PTCL 753 = 2010 PTD 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 177(1):\nSection 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 pertains to the selection of persons for a total audit. The criteria for selection of taxpayers for audit are not specified by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) in any formal manner under this section. Such criteria are confidential and merely provide guidance to the tax officials in their duties.\nThe Commissioner has the authority to select individuals for audit based on their discretion under Section 177(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Commissioner’s power to select taxpayers for audit is not contingent on the prescribed criteria but falls within the powers granted to him under this section.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 177:\nSection 177 does not specify a limitation period for conducting audits, meaning that the tax authorities are not limited to auditing only the assessments for the current year. The absence of a limitation period indicates that audits can be conducted on assessments of past tax years, as long as the selection complies with the requirements of the law.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 177 & 207:\nSection 177 deals with the selection of persons for audit. The Commissioner referred to in Section 207 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is recognized as the Commissioner Audit for the purposes of Section 177. Section 207 provides for the appointment of a Commissioner for overseeing and implementing tax assessments and audits, and such a Commissioner can be appointed specifically for the purpose of conducting audits.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 177(4) & Constitutional Petition (Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973):\nUnder Section 177(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the Commissioner has the power to select individuals or entities for audit. However, the process of selection cannot be arbitrary.\nA taxpayer's right to be heard is protected by Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which provides for constitutional petitions to challenge actions that violate principles of natural justice. In cases where the tax authorities select an assessment for audit, they must first issue a notice and provide the taxpayer with an opportunity to explain or be heard.\nThe High Court in its judgment emphasized that an audit is the beginning of proceedings, and taxpayers must be given a chance to explain before any audit is conducted. This ensures compliance with the principles of justice and protects the rights of taxpayers from arbitrary selection. The High Court ruled that failure to issue notice and hear the taxpayer before selecting an assessment for audit is not valid.\nThis ruling was supported by the case Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Fatima Sharif Textile, Kasur and others (2009 SCMR 344), which reaffirmed the importance of ensuring fairness and due process in tax matters.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,177(1),177(4),207 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.1858 of 2008, 209, 453, 709, 816 and 1030 of 2009, heard on 8-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ RASHID SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Petitioner (in Writ Petitions Nos.1858 of 2008 209, 453 and 709 of 2009) AND S.A. Mahmood Khan Saddozai for Petitioner (in Writ Petitions Nos.816 and 1030 of 2009). Babar Bilal for Respondents (in Writ Petition No. 1858 of 2008). Ms. Shahina Akbar for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ROOTS MONTESSORI AND HIGH SCHOOL, RAWALPINDI\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (AUDIT), RAWALPINDI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 20 = 2010 SLD 20 = (2010) 101 TAX 375 = 2010 PTD 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001):\nSections 122(5-A) & 131\nSection 122(5-A) provides for the amendment of assessments by the tax authorities if the original assessments are found to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In this case, the tax authorities amended the taxpayer’s assessments for certain years, arguing that the subsidy received from the Federal Government had not been offered for tax purposes, and therefore it was treated as income subject to taxation.\nSection 131 deals with the appeal process and allows the taxpayer to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal if the decision of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) is unsatisfactory.\nFacts of the Case:\nThe appellant taxpayer’s returns for the years under review were amended by the Taxation Officer because the subsidy received from the Federal Government had not been included in the tax computation. The Taxation Officer classified this subsidy as taxable income.\nHowever, the appellant/taxpayer argued that the amount received was not a subsidy but rather a price differential (the difference between the cost and sale price) arising from transactions executed on behalf of the Federal Government. This price differential, the appellant contended, was not a subsidy but a loss borne by the government. The taxpayer referred to similar cases of oil distribution companies, where price differentials were accepted by the department without being taxed, suggesting that the appellant should be treated similarly.\nLegal Principles:\nNature of the Payment:\nThe amount received by the appellant was determined to be a price differential resulting from transactions conducted at the direction of the Federal Government. The taxpayer was not receiving a subsidy but was merely executing transactions on behalf of the government at a loss. This price differential represented a government loss and should not be treated as taxable income to the taxpayer.\nSimilarity with Oil Distribution Companies' Cases:\nThe appellant pointed out that oil distribution companies in similar circumstances had been allowed not to pay taxes on the price differential, which was not treated as income. These companies had disposed of goods at prices lower than the cost, as instructed by the Federal Government. Since the department had not taxed the price differential in those cases, the appellant argued that the same principle should apply to their situation.\nSubsidy vs. Price Differential:\nThe amount received by the appellant was characterized not as a subsidy to the appellant-corporation but rather as a subsidy to the general public by the Federal Government. The loss incurred was borne by the government and not the taxpayer. This distinction helped the appellant argue that it was not an income subject to tax under the Income Tax Ordinance.\nDecision:\nThe Consolidated Order of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the Taxation Officer's decision, was vacated. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the amount in question was not a subsidy but a price differential, and therefore, it should not have been treated as taxable income. The orders issued by the Taxation Officer under Section 122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for the relevant tax years were canceled.\nLegal Precedents Cited:\nPLD 1975 Kar. 924\nMessrs Bolan Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. v. PEPSICO: PLD 2004 SC 86\n1987 PTD 289\n2002 PTD (Trib.) 2539\nThese precedents reinforced the position that a price differential resulting from executing transactions at a loss on behalf of the government cannot be classified as taxable income.\nKey Takeaways:\nThe price differential arising from executing transactions on behalf of the government is not considered taxable income if it does not constitute a subsidy.\nThe taxpayer can reference similar cases, such as those of oil distribution companies, where similar price differentials were not taxed, to support their claim.\nAppeals are an important avenue for challenging erroneous assessments under Section 122(5-A), and the taxpayer’s position can prevail if sufficient legal and factual arguments are presented.\nSubsidy in the tax context refers to payments made directly to the taxpayer and not to the general public or as part of government policy to absorb losses.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 607/KB to 609/KB of 2008, decision dated: 1st September, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ehsan Laliwala, A.C.M.A. and Khaliqur Rehman, F.C.A. for Appellant. Dr. Imtiaz Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 21 = 2010 SLD 21 = (2010) 101 TAX 71 = 2010 PTD 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 156\n1. Rectification of Mistake:\nSection 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) allows the Appellate Tribunal to rectify mistakes in its orders by revisiting decisions if errors of fact or law are found.\n(a) Appeal for Rectification:\nIssue: The Appellate Tribunal's initial decision was based on the Department’s default in presenting its case, particularly the failure of the Departmental Representative to appear on the scheduled date.\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal exercised its power under Section 156 and recalled its previous order, emphasizing that the Department should not be penalized for a single default. Furthermore, the Tribunal gave the Department the opportunity to present its case on merit.\nPrinciple: Under Section 156, the Tribunal can recall or modify its order if there is a clear mistake, especially in procedural matters where one party (in this case, the Department) may have been unjustly penalized due to the absence of its representative. This ensures fairness and the opportunity to be heard.\n(b) Error in Pleadings:\nIssue: The Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on the grounds of being time-barred. The Revenue filed an application for recall of the order, arguing that the Tribunal had used an incorrect date in determining the limitation period. The date of communication was mistakenly typed as 3-3-2007 instead of the correct date, 9-3-2007, which was the date the Revenue received the order from the First Appellate Authority.\nDecision: The Appellate Tribunal found that the error in the pleading was not rectifiable under Section 156 because:\nThe mistake involved the pleading by the Revenue and was not a factual or legal error in the Tribunal's original order itself.\nRectification of such errors could only be made before the Tribunal issued its order, not afterward.\nThe Tribunal concluded that there was no error in the order itself, as it had already considered the proper date of communication in its original ruling.\nPrinciple: Pleadings errors (such as an incorrect date) are not grounds for rectification under Section 156, as the Tribunal can only correct factual or legal mistakes in its final decision, not errors in the pleadings filed before it. The correct approach would have been for the Revenue to amend the pleadings before the Tribunal passed its decision.\nKey Legal Principles Involved:\nSection 156 - Rectification of Mistakes:\nThis provision allows the Appellate Tribunal to correct errors in its orders but is limited to factual or legal errors within the decision itself. Errors in pleadings (incorrect dates or information submitted by the parties) are not sufficient grounds for rectification unless they are directly related to the Tribunal's decision.\nOpportunity to be Heard:\nThe Tribunal’s decision to recall its earlier order reflects the principle of natural justice, ensuring that no party is penalized for a procedural lapse (e.g., a representative’s absence). The Department was granted another chance to present its case on the merits of the issue, rather than being dismissed purely due to the representative's absence.\nLimitations in Rectifying Pleadings:\nThe rectification mechanism in Section 156 does not apply to amendments of pleadings or procedural issues raised after the Tribunal has passed its order. Pleadings can be amended before the decision is rendered, but after the Tribunal's decision, only factual or legal mistakes in the judgment itself can be rectified.\nConclusion:\nIn (a), the Appellate Tribunal correctly used its powers under Section 156 to recall the earlier order based on the procedural error (absence of the Department’s representative) and provided the Department with an opportunity to be heard.\nIn (b), the Revenue's application for recall based on an error in pleadings (incorrect date) was rejected because the error did not pertain to the Tribunal's order itself. Therefore, the Revenue's request for rectification was declined.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M.A (R) No. 69/IB of 2008, decision dated: 12-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Mushtaq, DCIT/DR and Mazhar Hussain Raja, I.O. for Applicant. Mushtaq Ahmed Vohra, F.C.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 22 = 2010 SLD 22 = (2010) 101 TAX 213 = 2010 PTCL 802 = 2010 PTD 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 13(1)(aa) & 80(c)(5)\n1. Self-Assessment Scheme:\nUnder the Self-Assessment Scheme of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, taxpayers can file their returns with the self-assessed income, which, in general, is accepted as correct unless there is evidence of concealment or fraud.\nIssue:\nThe Revenue claimed that the taxpayer had concealed income and, thus, the return filed by the taxpayer should be excluded from the purview of the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nThe Revenue alleged that it had positive evidence of concealment but did not immediately substantiate this claim.\nLegal Principles:\nSection 13(1)(aa) - Filing of Return under Self-Assessment Scheme:\nUnder Section 13(1)(aa), taxpayers are allowed to file their returns under the Self-Assessment Scheme, where the return filed is presumed correct unless the tax authorities prove otherwise.\nThis section provides that the return filed under the scheme is taken as the correct assessment unless the tax authorities can demonstrate the concealment of income or other irregularities.\nSection 80(c)(5) - Burden of Proof on Revenue:\nAccording to Section 80(c)(5), when the Revenue alleges concealment or incorrect reporting of income, the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to provide sufficient evidence that the income was concealed or the return was wrong.\nThe Revenue must present cogent, credible, and substantive evidence to show that the return filed by the taxpayer is incorrect, which justifies the rejection of the Self-Assessment Scheme for that particular return.\nIf the Revenue fails to present sufficient evidence, the self-assessed return is presumed to be correct and the taxpayer’s claim would stand.\nConclusion:\nIn cases where the Revenue claims the concealment of income or mistakes in a self-assessed return, Section 80(c)(5) places the burden of proof on the Revenue to provide positive evidence of the concealment or fraud.\nThe Revenue cannot simply reject a self-assessed return without presenting solid, cogent material to support the claim of concealment.\nTherefore, unless the Revenue meets this burden, the return will remain under the Self-Assessment Scheme, and the taxpayer's declared income will be accepted as correct.\nKey Legal Principles:\nBurden of Proof: Under Section 80(c)(5), the Revenue bears the responsibility to prove the concealment of income with substantive evidence in cases where a taxpayer files under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nSelf-Assessment Scheme: The taxpayer’s return is presumed correct unless the Revenue can provide cogent material to refute the self-assessment under Section 13(1)(aa).\nExclusion from Scheme: The burden lies on the Revenue to prove any concealment of income or other discrepancies in the return, and if this is not done effectively, the return remains within the purview of the Self-Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,80,13(1)(aa),80(c)(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No.406 of 2007, decision dated: 15-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Farooqui for Appellant\nIrfan Aziz for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, KARACHI\nVs.\nM/S AQEEL KARIM DHEDHI, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 23 = 2010 SLD 23 = (2010) 101 TAX 330 = 2010 PTD 428", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 159, 107, 221, & 131\n1. Application for Exemption Certificate (Section 159(1)):\nUnder Section 159(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, a person, corporation, or entity may apply to the Commissioner of Income Tax for an exemption certificate, which would exempt them from specific provisions of the tax law, particularly in relation to withholding taxes.\nIssue:\nThe respondent-Corporation (non-resident) had applied for an exemption certificate under Section 159(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, but after about 15 months, the Commissioner issued a regret letter rejecting the request. This letter was sent without properly considering the applicant’s arguments, including the provisions of Section 159(1)(a), Section 107, and relevant double taxation treaties (e.g., UAE and Pakistan).\nThe issue was whether the regret letter constituted an order under Section 221 and whether the non-resident corporation was entitled to the exemption certificate.\nLegal Principles:\nSection 159(1) - Exemption Certificate:\nUnder Section 159(1), the Commissioner has the authority to grant or reject exemption certificates based on the eligibility of the applicant. The exemption can apply to specific provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, such as those related to withholding tax. However, the decision must be based on proper adjudication of the facts, including applicable provisions of the law and international treaties, where relevant.\nSection 107 - Taxation of Non-Residents:\nSection 107 governs the taxation of non-resident entities in Pakistan, and the non-resident corporation in this case claimed that their business profits were not chargeable to tax in Pakistan due to the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between Pakistan and UAE.\nThe Commissioner must consider whether the business profits of the non-resident company are subject to tax in Pakistan before issuing a decision regarding the exemption certificate.\nSection 221 - Order of Commissioner:\nSection 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 stipulates that any decision made by the Commissioner must be in the form of an order. The regret letter issued by the Commissioner, refusing the exemption certificate, was treated as an order for the purposes of Section 221.\nStanding Instructions of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR):\nThe Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) issued standing instructions to ensure the expeditious disposal of applications for exemption certificates to provide timely relief to eligible applicants. The Commissioner had a duty to either issue the exemption certificate or justify the refusal based on legal grounds, but this was not done properly in the present case.\nAnalysis:\nThe regret letter issued by the Commissioner was found to be inadequate, as it failed to properly adjudicate on the key issues raised by the respondent-Corporation, including the application of the Double Taxation Treaty and the business profits of the non-resident corporation.\nThe Commissioner did not establish whether the income of the non-resident company was indeed chargeable to tax in Pakistan. Thus, the business profits of the non-resident company were not subject to tax in Pakistan, making the company eligible for an exemption certificate under Section 159(1)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nThe order of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), which directed the issuance of the exemption certificate, was deemed correct and was upheld.\nConclusion:\nThe regret letter from the Commissioner refusing the exemption certificate constituted an order under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Commissioner had failed to properly consider the business profits of the non-resident corporation and did not properly adjudicate on the issue, particularly in light of the Double Taxation Treaty.\nAs the business profits were not chargeable to tax in Pakistan, the non-resident corporation was entitled to the exemption certificate. The decision of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) to issue the exemption certificate was upheld.\nReference:\n2007 PTD 1687 referenced for the application of the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between UAE and Pakistan and the adjudication on the issuance of exemption certificates under Section 159(1).\nKey Legal Principles:\nSection 159(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: Powers of the Commissioner to issue exemption certificates.\nSection 107: Taxation of non-resident business profits.\nSection 221: Obligation for Commissioner to issue an order when refusing an exemption certificate.\nFederal Board of Revenue (FBR) Instructions: Duty to process exemption certificate applications expeditiously.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=107,131,159,221,159(1),159(1)(a),159(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 728/KB of 2008 decided on 1st September, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Abdul Sattar Abbasi, D.R. for Appellant. Syed Riaz-ud-Din along with Syed Munir uz Zaman for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 24 = 2010 SLD 24 = (2009) 100 TAX 150 = 2010 PTD 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 131, 138, & 210\n1. Issue of Making Additions on Unexplained Cash and Delegation of Powers in Assessment:\nThe case revolves around the assessment of income tax, particularly the additions made on account of unexplained cash under the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001). The assessments were originally framed under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, where the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax made the assessment and the Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income Tax provided approval for the additions.\nThe assessments were contested by the taxpayer, and the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) set aside the additions made by the assessing officer. In turn, the department appealed against the Commissioner’s order to the Appellate Tribunal.\nLegal Principles and Sections Involved:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Section 131 (Powers of the Commissioner):\nSection 131 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 grants powers to the Commissioner to assess income tax and to take necessary steps for determining the income of an individual or entity.\nUnder the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, there is no provision that allows for the approval of assessment by a higher authority (such as the Inspecting Additional Commissioner). The Commissioner himself is the assessment authority, and the concept of approving assessments by another authority (as seen in the repealed ordinance) no longer exists.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Section 138 (Appeal to Appellate Tribunal):\nSection 138 deals with appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, allowing taxpayers and the tax department to challenge decisions made by the Commissioner or lower tax authorities. In this case, the department appealed to the Appellate Tribunal after the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) had set aside the assessment.\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Section 210 (Delegation of Powers):\nSection 210 deals with the delegation of powers by the Commissioner to subordinate officers for the purpose of making assessments. However, the delegation of approval for the assessments (as seen in the repealed ordinance) is not allowed under the new ordinance, as the Commissioner is responsible for making the assessment himself.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (Repealed 1979) - Mechanism of Approval for Assessment:\nUnder the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the Deputy Commissioner was responsible for making the assessment, and the Inspecting Additional Commissioner provided the approval for the additions to the income.\nHowever, under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, this mechanism of dual responsibility (assessment by one officer and approval by another) was abolished, and the Commissioner now had full authority over assessments without the need for approval by any higher officer.\nAnalysis:\nShift in the Mechanism of Assessment:\nThe transition from the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 changed the system of assessment.\nThe Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 does not allow for the approval of assessments by a higher officer such as the Inspecting Additional Commissioner. The Commissioner alone is the authority who can make the assessment and delegate powers to subordinate officers if necessary.\nTherefore, the concept of approval by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner under the repealed ordinance was not applicable in this case, and the approval of the addition in the assessment was deemed invalid under the new law.\nNo Approval Mechanism under the New Ordinance:\nSince there is no provision for granting approval by a higher authority under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, any approval for the assessment by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was inconsistent with the current law.\nThe Appeals of the Department were dismissed because the assessment and additions made by the tax authority did not follow the correct procedures set out under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nConclusion:\nThe orders passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) were upheld by the Appellate Tribunal as they found that there was no legal basis for the approval of the additions by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nThe Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) correctly set aside the additions made under the old ordinance, as the approval mechanism no longer existed under the new law. Consequently, the appeals filed by the department were rejected as having no merit.\nKey Legal Principles:\nSection 131 - Powers of the Commissioner under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nSection 138 - Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.\nSection 210 - Delegation of powers by the Commissioner.\nRepealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 - Different assessment and approval mechanism under the older law.\nReference:\n1985 Tax 521; 2004 PTD 1173; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 720; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1172 referenced for legal context.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,138,210,239 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 26/IB and 27/IB of 2008, decision dated: 19-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRMAN AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Asif, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Ch. Naeem ul Haq", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 25 = 2010 SLD 25 = (2009) 100 TAX 361 = 2010 PTD 504", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 161, 205(2), 152(2), 107\nIssue: The assessee was treated as an assessee in default for not withholding tax on allowances paid in Pakistan to employees of a foreign airline under a Wet Lease Agreement. The assessee contended that the payments made were not to the crew members directly but to the airline for onward disbursement, and therefore the tax should be payable by the employees in their home country, not Pakistan.\nLegal Principles and Sections Involved:\nSection 161: Deals with the failure to pay tax collected or deducted by the assessee. Under this section, if the tax is not withheld or paid by the assessee, they may be treated as being in default, and the department may initiate proceedings against them.\nSection 205(2): Relates to the consequences of failure to withhold tax under Section 161, where penalties and proceedings can be initiated if the tax was not deducted or paid to the government.\nSection 152(2): Refers to the payment of tax by a foreign entity in cases where there are payments made to non-residents. It is relevant in this case because the assessee argued that the tax should have been paid in the employees' home country and not in Pakistan.\nSection 107: This section addresses the status of international tax treaties and provides that once an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation is executed and notified, it has the status of law in Pakistan. It was central to this case as the Agreement between Pakistan and Belarus for the avoidance of double taxation came into force after the commencement of proceedings in 2008.\nAnalysis:\nWet Lease Agreement and Tax Treatment:\nUnder the Wet Lease Agreement between the parties, the assessee was not required to withhold income tax on compensation paid to the foreign airline's crew members. The payment made was not directly to the crew members but was disbursed to the airline for onward distribution to its employees.\nSince the monthly allowance was part of the salaries of non-resident employees, the assessee argued that the tax on such salaries and allowances should be paid by the employees in their home country, as they were subject to tax there. Consequently, the assessee did not deduct or withhold tax on the amounts paid to the airline.\nApplication of the Double Taxation Treaty:\nThe Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between Pakistan and Belarus was executed on 23rd July 2004, and notified in the official gazette on 30th August 2006. Under this treaty, taxes on salaries for non-resident employees working in Pakistan for less than 183 days were to be paid in the employees' home country and not in Pakistan.\nThe Wet Lease Agreement specifically addressed the issue, stating that the assessee was not required to deduct income tax on payments made to the crew. Since the non-resident crew members worked for less than 183 days in Pakistan, their income was exempt from Pakistani taxation under the treaty.\nRetrospective Effect of the Double Taxation Agreement:\nThe Double Taxation Treaty had the status of law under Section 107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and was applied retrospectively from the date of its execution. Therefore, it was applicable to the proceedings initiated by the tax authorities in 2008, even though the tax years in question were for 2002-2003 and 2003-2005.\nThe tax authorities had wrongly applied Sections 161/205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, failing to recognize the exemption provided by the treaty for non-resident employees working in Pakistan for less than 183 days. The assessee was not in default as there was no requirement to withhold tax.\nAppellate Tribunal's Decision:\nThe Appellate Tribunal found that the taxation officer had misdirected himself in applying Sections 161/205 and failed to consider the provisions of the Double Taxation Treaty and the Wet Lease Agreement properly.\nThe First Appellate Authority had upheld the treatment meted out by the tax officer without sufficient justification. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that the provisions of the treaty were applicable, and the assessee had not violated the law by not withholding tax on payments made to the foreign airline's crew members.\nThe Appellate Tribunal vacated the orders of the First Appellate Authority, and the tax officer’s orders were cancelled.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessee's position, stating that under the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between Pakistan and Belarus, the income tax was not deductible by the assessee on the allowances paid to the non-resident crew members.\nThe tax proceedings initiated under Sections 161/205 were incorrectly applied, and the assessee was not in default. The tax authority's orders were cancelled, and the First Appellate Authority's decision was also vacated.\nKey Legal Principles:\nSection 161: Deals with failure to deduct tax.\nSection 205: Relates to penalties and consequences for failure to deduct tax.\nSection 107: Establishes the force of law for international tax treaties.\nAgreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation: Treaties with foreign countries may exempt certain incomes from taxation in Pakistan, particularly for non-resident workers.\nCase References:\n1999 PTD 3357 and 2003 PTD 1571: For context on similar tax issues and the applicability of international treaties.\n1993 SCMR 73: Referred for retrospective application of tax treaties.\n1991 PTD 488 SC Pak.: For principles on tax treaties and non-resident taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=107,152,152(2),161,205,205(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 235/KB to 237/KB of 2009, decision dated: 17-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Pasha and Nadeem Dawoodi for Appellant. \nRehmatullah Wazir, D.R. Dr. Farrukh Ansari, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 26 = 2010 SLD 26 = (2009) 100 TAX 178 = 2010 PTD 519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 171: Additional Payment for Delayed Refund\nThe case revolves around the additional payment for delayed refunds under Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The legal provisions under consideration relate to the issuance of refunds and the delay in payment of these refunds, which attract compensation. The legal analysis hinges on the application of Sections 170 and 171 of the Ordinance, particularly regarding the timing of refunds and the responsibilities of the Commissioner.\nLegal Provisions and Key Interpretations:\nSection 171(2)(c) - Delayed Refund and Legal Fiction:\nSection 171(2)(c) specifies that the date on which a refund order is made will be treated as the date when the refund becomes due in certain situations. This provision creates a legal fiction to determine the date for delayed refunds.\nLegal Fiction: Provisions that create legal fictions must be strictly interpreted, and their application is limited to the purpose for which they were enacted. This principle was emphasized in cases such as Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and **C.I.T./WT Companies Zone, Faisalabad v. K.A. Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd.ection 171(1) - Refund Becoming Due:\nAccording to Section 171(1), a refund is due when it is determined by the tax authorities, and compensation is payable if there is a delay in its issuance. The date of refund becoming due is critical in determining the applicability of Section 171(2) for compensation purposes. The refund is considered due when the taxpayer's right to it arises, such as when a tax return is filed and the excess tax paid is determined.\nSection 170(3) - Refund Issuance:\nSection 170(3) makes it the responsibility of the Commissioner to apply any excess tax paid to reduce other liabilities and issue a refund of any remaining excess tax. Importantly, no separate refund application is required in cases where excess tax is identified after self-assessment or adjustment by the Commissioner.\nIf the refund is due, the Commissioner must issue it suo motu, without waiting for an application from the taxpayer. If the refund is not issued within 90 days, compensation under Section 171(1) becomes applicable.\nSection 170(4) and 171(1) - Timing and Conditions for Refund:\nSection 170(4) requires the Commissioner to issue a refund within 45 days from the receipt of an application, but Section 170(3) allows for automatic refunds without an application if the taxpayer has overpaid.\nIf the Commissioner fails to issue the refund, compensation is due after 90 days, as per Section 171(1). This reflects the legal obligation of the Commissioner to act within the stipulated time.\nSection 171(2) - Deeming Provisions for Refund:\nSection 171(2) provides a legal fiction in cases where refunds are not issued on time, treating a refund as due from the date specified in the law. Section 171(2)(c) creates this fiction when the refund order is issued, and its applicability depends on whether the refund order is legally required.\nIf the refund is deemed to be due, compensation is applicable, and the time period for its payment begins from the date the refund is deemed due.\nInterpretation of Statutes:\nCourts emphasize harmonious construction of statutes, resolving conflicts in favor of the subject (taxpayer) of the state . The ion must be interpreted strictly and for its intended purpose. The term refund due in Section 171 must be understood as the moment the taxpayer’s right to the refund arises, which could be at the point of filing a return or when the Commissioner confirms the excess payment.\nKey Points from Case Law:\nBILZ (Pvt.) Ltd. v. D.C.I.T., Multan (2002 PTD 1) and Messrs Indus Basin Co. v. C.I.T. (2002 PTD 2169):\nThese cases established that additional payments for delayed refunds under Section 171 should be read in conjunction with other provisions governing refunds and their issuance. Refunds are due as soon as the excess tax is determined, and failure to process the refund on time triggers the requirement for compensation.\nPrinciple of Legal Fiction:\nThe courts follow the principle that provisions creating legal fiction must be construed strictly. Such provisions must be applied only for the specific purpose intended by the legislature .\nTime Periuing Refunds:\nIf a refund is due under Section 170(3), the Commissioner must issue the refund within 90 days. Failure to do so will result in compensation under Section 171. The department does not have the luxury of a 90-day cushion in every case; the time limit for compensation is calculated from the date the refund is due.\nRefund Due upon Completion of Assessment:\nThe refund becomes due as soon as the assessment order is completed, particularly in cases where a return has been filed and no adverse order is passed against the taxpayer. The Commissioner is bound by Section 170(3) to act and issue the refund without the need for a refund application.\nNo Refund Application Required in Some Cases:\nIn cases where refunds are due suo motu (e.g., in cases of self-assessment or where the Commissioner issues an assessment order), there is no need for the taxpayer to file a separate refund application. The Commissioner is obligated to act within 90 days to issue the refund.\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provides a clear framework for handling delayed refunds and the additional compensation that is due when refunds are not processed in time.\nSection 171 addresses the compensation for delayed refunds, emphasizing the timeliness of the Commissioner's actions. Refunds due from self-assessment or after a determination are treated as due as soon as they are confirmed, and failure to issue the refund within the statutory time frame attracts compensation.\nThe legal fiction created in Section 171(2) ensures that the taxpayer’s right to compensation is protected, and any delay in issuing refunds within the prescribed periods (45 days or 90 days) triggers the statutory compensation rights under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=171,120,147,170,147(10),170(3),170(4),171(1),171(2),171(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.91/LB of 2008, decision dated: 5-03-2009, hearing DATE : 5-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Masood Raza Qazilbash, D.R. for Appellant\nS. Atif Hussain for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 27 = 2010 SLD 27 = (2010) 101 TAX 154 = 2010 PTD 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTA", + "Key Words:": "Relevant Legal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979 - Section 111: Deals with the imposition of penalties for concealment of income or particulars of income.\nPenalties for Concealment of Purchases: This case discusses whether penalties can be imposed on the concealment of purchases made during the course of business activities.\nKey Principles and Analysis:\nObligation of the Assessee:\nThe assessee is required to file a return of income for the relevant assessment year and declare the income earned. However, the assessee is not required to disclose every detail of the business activities, such as purchases made during the year. The key requirement is to declare the correct income for the year.\nScope of Section 111 and Penalty for Concealment:\nSection 111 imposes penalties for the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, concealment of purchases does not fall within the scope of Section 111 for imposing a penalty, unless there is an attempt to conceal or a completed act of concealment of income.\nPenalty proceedings are not initiated for failing to declare purchases, unless it is directly linked to concealing taxable income or incorrectly reporting income.\nOnus of Proof in Penalty Proceedings:\nIn penalty proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the tax department. The department must prove that the assessee deliberately concealed income or provided inaccurate particulars with the intention of evading tax.\nThe intentional concealment or deliberate omission of information must be proven by the department to justify the imposition of a penalty.\nReasonable Opportunity of Hearing:\nThe assessee must be provided with a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the course of penalty proceedings. This is a fundamental principle ensuring that the assessee has the right to defend themselves in such quasi-criminal proceedings.\nQuasi-Criminal Nature of Penalty Proceedings:\nSince penalty proceedings are of a quasi-criminal nature, they require a higher standard of proof, similar to what is required in criminal proceedings. The department must show beyond reasonable doubt that the concealment was done with the intent to evade tax.\nDeliberate and contumacious concealment (i.e., wilful misconduct) must be demonstrated to impose a penalty under Section 111.\nImposition of Penalty After Proving Concealment:\nPenalty can only be imposed if the department proves that the concealment was deliberate and intended to avoid tax. If the concealment is merely an omission or an innocent error, it does not justify the imposition of a penalty.\nRelevant Case Law:\nThe case refers to the following precedents, which provide guidance on the application of penalties for concealment:\n1982 45 Tax 52\n1992 PTD (Trib.) 155\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 1103\n2005 PTD 1\nThese decisions underscore the principles of intentional concealment, the burden of proof on the department, and the quasi-criminal nature of penalty proceedings.\nConclusion:\nPenalties under Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 can only be imposed when there is deliberate concealment of income or its particulars. The department must prove that the concealment was done with the intent to avoid tax.\nThe concealment of purchases by itself, without any direct link to the concealment of income or an intent to evade tax, does not justify the imposition of a penalty.\nThe burden of proof lies with the tax department to demonstrate the intentional concealment by the assessee.\nPenalty proceedings are quasi-criminal, and the department must meet a high standard of proof to sustain any penalty orders.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111 ", + "Case #": "T.R. No. 47 of 1997, heard on 3rd May 2005", + "Judge Name:": "SHAH JAHAN KHAN, JUSTICE AND TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rauf Rohaila for Appellant\nEid Muhammad Khattak for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "M/S MASOODURREHMAN, KOHAT\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 28 = 2010 SLD 28 = (2010) 101 TAX 222 = 2010 PTD 541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Commission vs. Trade Discount - Tax Deduction under S.50 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nIssue: The primary issue revolves around whether the amount paid by the assessee to distributors should be treated as commission (subject to tax deduction under Section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979) or as trade discount (not subject to tax deduction).\nFacts:\nThe assessee paid a sum to various distributors across the country under Distributorship Agreements.\nThe Department treated these payments as commission (requiring tax deduction under Section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979).\nThe First Appellate Authority (FAA) ruled that these payments were trade discounts and therefore not subject to tax deduction.\nDepartment’s Argument:\nThe dealers (distributors) were not mere buyers; they were involved in selling the assessee's products under an identifiable logo.\nThe word dealer implied an agent-principal relationship (under the Contract Act, 1872).\nEven if it were a trade discount, it should have been reflected in the invoices/ledgers, and the assessee's transaction was described as a commission in the agreements.\nAssessee’s Defense:\nThe payments were treated as trade discounts, which is a common commercial practice and does not fall under the purview of commission.\nThe assessee failed to substantiate this claim with proper documentary evidence (e.g., sale invoices, ledger accounts showing discounts).\nCourt’s Conclusion:\nThe amount paid was commission, not a trade discount.\nThe assessee's failure to maintain separate accounts or reflect the discount in the ledger invalidated its claim.\nSince the transaction was branded as commission in the agreement and lump sums were paid without adequate supporting documentation, the payment was subject to tax deduction under Section 50.\nThe First Appellate Authority's decision was not valid, and the Taxation Officer’s decision was restored.\n(b) Definition of Commission \nCommission typically refers to a payment based on the amount involved in a transaction or a lump-sum payment given for services rendered.\nIt is disbursed based on the sale or services and is linked to the value of the transaction.\n(c) Res Judicata Principle in Income Tax Cases\nThe principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax cases.\nEach assessment year is treated as an independent proceeding and is assessed based on its own merits, not based on previous years.\n(d) Deletion of Add-backs for Personal Expenses\nIssue: The FAA deleted add-backs for personal or non-business expenses (like sundry expenses, printing, and stationery).\nTaxation Officer’s Stand: These expenses seemed to be for personal purposes and should be added back to the income.\nCourt’s Conclusion: The Taxation Officer’s order was correct in making add-backs for these expenses, as they could not be definitively ruled out as personal in nature.\n(e) Bad Debts - Deletion of Disallowance\nIssue: The FAA deleted a disallowance for bad debts, claiming the debts were irrecoverable.\nTaxation Officer’s Stand: The assessee did not make proper legal efforts to recover the debts.\nCourt’s Conclusion: The disallowance was justified since the assessee failed to prove that the debts were truly irrecoverable. The Taxation Officer's decision was restored.\n(f) Voluntary Contribution from Associated Foreign Concern\nIssue: The assessee received a voluntary contribution from an associated foreign concern and excluded it from the income in the computation of taxable income.\nAssessee's Defense: The contribution was a gesture of goodwill and not a revenue receipt.\nTaxation Officer’s Stand: The amount was income and should be taxed under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCourt’s Conclusion:\nThe voluntary contribution was income as it was related to the business of the foreign concern.\nThe assessee could not exclude the receipt from income just because it was voluntary.\nThe Taxation Officer's order was restored because the amount had a direct business nexus.\n(g) Meaning of Income under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nThe term income under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, is inclusive, meaning it covers a wide range of receipts, not just those explicitly mentioned in the statute.\nIncome could include any receipt that has the characteristics of income, as determined by its nature and circumstances.\n(h) Interpretation of Income \nIncome is not always a recurrent return from a definite course, but may consist of one-time receipts, such as professional earnings or payments received for specific transactions.\nThe determination of whether a receipt is income depends on the specific facts and circumstances.\n(i) Principles of Statutory Interpretation\nCourts must interpret statutes in such a way that no part of the statute is considered redundant.\nThe intention of the law must be followed, and if necessary, the language should be stretched to fulfill the context and purpose of the statute.\n(j) Disallowance of Travel and Conveyance Expenses\nIssue: The FAA deleted an add-back for traveling and conveyance expenses based on cash vouchers that were not verifiable.\nCourt’s Conclusion: Since the vouchers could not be properly verified, the disallowance of the expenses was justified, and the Taxation Officer's decision was upheld.\nFinal Summary:\nThe court concluded that commission payments made by the assessee to distributors should be treated as commission under Section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and the First Appellate Authority's decision to treat them as trade discounts was incorrect.\nThe Taxation Officer's decision was upheld in several aspects, including the disallowance of personal expenses, bad debts, and the voluntary contribution.\nThe res judicata principle does not apply in income tax cases, and each assessment year is independent.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(24),50,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 93/KB, 94/KB of 2004 and 1332/KB of 2005, decision dated: 19-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Ansari and Rehmatullah Wazir, D.Rs. for Appellant, Muhammad Naseem for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 29 = 2010 SLD 29 = (2009) 100 TAX 301 = 2010 PTCL 776 = 2010 PTD 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRA", + "Key Words:": "The primary issue revolves around whether the receipts derived from the sale of shares by the assessee (N.I.T Limited) should be included in its turnover for the purpose of charging under Section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The question is whether these receipts are taxable or eligible for an exemption under the relevant provisions.\nFacts:\nThe assessee (N.I.T Limited) received receipts from the sale of shares, which it did not include in its turnover.\nThe Department challenged this non-inclusion, asserting that such receipts should be treated as part of the turnover, which would subject them to tax under Section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nLegal Provisions:\nSection 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: This section relates to the charge of tax on the gross receipts or turnover derived by a taxpayer.\nSecond Schedule, Clause (104): This clause provides certain exemptions from tax, which could apply to income derived from the sale of capital assets such as shares.\nAssessee's Position:\nThe assessee argued that the receipts from the sale of shares are capital gains, not part of the normal turnover, and thus should not be included for the purpose of the charge under Section 80-D.\nThe receipts derived from the sale of shares are capital assets, and thus any income arising from the sale of such assets is subject to capital gains tax, not business turnover.\nDepartment's Position:\nThe Department contended that the sale of shares could be considered part of the assessee's turnover for the purpose of Section 80-D, as the receipts were derived from a sale transaction.\nCourt's Conclusion:\nThe Court ruled that the receipts from the sale of shares cannot be included in the turnover for the purpose of Section 80-D.\nSection 80-D applies only to gross receipts derived from the sale of goods, and does not extend to the sale of capital assets such as shares.\nSince the receipts from the sale of shares are capital gains and not part of the regular business income, they do not constitute turnover in the sense intended by Section 80-D.\nThe exemption granted to the assessee against the charge under Section 80-D was found to be retrospective, and therefore, applicable to pending proceedings.\nThis means that the exemption applies not only to future tax assessments but also to assessments that were already in progress or pending at the time the exemption was granted.\nPrecedents Cited:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Gates (Pvt.) Ltd. (2002 PCTLR 888) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shahnawaz Limited (1993 SCMR 73) were referenced to support the principle of exemption and the non-inclusion of capital gains in turnover for tax under Section 80-D.\nKey Takeaways:\nReceipts from the sale of shares are classified as capital gains, not business income, and thus cannot be included in the turnover for taxation purposes under Section 80-D.\nSection 80-D applies only to gross receipts from the sale of goods, not from the sale of capital assets like shares.\nThe exemption granted to the assessee against the charge under Section 80-D was retrospective, and thus applied to pending assessments.\nCapital gains are distinct from business income and are treated separately for tax purposes under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nThis decision affirms that capital transactions such as the sale of shares are treated differently from regular business transactions, and the tax exemption for capital gains is applied even in pending proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(12),2(24),80D,SecondSchedule ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 316 of 2000, decision & hearing dated: 30-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE AND ARSHAD SIRAJ MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqui for Appellant\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES I, KARACHI\nVs.\nN.I.T. LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 30 = 2010 SLD 30 = (2010) 101 TAX 365 = 2010 PTD 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQQ", + "Key Words:": "[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]\n \nBefore Jawaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Judicial Member and Amjad Ikram Ali, Accountant Member\n \nI.T.As. 1058/LB to 1063/LB of 2008, decided on 23rd October, 2009.\n \nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss.221 & 131-Rectification of mistake-Application for-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Assessee/respondent filed applications requesting for rectification in the original assessment order on the ground that income or loss had not been determined while passing orders under S.62 of late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Said applications were rejected by the Assessing Officer against which the assessee filed appeal before Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) who set aside the assessment for all the years under review-Appellant Department did not file any second appeal against said order of Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), but the Assessing Officer while complying with order of the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), had again rejected the rectification applications of the assessee for the reason that said applications were barred by time-Assessing Officer while finalizing the reassessment should have to restrict himself to the directions made by Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), while setting aside the order-Department by not filing second appeal against order of Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), was bound to accept the direction made in the order-Assessing Officer in the present case had fallen in. error which had always been viewed very seriously and could entail into an appropriate action-Assessing Officer while rejecting the applications of the assessee, did not consider the fact that Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), in his order had specifically stated that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer was violative of the Ordinance and could be rectified as the original assessment order was passed hastily in, a summary manner without going into the merits of the case-Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) in the second round of appeal had rightly found that orders passed under review suffered from the mistakes which were apparently floating on the face of the order; and no basis had been given by the Assessing Officer for assessing the income of the assessee-Appellate Tribunal upheld the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the original orders under review should be rectified under S.221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and directed that the rectification applications of the assessee be accepted and the income of the assessee be computed accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,132,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. 1058/LB to 1063/LB of 2008, decision dated: 23rd October, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant\nMuhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 31 = 2010 SLD 31 = (2009) 100 TAX 200 = 2010 PTD 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQg", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nThe central issue revolves around the validity of an oral gift of immovable property and whether such a gift is valid for tax purposes under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, specifically in relation to Section 83(3) and Section 156. The assessee contended that the gift, although not registered, should be treated as valid since the son (the donee) had been declaring the rental income from the property in his income tax returns.\nFacts:\nThe assessee claimed that he had made an oral gift of immovable property to his son.\nThe son had been declaring rental income from the property in his income tax returns, and the assessee argued that this declaration of rental income equated to the possession of the property by the donee.\nHowever, the gift was not registered, which is a requirement under the law.\nLegal Provisions:\nSection 83(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: This section addresses the treatment of income from revocable transfer of assets, including gifts.\nSection 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Pertains to registration and documentation requirements for gifts of immovable property.\nSection 83(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Clearly mandates that a gift of immovable property must be registered for it to be considered valid for tax purposes.\nAssessee's Position:\nThe assessee argued that the son had been declaring the rental income from the property in his tax returns, which meant that the son had taken possession of the property, and this should be treated as a valid gift for tax purposes.\nThe assessee contended that since the property was being used by the son (and income was being declared), this should equate to the fulfillment of the possession requirement for a valid gift under the Income Tax Ordinance.\nDepartment's Position:\nThe Department contended that under Section 83(4), the gift of immovable property must be registered for it to be considered a valid transfer.\nSince the oral gift was not registered, it did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a valid gift under the law, and thus, the property could not be treated as transferred for tax purposes.\nCourt's Conclusion:\nThe Court upheld the position of the Department, ruling that the oral gift of immovable property was invalid for tax purposes because it was not registered.\nSection 83(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance is unambiguous and explicit in its requirement that any gift of immovable property must be registered with the relevant authorities to be valid under the law.\nThe assessee's argument that the son’s declaration of rental income could equate to possession of the property was not valid in light of the statutory requirement for registration.\nThe Appellate Tribunal rejected the assessee’s miscellaneous application, finding it devoid of merit.\nLegal Principles:\nEvasion of Tax: A person is free to arrange their affairs in any manner to minimize their tax burden, but such arrangements must not be designed to evade tax. In this case, the failure to register the gift of immovable property was seen as an attempt to evade tax, making the transaction invalid for tax purposes.\nOral Gift: In the case of a gift of immovable property, registration is a mandatory requirement under Section 83(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Without registration, the gift is not valid for taxation purposes, and it cannot be considered a valid transfer of property.\nPossession of Property: The fact that the donee (son) was declaring rental income does not automatically equate to possession of the property for tax purposes if the transfer was not properly registered.\nLegal Precedents:\nThe case refers to 1987 SCMR 1907 and 1987 SCMR 1403, where the courts had dealt with similar issues regarding the validity of oral gifts and the importance of registration in the case of immovable property.\n94 Tax 145 is also cited to emphasize that in cases involving immovable property, registration is required to make the gift valid under taxation laws.\nKey Takeaways:\nOral gifts of immovable property are not valid for tax purposes unless they are registered in accordance with Section 83(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nRental income declarations do not equate to possession for the purposes of a valid gift under tax law if the gift is not registered.\nThe tax evasion principle is crucial: even though taxpayers can arrange their affairs to minimize taxes, such arrangements must comply with legal requirements and not attempt to evade tax.\nThe Appellate Tribunal’s rejection of the assessee’s application confirms the strict enforcement of registration requirements for gifts of immovable property.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=83,156,83(3),83(4) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No.68/PB of 2003, decision dated: 28-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M. LIAQAT ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rauf Rohaila for Applicant, Yousaf Ghaffar, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 32 = 2010 SLD 32 = (2010) 101 TAX 29 = 2010 PTD 567", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRw", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nThis case revolves around several provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically regarding the legality of additions to the taxpayer’s income in the context of a no-account case, non-disclosure of bank accounts, and failure to obtain necessary approvals for the additions.\nFacts:\nThe assessee's case was categorized as a no-account case, meaning that the taxpayer did not maintain formal accounts for their income or expenditures.\nThe tax authorities made several additions to the assessee's income under different sections of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, including Section 13(1)(a), 13(1)(c), and 13(1)(d), based on various factors such as the non-disclosure of a bank account.\nThe Appellate Tribunal was tasked with reviewing whether these additions were made in accordance with the law, and whether proper procedural steps were followed.\nKey Legal Provisions:\nSection 13(1)(a) - Deals with the addition to income in cases where an assessee is found to have failed to maintain proper accounts.\nSection 13(1)(c) - Addresses unexplained deposits in the bank accounts and provides for additions if an account is not disclosed.\nSection 13(1)(d) - Relates to the requirement of approval before making certain additions.\nSection 121 - Pertains to best judgment assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which can be used when an assessment is made without the cooperation of the assessee or if the assessee fails to respond.\nAppellate Tribunal’s Ruling:\n(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 13(1)(a) – Addition in No-Account Case:\nIssue: The tax authorities made additions under Section 13(1)(a), which typically applies when an assessee does not maintain proper books of account.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee's case was a no-account case, and therefore, the additions under Section 13(1)(a) were not applicable. The Tribunal ruled that in a no-account case, such additions cannot be made under this provision, as it would be legally unjustified.\nPrecedent: The ruling referenced a previous case where Section 13(1)(a) was found inapplicable in no-account cases (2002 PTD (Trib.) 3142).\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 13(1)(c) – Addition for Non-Disclosure of Bank Account:\nIssue: The assessee failed to disclose a bank account, and the tax authorities sought to make an addition based on the peak deposit in that account.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the peak deposit method could only be applied when there is a non-disclosed bank account, but such an addition would fall under Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Tribunal concluded that no addition could be made under this section because the tax authorities had failed to provide the necessary approval and documentation for such a decision.\nConclusion: The Tribunal deleted the addition, deeming it unlawful.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 13(1)(d) – Addition without Approval:\nIssue: The assessee faced an addition under Section 13(1)(d), but the necessary approval for this addition was not recorded in the case files.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that an addition made without prior approval was invalid. Since the tax authorities did not follow the procedural requirement of obtaining approval before making an addition, the Tribunal deleted this addition as well.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – S. 121 – Best Judgment Assessment:\nIssue: The assessment was made ex parte by the Assessing Officer, who framed it without providing the assessee with an opportunity to defend themselves.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal held that the best judgment assessment under Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was improperly conducted without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo proceedings, with the direction to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case.\nLegal Principles:\nNo-Account Case (S.13(1)(a)): In cases where an assessee does not maintain formal accounts, additions under Section 13(1)\n(a) are not justified unless specific conditions are met. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that the addition cannot be made in a no-account case unless it directly complies with the requirements of the law.\nUnexplained Deposits (S.13(1)(c)): If a bank account is not disclosed, the tax authorities may use the peak deposit method to determine unexplained income. However, this method requires the necessary approval and proper documentation. In this case, the lack of approval led to the deletion of the addition.\nApproval Requirement (S.13(1)(d)): The addition under Section 13(1)(d) was found to be invalid because it was made without the required approval from the appropriate authorities, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in tax assessments.\nBest Judgment Assessment (S.121): A best judgment assessment must be made with due process, ensuring that the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard. In this case, the failure to provide this opportunity led to the remanding of the case for fresh proceedings.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee by:\nDeleting the additions under Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(c), and 13(1)(d) due to procedural errors such as lack of approval and improper application of the relevant sections.\nRemanding the case for a de novo assessment under Section 121 due to the failure of the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.\nThis decision highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures and obtaining the necessary approvals when making additions to a taxpayer's income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,121,13(1)(a),13(1)(d),13(1)(c) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 799/LB to 803/LB of 2006, decision dated: 15-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LIAQUAT ALI CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz M. Idrees for Appellant.\nMuhammad Tahir Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 33 = 2010 SLD 33 = (2010) 101 TAX 249 = 2010 PTCL 827 = 2010 PTD 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISA", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nThis case discusses the selection of cases for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the validity of notices issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax for such selection, and the procedural fairness of these actions. The case also addresses discriminatory application of the law, jurisdictional issues, and the procedural requirements under constitutional law for fair hearings.\nFacts:\nThe petitioners, who were assessee taxpayers, were aggrieved by notices issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax for the selection of their cases for audit under Section 177(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nThe petitioners contested the validity of the notices, arguing that the selection criteria for audit were not followed properly or equitably and that they had not been granted an opportunity to contest the selection or raise objections.\nKey Legal Provisions:\nSection 177(1), (2), and (4) - Pertains to the selection of cases for audit:\nSection 177(1): Grants the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) the power to determine the criteria for selecting cases for audit.\nSection 177(2): Empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to select cases for audit based on the criteria set by the FBR.\nSection 177(4): Provides additional provisions regarding the selection process, which includes specific criteria laid out under Section 177(4)(a), (b), (c), and (d). The Commissioner can issue notices based on these criteria.\nArticle 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Constitutional Petition:\nArticle 199 allows an individual to file a constitutional petition in the High Court challenging actions by public authorities, including the issuance of notices for audit.\nConstitutional and Procedural Fairness:\nThe case discusses the discriminatory application of laws and the requirement of a fair opportunity to contest notices issued by the tax authorities, as a fundamental principle of justice.\nAppellate Tribunal’s Ruling:\n(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – S.177(1), (2), and (4) – Selection of Cases for Audit:\nIssue: The petitioners contested the selection of their cases for audit, arguing that the Commissioner of Income Tax did not follow the proper procedures or criteria outlined under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nRuling: The High Court ruled that Section 177(1) and (2) are disjunctive, meaning that the selection of cases for audit can be based on the criteria set by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) or by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 177(4).\nKey finding: The Commissioner is empowered to issue notices for audit based on the specific criteria mentioned in Section 177(4)(a), (b), (c), and (d). The criteria for selection must be adhered to, and the existence of a jurisdictional basis must be established before initiating the audit process.\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes – Discriminatory Application of Law:\nIssue: The petitioners contended that the law could be applied in a discriminatory manner, which would violate principles of fairness and equality.\nRuling: The Court ruled that any law, while not inherently discriminatory, could still be deemed as unjust if it is capable of being applied in a discriminatory way. Such a law cannot be considered good law, as it may lead to unequal treatment of taxpayers.\nConclusion: The law must be applied fairly and consistently, ensuring that no person is arbitrarily selected for audit without adhering to due process.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – S.177(4) – Procedure for Selection of Cases for Audit:\nIssue: The petitioners challenged the validity of the notices issued by the Commissioner for the selection of their cases for audit, arguing that the notices lacked a proper jurisdictional basis as outlined in Section 177(4).\nRuling: The Court held that the conditions and parameters set forth in Section 177(4)(a), (b), (c), and (d) are jurisdictional prerequisites for selecting cases for audit. The existence of these conditions must be determined before any audit can proceed.\nConclusion: The Court ruled that discrimination in the selection of audit cases could only be made after hearing from the petitioners and giving them a chance to present material that could disprove the selection. Any objections raised by the petitioners would need to be adjudicated in a speaking order, ensuring a fair opportunity for hearing.\n(d) High Court's Direction:\nRuling: The High Court did not strike down the notices under Section 177(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. However, the petitioners were given the right to respond to the notices and raise objections, including the lack of jurisdiction.\nKey finding: The High Court directed that any objections raised by the petitioners should be adjudicated upon through a speaking order, with a fair hearing provided to the petitioners before any further audit proceedings could take place.\nLegal Principles:\nDisjunctive Criteria for Selection (S.177(1) and (2)): The provisions regarding the selection of cases for audit under Section 177(1) and (2) are disjunctive, meaning that cases can be selected either based on the criteria set by the FBR or the Commissioner of Income Tax, as long as the procedural conditions are met.\nJurisdictional Basis for Audit: The selection of cases for audit under Section 177(4) requires a jurisdictional basis. The existence of this basis must be determined before initiating the audit process, ensuring fairness in the selection process.\nDiscriminatory Application of Law: A law that can be applied in a discriminatory manner violates principles of equality and fairness. Tax laws must be enforced in a way that treats all individuals equally, without arbitrary decisions or bias.\nFair Opportunity to Contest: The petitioner’s right to a fair hearing must be respected, especially in cases involving audits and assessments. Taxpayers must be given an opportunity to challenge the selection process through objections, and these objections must be adjudicated in a speaking order.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court disposed of the petition by not striking down the notices issued for the audit selection under Section 177(4). However, the petitioners were granted the right to respond and raise objections, which would be adjudicated with due process. The jurisdictional basis for the selection of cases must be established, and the objections must be handled fairly before any audit proceedings begin.\nThe case emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness, non-discriminatory application of tax laws, and the right to a hearing in administrative matters such as tax audits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,177(1),177(2),177(4),177(4)(a)(b)(c)(d) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 11166, 273, 12332, 11771, 19842, 14508, 19630... Decided date: 7-12-2009, hearing date : 22-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ilyas Khan and M. Naseem Kashmiri, Dy. A.G. for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SADAR ANJUMANEAHMEDIA THROUGH GENERAL ATTORNEY\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AUDIT DIVISION), FAISALABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 35 = 2010 SLD 35 = (2009) 100 TAX 191 = 2010 PTD 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRQ", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nThe case revolves around the refund of excess tax deducted, the limitation period for filing such claims, and the applicable procedural rules under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The central issues include whether the application for refund filed by the assessee was within the prescribed time limit and the consequences of a Taxation Officer's failure to pass an order within the stipulated time period.\nFacts:\nThe assessee filed an application for refund of the excess tax deducted. The Taxation Officer rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the application was barred by limitation, as it was filed after the prescribed two-year period.\nThe assessee contested this, claiming that the application had been filed within the statutory time limit, and they provided the acknowledgment receipt from the Taxation Officer as proof. The receipt included the seal, stamp, and initials of the income tax official, supporting the assessee's claim that the application was submitted in a timely manner.\nKey Legal Provisions:\nSection 170(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Refund:\nProvides the rules for claiming refunds of tax paid in excess. The application must be filed within the prescribed time limits to be valid.\nSection 120(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Deemed Assessment:\nA return filed by the assessee is considered a deemed assessment order unless an assessment is specifically made.\nSection 170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Refund Decision:\nRequires the Taxation Officer to decide on a refund claim within a prescribed time period (initially 45 days, now 90 days). Failure to do so can lead to appeal rights for the assessee.\nSection 170(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 - Appeal Against Refund Denial:\nIf the Taxation Officer fails to decide on the refund claim within the specified period, the assessee can file an appeal with the First Appellate Authority. The Taxation Officer's powers would then shift to the appellate authority.\nTribunal's Ruling:\n(a) Refund Denied Due to Limitation:\nIssue: The Taxation Officer rejected the assessee’s application for refund on the grounds that it was filed too late (after the prescribed two-year period).\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the assessee's application had indeed been filed within the prescribed time. The Tribunal found that the acknowledgment receipt, signed by the tax official and bearing the department's seal, served as evidence that the application was properly submitted. Therefore, the refund should not have been denied based on limitation, as the refund claim arose out of the deemed assessment order under Section 120(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which had not been amended.\nThe Tribunal held that the refund should be issued as per the deemed assessment order, and the tax authorities were obligated to process the refund.\nReference Case: The Tribunal referred to Pfizer Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, PLD 1998 SC 64, and other cases, reinforcing that genuine refund claims cannot be denied without proper justification.\n(b) Failure of Taxation Officer to Pass Order Within Prescribed Period:\nIssue: The Taxation Officer failed to pass an order within the prescribed period for deciding the refund (45 days, now increased to 90 days). This failure led to the assessee invoking the right to appeal under Section 170(5).\nRuling: The Tribunal outlined the procedure that if the Taxation Officer fails to make a decision within the prescribed time, the right of appeal is triggered under Section 170(5). Once an appeal is filed, the power of the Taxation Officer shifts to the First Appellate Authority, who can decide on the refund claim.\nIf the assessee does not appeal after 45 days and the matter remains pending, the Taxation Officer is still authorized to pass an order. However, once the appeal is filed, the Taxation Officer cannot make further decisions until the appellate authority has adjudicated the matter.\n(c) Deemed Assessment and Refund Creation:\nIssue: The assessee argued that the return filed should be treated as a deemed assessment under Section 120(1)(b), and the refund should be treated as created under the deemed assessment order.\nRuling: The Tribunal upheld the argument that the refund should be considered as created under the deemed assessment order. According to Section 120(1)(b), the return filed by the assessee is considered a deemed assessment order unless a specific assessment is made. The refund claim arising from this return should therefore be processed and issued accordingly, as there was no amendment under Section 122 to invalidate the return or refund.\nLegal Principles:\nTime Limit for Filing Refund:\nApplications for refund of tax paid in excess must be filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 170(2)(c). If filed within the time limit, the refund cannot be denied on the grounds of limitation.\nDeemed Assessment:\nUnder Section 120(1)(b), a return filed by the assessee automatically results in a deemed assessment order. The refund arising from such a return is valid and should be processed unless explicitly amended under Section 122 of the Ordinance.\nFailure to Decide on Refund Within the Prescribed Period:\nIf the Taxation Officer does not pass a decision on the refund within the prescribed 45 days (now 90 days), the assessee has the right to appeal under Section 170(5). The First Appellate Authority can then decide the matter.\nAppellate Authority's Role:\nIf the matter is appealed, the Taxation Officer’s power over the refund issue shifts to the First Appellate Authority. The Taxation Officer cannot make any further decisions on the issue while the appeal is pending.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the refund claim had been filed within the prescribed time and that the refund was created under the deemed assessment order. The Tribunal emphasized the procedural requirements for the Taxation Officer to pass an order within the statutory period and the right of the assessee to appeal if no decision was made. The refund should be processed based on the deemed assessment order, and the Taxation Officer was directed to issue the refund accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=61,62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 79/PB of 2008, decision dated: 21st May, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muqarrab Khan, D.R. for Appellant\nMushtaq Akbar, C.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 36 = 2010 SLD 36 = (2010) 101 TAX 108 = 2010 PTD 587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRg", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nThis case addresses various aspects of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, particularly relating to the assessment procedures including the issuance of notices, the treatment of expenses, and the reasonableness of certain claims, such as depreciation and purchase rates.\nFacts:\nThe assessee (a company) was being assessed for income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Several issues arose during the assessment process, including the manner in which the books of accounts were examined, the gross profit rate, purchase rates, and the depreciation allowance.\nKey Legal Provisions:\nSection 61 - Production of Books of Accounts:\nAllows tax authorities to require the production of books of accounts, records, and other documentary evidence from the taxpayer for examination.\nSection 62 - Assessment and Notice:\nGoverns the procedure for the assessment process, which includes the issuance of notices for the production of documents. Under Section 62(1), it is mandatory for the tax authorities to examine the books of accounts before issuing such notices.\nDepreciation Allowance:\nDepreciation is an allowance that can be deducted from income, but it must be supported by adequate evidence that the assets have been used during the assessment period.\nTribunal's Ruling:\n(a) Nature of the Notice:\nIssue: The notice issued to the assessee was titled under Section 62, but the nature of the notice required the assessee to produce books of accounts and records under Section 61, which deals with the production of records. The question was whether the notice was legally valid under the correct provision.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that although the notice was titled under Section 62, its essence was one under Section 61 since it called for the production of books of accounts and records. Therefore, the notice was valid under the correct legal provision.\n(b) Issuance of Notice Before Examination of Accounts:\nIssue: A notice was issued by the Taxation Officer before the examination of the assessee’s books of accounts, but Section 62(1) requires the examination to occur before the notice is issued.\nRuling: The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's finding that the assessment proceedings had a fatal legal flaw due to the early issuance of the notice. According to the Tribunal, the assessment was invalid because the Taxation Officer had issued the notice without first examining the books of accounts as required by law. The direction of the First Appellate Authority to accept the assessee’s declared version was found to be justified and upheld.\n(c) Gross Profit Rate:\nIssue: The Assessing Officer accepted the gross profit rate declared by the assessee, and there was a question of whether this implied acceptance of all the expenses claimed under the cost of sale.\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the acceptance of the gross profit rate by the Assessing Officer effectively amounted to the implied acceptance of the expenses claimed by the assessee under the cost of sale. This was seen as a logical inference, and the Tribunal upheld the treatment of the expenses.\n(d) Purchase Rate of Sugar:\nIssue: The Assessing Officer sought to adjust the purchase rate declared by the assessee by relying on the purchase rates of other parallel sugar mills.\nRuling: The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's reliance on parallel sugar mills to be unjustified. First, there was no evidence to suggest that the purchase rates of the assessee were incorrect, and second, the circumstances under which other sugar mills operated were not comparable to those of the assessee, especially considering factors such as location. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's declared purchase rates and rejected the Assessing Officer's adjustments.\n(e) Depreciation Allowance:\nIssue: The Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee's income by disallowing a portion of the depreciation allowance, claiming that it was based on flimsy and conjectural reasoning without identifying defects in the books of account or establishing that the plant and machinery were not used during the income year.\nRuling: The First Appellate Authority deleted the addition, finding that the disallowance of depreciation was based on general remarks rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal agreed with this reasoning and upheld the deletion of the addition, stating that flimsy or speculative reasoning cannot be the basis for disallowing legitimate claims such as depreciation.\nLegal Principles:\nIssuance of Notices Under the Correct Legal Provision:\nNotices for the production of books of accounts and documents are to be issued under Section 61, even if they are titled under Section 62, as long as the essence of the notice aligns with Section 61's requirements.\nExamination of Accounts Before Issuing Notice:\nUnder Section 62(1), the Taxation Officer must examine the books of accounts before issuing a notice. Failure to do so results in a fatal flaw in the assessment proceedings.\nImplied Acceptance of Expenses:\nIf the gross profit rate is accepted by the Assessing Officer, it implies the acceptance of all related expenses, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.\nReliance on Parallel Cases for Purchase Rates:\nThe Assessing Officer cannot adjust the purchase rates of an assessee by relying on rates from other parallel companies unless those companies' circumstances (e.g., location) are similar and the records justify such adjustments.\nDepreciation Allowance:\nDepreciation allowances should not be disallowed on conjectural or flimsy grounds. Adequate evidence is required to prove that assets were not used or that the books of account were incorrect.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on several points, including the correctness of the notice issued under Section 61, the acceptance of the gross profit rate and expenses, the unjustified adjustment of the purchase rate, and the deletion of the depreciation disallowance. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper procedural compliance in issuing notices and making adjustments, ensuring that the assessee's legitimate claims were upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 381/LB to 383/LB of 2006, decision dated: 6-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Haider Rizvi, L.A. and Muhammad Asif, D.R. L.T.U. for Appellant. Shahid Pervaiz Jami for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 7 = 2000 SLD 7 = 2000 PTD 1384 = (2000) 81 TAX 183 = (1999) 237 ITR 617", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISw", + "Key Words:": "The case concerns whether profits arising from the operations of two cement factories, which were subject to an agreement to sell, should be included in the income of the vendor-assessee for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, despite the sale being completed later in 1964. The central issue is whether the profits were diverted by overriding title to the purchaser before the transfer date and if they should be taxed in the hands of the vendor.\nFacts:\nThe assessee-company, the owner of two cement factories in Pakistan, entered into an agreement on July 24, 1962, to sell the factories and their assets to M.\nA supplemental agreement was signed in November 1962, which specified that profits and losses from the operation of the factories after September 30, 1962, would belong to M, provided the sale was completed.\nDespite the sale agreement having a time limit, it was extended multiple times, and the final sale was completed on September 30, 1964.\nFor the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) included the profits from these factories in the assessee's income.\nThe Tribunal and High Court upheld the inclusion of the profits in the assessee’s income, but the matter was taken to the Supreme Court.\nKey Legal Provisions:\nSection 60 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Relates to the diversion of income by overriding title. It allows the diversion of income to another party before it accrues to the assessee, which means that the income never actually belongs to the assessee.\nSupreme Court's Ruling:\nDiversion of Income by Overriding Title:\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the profits from the operation of the factories during the relevant periods (October 1, 1962 – September 30, 1963, and October 1, 1963 – September 30, 1964) were diverted by overriding title to the purchaser (M) as per the terms of the agreement.\nThe supplemental agreement clearly specified that the profits and losses post September 30, 1962, would be borne by M, not the vendor (assessee). The actual completion of the sale on September 30, 1964, did not alter the fact that the profits had been assigned to the purchaser from September 30, 1962.\nAs a result, the profits were diverted before they accrued, and hence, the vendor (assessee) had no right to these profits.\nApplication of Section 60:\nThe Supreme Court clarified that Section 60 does not apply in this case. Section 60 applies when income accrues to the transferee, but the income-earning asset remains with the transferor. Here, the very agreement to transfer excluded the applicability of Section 60, as the right to profits was transferred as part of the agreement.\nThe Court emphasized that there was no retention of income by the vendor-assessee, nor did the income accrue to the assessee after the agreement was executed.\nCapital Gains and Profit Computation:\nThe Income Tax Officer had assessed capital gains from the sale of the factories, treating the gross consideration as the sale price, which implicitly accepted that the profits from the factories belonged to the purchaser (M) and not to the vendor.\nThe Court found that there was no inconsistency between the capital gains assessment and the treatment of the profits because the profits had been effectively transferred before they could accrue to the vendor.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision and ruled that the profits arising from the operations of the two cement factories for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 were not taxable in the hands of the assessee-company.\nThe profits were diverted by overriding title in accordance with the agreement and thus did not belong to the assessee at any time.\nLegal Precedents:\nThe Court referred to several other cases to establish the principle of diversion of income by overriding title:\nCIT v. Jhanzie Tea Association (1989) 179 ITR 295 (Cal.)\nCIT v. Kanoria (M.D.) (1982) 137 ITR 137 (Bom.)\nCIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC)\nCIT v. Tea Producing Co. of India Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 200 (Cal.)\nCIT v. Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 1 (SC)\nThe decision also reversed the Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 331, which had earlier supported the inclusion of such profits in the vendor’s income.\nKey Legal Principles:\nDiverting Income by Overriding Title:\nWhen income is diverted by overriding title, it does not accrue to the original holder (the assessee), even if the transaction or event leading to the income has not yet been completed. The income goes directly to the recipient under the terms of the agreement, and the assessee has no right to claim it.\nSection 60:\nSection 60 applies only when income accrues to the transferee while the asset remains with the transferor. In this case, the right to income was transferred as part of the agreement itself, so Section 60 did not apply.\nConsistency in Capital Gains and Profit Assessment:\nThe assessment of capital gains should be consistent with the determination of profit distribution. If profits were transferred as part of the sale agreement, they cannot be taxed as income of the transferor.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held that the profits from the cement factories for the relevant periods were diverted by overriding title to the purchaser, and therefore, the assessee company was not liable to tax on those profits for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. This decision clarified the application of Section 60 and reinforced the principle that profits diverted by agreement do not accrue to the original owner, even if the transfer of assets is completed at a later date.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4632 and 4633 of 1992, decision dated: 16-04-1999. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 12, 1991, of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax References Nos.87 and 88 of 1974)", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Ms. Sushmita Banerjee and Tarun Gulati, Advocates with him) for Appellant for Khaitan & Co.", + "Party Name:": "DALMIA CEMENT LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 36 = 2010 SLD 36 = (2009) 100 TAX 206 = 2010 PTD 660", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan (2009)\nCase No.: I.T.As. Nos. 1850/IB of 2005, and 96/IB, 97/IB of 2006, decided on 25th April, 2009\nJudges: Khalid Waheed Ahmed (Chairman), Muhammad Jahandar (Judicial Member), Istataat Ali (Accountant Member)\nLegal Issues and Rulings:\n(a) Interpretation of Statutes and Procedural Matters:\nThe Income Tax Ordinance 2001 altered certain procedural matters, especially regarding the mode of trial, evidence, and forums for entertaining actions. The ruling emphasized that pending matters would be processed under the new statute, but existing rights and liabilities would still follow the law as it existed before the alteration, unless the new statute explicitly indicated otherwise.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance 2001 – Sections 239 & 210 (Savings and Delegation):\nSection 239 provided that assessments for income years ending on or before June 30, 2002, should be handled according to the previous Income Tax Ordinance 1979. However, matters regarding procedural issues, including the forum for processing assessments, were transferred to the new tax authority under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001.\nThe Commissioner was empowered under Section 210 to delegate powers to the Taxation Officer, and such delegated functions would be considered to have been performed by the Commissioner.\n(c) Delegation of Powers Under Section 210:\nThe Tribunal upheld the delegation of powers from the Commissioner to the Taxation Officer as valid. Such delegation enabled the Taxation Officer to process cases, thereby assisting in case disposal while remaining under the Commissioner’s supervision. This delegation was deemed as a practical step to manage the workload effectively.\n(d) Legality of Assessment Framing by the Taxation Officer:\nUnder Section 211, assessments framed by the Taxation Officer, acting under the delegated powers, were legally valid. The Tribunal ruled that the Taxation Officer's actions were within the scope of the law and consistent with the framework of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, even if the powers were delegated by the Commissioner.\n(e) Signing of Delegation Orders:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the delegation of powers was properly executed when the Commissioner signed every page of the delegation order, and the official communication from the Staff Officer carried the presumption of truth. This was sufficient to establish the legitimacy of the delegation.\n(f) Limitation of Assessment – Section 64(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979:\nThe Taxation Officer issued a notice to the assessee company at its last known address. The Tribunal held that the assessment framed within two years from the end of the financial year, in line with Section 64(3), was valid. The assessee's contention that the notice was improperly issued was rejected.\n(g) Completion of Assessment and Communication of Order:\nThe Tribunal ruled that under Section 64 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the assessment is considered complete once the assessment is framed. The communication of the order is a separate process. Hence, even if the order is communicated later, the assessment itself remains valid if completed within the prescribed time.\n(h) Combined Orders for Multiple Years:\nThe Tribunal upheld the practice of issuing combined orders for multiple years of assessment for the same assessee, rejecting the assessee's claim that this practice was invalid. The Tribunal explained that such practice was common and does not constitute a nullity in law.\n(i) Best Judgment Assessment Under Section 63:\nThe Tribunal addressed the issue of best judgment assessments under Section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. The Taxation Officer's estimation of receipts and expenses was questioned for not being based on proper analysis. The Tribunal found that the Taxation Officer had failed to consider the market conditions, assessee’s history, and parallel cases, which were necessary for a fair estimation. As a result, the assessments were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.\nSummary of Key Rulings:\nExisting Rights and Liabilities: Rights and liabilities established under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 remain governed by the old law unless the new statute explicitly provides for a change.\nDelegation of Powers: The delegation of powers by the Commissioner to the Taxation Officer was legally valid, and actions taken by the Taxation Officer under these delegated powers were considered as performed by the Commissioner.\nAssessment Completion: The Tribunal confirmed that assessments are deemed complete upon framing, regardless of when the communication of the order occurs.\nBest Judgment Assessment: The Tribunal emphasized the need for a meaningful basis in estimating receipts and expenses for best judgment assessments, and remanded the cases for re-estimation by the Taxation Officer with proper analysis.\nLegal Precedents Referenced:\n1993 SCMR 1503 was distinguished in the context of procedural delegation.\nAllied Motors v. CIT (2004 PTD 1173) was cited to emphasize the power of the Commissioner to delegate.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's ruling reinforced the importance of procedural clarity in tax assessments and delegation of powers. It also stressed that assessments based on best judgment should be grounded in sound analysis to ensure fairness, and that combined orders for multiple years are valid if issued for the same assessee. The Tribunal's direction for remand highlighted the need for a more considered approach to estimating the assessee's receipts and expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=64,239,63,210,56,64(3),211, ", + "Case #": "LT.As. Nos.1850/IB of 2005 and 96/IB, 97/IB of 2006, decision dated: 25-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waseem Ahmed Siddiqui FCA for Appellant\nMrs. Shahina Akbar, Legal Advisor (LA)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 37 = 2010 SLD 37 = (2010) 101 TAX 265 = 2010 PTD 674", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 25(c) & 133\nLegal Issue: Addition to Income without Confrontation and Raising New Grounds before Appellate Authority\nFacts:\nThe Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition to the income of the assessee, but the assessee was not confronted with the issue before the addition was made.\nThe assessee did not raise this issue before the appellate authority. When the case reached the Tribunal, it was dismissed because the issue was factual in nature and could not be raised as a legal ground for the first time before the Tribunal.\nLegal Provisions:\nSection 25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 deals with the powers of the Assessing Officer to make assessments, including additions to income based on available records.\nSection 133 pertains to the procedural aspects of making assessments and additions, including the need to confront the assessee with any discrepancies found during the assessment process.\nRulings:\nAddition without Confrontation:\nThe assessee argued that the Assessing Officer's addition was made without confronting the assessee regarding the details or discrepancies leading to the addition.\nHowever, the record showed that the assessee had been confronted with the same through various notices before the addition was finalized. The assessee failed to provide an explanation for the discrepancies.\nTherefore, the Tribunal found that the addition was justified and did not require any interference by the High Court.\nRaising New Grounds before Appellate Authority:\nThe assessee did not raise the issue of non-confrontation before the appellate authority, and the Tribunal held that such grounds could not be raised for the first time before it, as they were factual in nature. This decision was consistent with established jurisprudence, including Messrs Ahmed Karachi Halwa Merchant Ahmed Food Products v. Commissioner of Income Tax South Zone, Karachi (1982 SCMR 489) and Japan Storage Battery Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi (2003 PTD 2849).\nTribunal's Findings:\nThe Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer's decision. The findings of fact were based on adequate documentation and were not open to challenge at the appellate level.\nReference Application:\nThe High Court dismissed the reference application, noting that the factual findings by the Tribunal did not warrant any interference, as they were supported by evidence in the record.\nRelevant Precedents:\nMessrs Ahmed Karachi Halwa Merchant Ahmed Food Products v. Commissioner of Income Tax South Zone, Karachi (1982 SCMR 489): The case reaffirmed the principle that facts must be established at the earlier stages and cannot be raised as new grounds at the appellate stage.\nJapan Storage Battery Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi (2003 PTD 2849): A similar issue of factual findings and confronting the assessee was addressed, establishing the principle of procedural fairness.\nLungla (Sylhet) de Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax Dacca (1970 SCMR 872): This case reinforced the need to raise relevant issues at the first stage of the assessment and not introduce them at later appellate levels.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s ruling was upheld, and the High Court dismissed the reference application because the assessee had been properly confronted with the discrepancies during the assessment, and the issue of non-confrontation could not be raised at the appellate level for the first time.\nThe case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the need to raise factual issues during the assessment process, rather than waiting until the appellate stage.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=25(c),61,62,63,133,133(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No.D-8 of 2008, decision dated: 9-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mukhtar Ahmed Kuber for Applicant\nJawaid Farooqi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "M/S RAJA WEAVING MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 38 = 2010 SLD 38 = (2010) 101 TAX 73 = 2010 PTD 679", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Fourth Schedule, Rules 5(a) & 5(b)\nLegal Issue: Allowability of Provisions for Diminution in Value of Investments for General Insurance Companies\nFacts:\nThe issue arose concerning the allowability of a provision for depreciation/diminution in the value of investments made by general insurance companies.\nThe Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for depreciation/diminution on the grounds that the provision was not allowable as per general provisions under Rule 5(a) of the Fourth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nThe claim was argued to be allowable under Rule 5(b), which specifically deals with depreciation or loss on realization of investments, and if properly accounted for in the company's accounts.\nLegal Provisions:\nFourth Schedule, Rule 5(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Deals with provisions, allowances, or reserves for expenses or losses not deductible against income under the head income from business. \nFourth Schedule, Rule 5(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Specifically caters to general insurance businesses, allowing depreciation or loss on investments if accounted for in the company’s accounts, and also allowing for any provision for diminution in value of investments.\nRulings:\nAllowability of Provision for Diminution in Value of Investments:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the provision for diminution (depreciation) in the value of investments made by the general insurance company was allowable under Rule 5(b), as it was specifically provided for in the Fourth Schedule.\nRule 5(b) permits such provisions if accounted for in the company's accounts. The Assessing Officer's disallowance of the claim was therefore not valid, as Rule 5(b) was a specific provision dealing with such claims.\nDistinction between Rule 5(a) and Rule 5(b):\nRule 5(a) deals with general expenses or reserves for expenditure not deductible under the head income from business. However, Rule 5(b) applies specifically to general insurance businesses and deals with depreciation, loss, or diminution of investment.\nSince Rule 5(b) is more specific, the general provisions under Rule 5(a) could not override it.\nPurpose of Rule 5(b):\nThe purpose of Rule 5(b) was undermined if it were applied only in cases where the amounts were realized. The legislature deliberately excluded the word provision from Rule 5(b), meaning the provision for diminution in value of investments is allowable even if not realized, as long as it is reflected in the company’s accounts.\nNotional Loss or Depreciation:\nEven if the loss or diminution in the value of investments was notional (i.e., not yet realized), the provision for such diminution was allowable if it was written off or taken to the reserve. The Assessing Officer could not disregard the integrity of the accounts, as these were prepared under the insurance laws.\nSanctity of Accounts:\nThe accounts prepared under the insurance laws had sanctity and could not be disturbed by the Assessing Officer without clear justification. The integrity of such accounts had to be respected, and the provision for diminution of investments, if properly accounted for, should be allowed.\nNon-Obstante Effect:\nThe provisions under Rule 5(b) of the Fourth Schedule had a non-obstante (overriding) effect, meaning that they override the general provisions of Rule 5(a). This principle ensured that specific provisions for general insurance companies took precedence over more general rules.\nRelevant Precedents:\nC.I.T. Central, Karachi v. Alpha Insurance Company Limited and Home Insurance Company Limited (PLD 1981 SC 293): This case highlighted the importance of recognizing the specific provisions for general insurance businesses under Rule 5(b).\nE.F.U. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (1997 SCC 1174): The court affirmed that provisions for depreciation and diminution in the value of investments, when accounted for in the books, were allowable.\nHabib Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (PLD 1985 SC 109): Reinforced the concept of treating provisions made in accounts according to insurance laws as legitimate for tax purposes.\nConclusion:\nThe provision for diminution/depreciation in the value of investments by the general insurance company was allowable under Rule 5(b) of the Fourth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nThe claim could not be disallowed under the general provisions of Rule 5(a), as Rule 5(b) specifically catered to such situations for insurance companies.\nThe sanctity of accounts prepared under insurance law was upheld, and the Assessing Officer could not challenge the integrity of those accounts without a valid reason. The case affirmed that the specific provisions for general insurance businesses under Rule 5(b) had overriding effect and should be followed in such matters.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Fourth Schedule,5(a),5(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 218/KB, 1278/KB and 1279/KB of 2006 decided on 3rd August, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, CHAIRMAN, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hassaan Naeem and Faisal Ahad for Appellant AND Riaz-ud-Din, Legal Advisor, Farrukh Ansari, D.R. and Rahmat Ullah Khan Wazir, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 39 = 2010 SLD 39 = (2010) 101 TAX 293 = 2010 PTCL 822 = 2010 PTD 704", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nIssue (a): Addition in Income by Authority Without Notice to Assessee (Section 111(1)(c))\nLegal Provision:\nSection 111(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 pertains to the addition in income where there is a failure to explain certain assets or income that appears to be unaccounted for or undeclared.\nFacts:\nThe Assessing Authority made an addition to the income of the assessee under Section 111(1)(c), citing unexplained income or assets.\nHowever, the assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing before the addition was made.\nRuling:\nThe addition to the income was found to be invalid because the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to explain or be heard before the addition was made.\nAs per legal principles of natural justice, an assessee must be given the opportunity to be heard, especially when an addition is made to their income under Section 111(1)(c).\nThe impugned addition to the income was deleted by the Tribunal because of the failure to provide such an opportunity.\nIssue (b): Reference to High Court (Section 133) - Findings of Fact by Tribunal\nLegal Provision:\nSection 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 allows the High Court to review decisions and findings made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\nFacts:\nThe assessee filed a reference to the High Court challenging the findings of fact made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\nThe findings of fact made by the Tribunal were based on the evidence on record.\nRuling:\nThe High Court held that it could not interfere with or disturb the findings of fact made by the Tribunal, unless the findings were found to be perverse or contrary to the record.\nFindings of fact are typically within the domain of the Tribunal, and the High Court will not re-evaluate the evidence unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as when the findings are clearly unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence on record.\nConclusion:\nSection 111(1)(c) requires that an assessee be provided with an opportunity to be heard before any additions are made to their income. Since this procedure was not followed in the case, the addition was deleted.\nThe High Court does not have the jurisdiction to disturb the findings of fact made by the Tribunal unless those findings are perverse or contrary to the record. Thus, the Tribunal’s findings were upheld in this case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(c),133 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No. 405 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd October, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Farooqui for Appellant. Khaleeq Ahmed for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, CORPORATE REGION, KARACHI\nVs.\nM/S SHAISTA ESTATE (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 40 = 2010 SLD 40 = (2010) 101 TAX 59 = 2010 PTD 708", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) & Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nIssue (a): Rectification of Mistake – Scope in Remand Proceedings\nLegal Provision:\nSection 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 pertains to the rectification of mistakes.\nThe Preamble of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) and various provisions of Section 135(4), 62, 80C, and 80CC also contribute to clarifying the scope of rectification.\nFacts:\nThe assessee challenged the Taxation Officer's actions during remand proceedings after the First Appellate Authority and Appellate Tribunal had already made determinations.\nThe Taxation Officer, in the remand proceedings, re-determined the scope of rectification, even though the First Appellate Authority had previously clarified the parameters for rectification in the first round of litigation.\nThe assessee argued that once the Appellate Tribunal had rejected the departmental appeal, the Taxation Officer was bound to strictly adhere to the framework and directions established by the appellate authorities.\nThe Taxation Officer exceeded his authority by discussing the scope of rectification again, essentially reopening issues that had already been decided by the appellate bodies.\nRuling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that the Taxation Officer erred in re-determining the scope of rectification once the matter had already been clearly defined by the First Appellate Authority and Appellate Tribunal.\nThe Taxation Officer was bound to carry out the rectification strictly according to the framework set by the appellate authorities and was not permitted to revisit the scope or re-assess the issues.\nThe orders of both the Taxation Officer and First Appellate Authority were vacated, and the Taxation Officer was directed to carry out the rectification as per the specific observations of the First Appellate Authority.\nIssue (b): Scope of Remand Proceedings in Rectification of Mistake\nLegal Provision:\nSection 156 and its provisions regarding rectification of mistakes highlight the scope of action the Taxation Officer can take, especially when the case is under remand proceedings.\nRuling:\nThe scope of remand proceedings is limited to the instructions given by the appellate authorities. The Taxation Officer cannot deviate from these instructions and must strictly follow the directives issued by the First Appellate Authority and Appellate Tribunal during remand.\nIssue (c): Loss on Account of Provision of Technical Services\nLegal Provision:\nSection 156 addresses rectification of mistakes when there is a glaring error, such as failure to account for losses related to the provision of technical services.\nFacts:\nThe assessee argued that a loss on account of the provision of technical services was not determined by the Taxation Officer, despite it being clearly reflected in the audited accounts.\nThe department had consistently allowed the same treatment for such receipts and expenses in subsequent years.\nRuling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the failure to determine the loss on the provision of technical services was a glaring mistake that was apparent from the audited accounts.\nSince the department had been consistent in accepting such treatment in later years, the rectification was required to ensure proper tax treatment.\nIssue (d): Administration of Justice – Duty of Authorities to Apply Law Correctly\nLegal Principle:\nEven if a taxpayer does not claim a lawful relief due to ignorance or oversight, it is still the duty of the authorities to apply the law correctly and ensure that the taxpayer is not unfairly burdened with taxes that are not due.\nRuling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal emphasized that it is the duty of tax authorities to grant relief that is due under the law, even if the taxpayer fails to formally claim it.\nIssue (e): Administration of Justice – Avoiding Technical Barriers\nLegal Principle:\nTechnical subtleties should not prevent the administration of justice. The law should be applied to ensure fair treatment and the correct resolution of tax matters, regardless of minor procedural technicalities.\nRuling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal stressed that technicalities should not be allowed to hinder justice or prevent the rightful relief due to the taxpayer.\nIssue (f): Grounds of Appeal – Relief Sought Even if Not Distinctly Mentioned\nLegal Principle:\nGrounds of appeal do not necessarily need to specifically mention the prayer for relief. It suffices that the grounds challenge the order on valid grounds, which clearly indicate the relief sought.\nRuling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal observed that even if the memo of appeal did not specifically mention the prayer for relief, the grounds of appeal were sufficient as long as they clearly challenged the order and indicated the relief being sought.\nConclusion:\nThe Taxation Officer erred by re-assessing the scope of rectification during remand proceedings, which had already been defined by the First Appellate Authority and Appellate Tribunal. The rectification must strictly adhere to their directions.\nLoss on the provision of technical services must be accounted for, as shown in the audited accounts, and the department’s consistent treatment of such items in later years supports the claim.\nThe administration of justice requires that lawful reliefs be granted even if not formally claimed and that technicalities should not obstruct the rightful application of the law.\nThe grounds of appeal were sufficient to indicate the relief sought, regardless of whether the prayer was explicitly mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=62,80,80C,80CC,135,135(4),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 881/LB and 882/LB of 2008, decision dated: 14-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar, F.C.A. for Appellant\nMuhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 41 = 2010 SLD 41 = (2010) 101 TAX 43 = 2010 PTD 725", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Sections 69, 34(2), and 122(1)(5)\nIssue (a): Taxation of Advances from Members Against Allotment of Office Space\nLegal Provision:\nSection 69: Receipt of income\nSections 34(2) and 122(1)(5) relate to the treatment and taxation of income and the power of the Taxation Officer.\nFacts:\nThe assessee received advances from members of the Exchange for the allotment of office space.\nThe assessee contended that these advances were liabilities, not income, because they were to be refunded if the office space was not allotted, or if the transaction was cancelled.\nThe assessee argued that these advances were merely receipts for future allotments and lacked the character of income, as they were refundable under certain conditions.\nRuling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that while the amounts were termed advances, they were in fact consideration for the allotment of office space.\nThe amounts received were treated as income because they were non-refundable except in exceptional circumstances (e.g., if the allotment was cancelled).\nThe Tribunal concluded that these amounts had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration and, as the assessee maintained its accounts on an accrual basis, these amounts were taxable.\nSince the amounts had vested with the assessee and were utilized at its discretion, the receipt was considered as part of the assessee’s business income.\nThe appeal was dismissed in limine (without detailed hearing) by the Appellate Tribunal.\nIssue (b): Non-Deduction of Cost of Acquisition of Building from Advances Treated as Sale Consideration\nLegal Provision:\nSection 69: Receipt of income and taxation thereof\nFacts:\nThe assessee argued that if the advances were considered a sale of property, then the cost of acquiring the building should be deducted from the amounts received to calculate the net gain from the transaction.\nThe Taxation Officer had treated the advances as consideration for sale, but the assessee sought to deduct the cost of acquiring the building from the received amount.\nRuling:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the amounts received from the members were business income and not the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset.\nSince the investment in the property was a capital expenditure, the cost of acquisition could not be deducted from the advances received.\nThe amount received was considered as part of the assessee’s business income, and the claim for deduction of acquisition cost was not allowed.\nThe appeal was dismissed on this issue.\nIssue (c): Taxation of Gain on Sale of Fixed Assets Without Allowing Depreciation\nLegal Provision:\nSection 69: Receipt of income\nDepreciation on fixed assets and taxation of capital gains.\nFacts:\nThe assessee sold fixed assets but the depreciation on those assets was not accounted for during the tax calculation.\nThe assessee argued that since no depreciation had been allowed on the assets sold, the gain on the sale of these assets should not be taxed.\nRuling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Taxation Officer for a fresh examination.\nThe Tribunal instructed that if it was found that the assessee had not claimed depreciation on the sold fixed assets, then the gain on the sale should not be taxed.\nThe issue was referred back to the authorities to ensure the proper application of tax laws regarding depreciation and capital gains.\nConclusion:\nAdvances from Members:\nAdvances for office space allotment were treated as income, as they were non-refundable (except in exceptional cases), and accrued to the assessee during the relevant year.\nCost of Acquisition:\nThe cost of acquisition of property could not be deducted from the amounts received from members, as these amounts were business income rather than sale proceeds of a capital asset.\nTaxation of Gain on Sale of Fixed Assets:\nThe gain on the sale of fixed assets was remanded for further examination, with instructions to consider whether the depreciation on the sold assets had been allowed. If no depreciation was claimed, the gain should not be taxed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=34,69,122,122(1)(5),34(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T A. No.375/KB of 2009, decision dated: 1st September, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salah-ud-Din Ahmed and Amin Malik, F.C.A. for Appellant\nRajab-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 42 = 2010 SLD 42 = (2010) 101 TAX 33 = 2010 PTD 734", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESA", + "Key Words:": "Case Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 62\nIssue: Assessment on the Basis of Receipts from Transport Business\nLegal Provision:\nSection 62: Assessment on production of accounts, evidence, etc., applicable to the transportation business and allocation of receipts and expenses based on the geographical area of operation.\nFacts:\nThe assessee operates a transport business involving receipts from both Pakistan and the Northern Areas.\nDuring the re-assessment, the Assessing Officer adopted a 50% receipt split between Pakistan and the Northern Areas, assuming equal income from both regions.\nThe First Appellate Authority directed that the receipts from Pakistan be adjusted to 35% of the total receipts from the transport activities and expenses should also follow the same ratio.\nRuling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal observed that the exact formula for assessment should be based on the distance covered during transport operations.\nThe receipts from transport activities should be proportioned based on the distance traveled in Pakistan and the Northern Areas.\nFor example, if a vehicle departs from a city (point A) in Pakistan and its destination is in the Northern Areas (point B), the receipts corresponding to the distance covered in Pakistan should be taxable.\nSimilarly, if the vehicle starts its journey from the Northern Areas and heads to a destination in Pakistan, the same principle of distance-based receipt allocation should apply.\nThe Appellate Tribunal found that the 50% split used by the Assessing Officer did not accurately reflect the proportional distance-based receipts.\nIt also disagreed with the 35% ratio suggested by the First Appellate Authority, concluding that the correct formula for allocation of receipts and expenses should reflect the actual distance traveled in each region.\nOutcome:\nThe Orders of both the authorities below were vacated, and the case was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the distance-based formula for receipts and expenses.\nConclusion:\nThe correct approach for assessing the income and expenses in the transport business should involve calculating the receipts proportionate to the distance covered in each region (Pakistan and Northern Areas).\nThe Appellate Tribunal emphasized the need for an accurate and distance-based allocation of receipts and expenses, which would more accurately reflect the business operations in each area.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.70/IB to 74/IB and 148/IB to 152/IB of 2009, decision dated: 29-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Hussain, A.C.M.A. for Appl. (in I.T.As. Nos.70/IB to 74/IB of 2009). Tariq Iqbal, D.R. for Resp. (in I.T.As. Nos.70/IB to 74/IB of 2009).Tariq Iqbal, D.R. for Appl. (in I.T.As. Nos.148/IB to 152/IB of 2009). Zahid Hussain, A.C.M.A. for Resp. (in I.T.As. Nos.148/IB to 152/IB to 152/IB of 2009)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 43 = 2010 SLD 43 = (2010) 100 TAX 289 = 2010 PTCL 761 = 2010 PTD 737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 23\nIssue: Allowable Deduction for Penalty or Fine\nLegal Provision:\nSection 23: Deals with allowable deductions for expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.\nFacts:\nA state-owned company (the assessee) is engaged in the business of refining crude oil.\nThe company imported crude oil under a loan from a foreign bank, guaranteed by the State Bank of Pakistan.\nAs per the terms of the loan, the company was required to deposit a counterpart rupee fund with the State Bank of Pakistan within a specific period.\nThe State Bank charged the company an excess amount due to late payment of the loan amount under Para. 44 of Chapter XIII of the Foreign Exchange Manual.\nThe company claimed that the excess amount charged by the State Bank should be treated as an allowable business expense.\nHowever, the Assessing Officer added this excess amount to the company's total income, treating it as penalty or fine.\nRuling:\nPenalty and Fine Exclusion:\nExpenditures incurred due to penalties or fines are not deductible under tax law. Therefore, the excess amount charged for late payment could not be classified as a penalty or fine if it did not involve any separate proceedings, orders, or discretionary actions by a competent authority.\nCompensation for Delay:\nThe excess amount charged by the State Bank was not a penalty for a violation of law but rather a breach of contract due to the delay in payment of the loan. In such cases, payments made as compensation for the breach of contract are considered allowable expenses, as long as they are made wholly and exclusively for business purposes.\nNature of the Excess Amount:\nThe Tribunal emphasized that compensation for delay or default due to breach of contract is not to be considered a penalty or fine, as long as it is automatic without any separate proceedings or discretion from the relevant authority. This is crucial because penalties or fines typically involve an exercise of discretion by authorities, which was not the case in this situation.\nAdmissibility of the Deduction:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the excess amount paid by the company was for delayed payment of the loan amount, which was a breach of contract. Therefore, it was not a penalty or fine, but an admissible expenditure under Section 23, since it was incurred exclusively for business purposes.\nOutcome:\nThe excess amount paid by the assessee company due to late payment was not a penalty or fine but a business expense. As a result, it was allowable as a deduction under Section 23 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nRelevant Precedents:\nAta Hussain Khan Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan, Dacca (1970) 21 Tax 1\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone `B' v. Messrs Farrokh Chemical Industries (1992 SCMR 523)\nBeecham Pak v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1995 PTD 577)\nCommissioner (Legal Division) Large Taxpayer Unit, Karachi v. Bawany Metals Ltd. Karachi (2006 PTD 2256)\nHassan Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (2009 PTD 66)\nCIT v. Premier Bank Ltd (1999 SCMR 1213)\nConclusion:\nThe excess amount paid due to the delay in loan payment was not a penalty or fine but rather a business-related expense. Therefore, it should be allowed as a deduction under Section 23 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 594 of 2000, decision dated: 27-04-2009, hearing date: 27-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Appellant\nIqbal Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nNATIONAL REFINERY LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 44 = 2010 SLD 44 = (2010) 101 TAX 382 = 2010 PTD 747", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nIssue: Assessment of Unexplained Business Capital Gain and Imposition of Penalty\nLegal Provisions:\nSection 184: Deals with return of income and assessments.\nSection 205: Addresses the imposition of penalty for failure to comply with tax obligations.\nSection 131: Allows the Taxation Officer to summon and examine evidence to verify income.\nFacts:\nThe assessee (appellant) filed income returns for the relevant year showing an income of Rs. 108,000.\nThe Taxation Officer (T.O.) assessed the income at Rs. 3,288,100, making additions under the following headings:\nUnexplained business capital gain from the sale of a shop.\nAddition on account of construction on a plot.\nDeemed rental income.\nThe assessee contested the assessment and appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).\nThe First Appellate Authority set aside the original assessment and directed the T.O. to verify the sale of the shop with the purchaser.\nDespite the directions, the T.O. did not follow the specific instructions and made a re-assessment.\nThe assessee’s primary business was selling cloth, not involved in buying or selling shops or property.\nThe T.O. also levied a penalty for concealment of income based on the assessment.\nKey Issues in the Appeal:\nUnexplained Business Capital Gain:\nThe capital gain from the sale of the shop was claimed by the assessee in the year 2000-2001 and was reflected in the wealth reconciliation statement for that year. However, the T.O. added the gain to the assessment year 2001-2002.\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the T.O.'s assessment, but the appellant argued that the gain was not from a trade activity, as the primary business was selling cloth.\nTribunal's View: There was no evidence to treat the sale as a business transaction. The sale was a one-time event, and the capital gain was not related to regular trading activity, thus not taxable as business income.\nOutcome: The addition of unexplained business capital gain was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.\nAddition on Account of Construction:\nThe T.O. made an addition for construction costs on a plot, assuming the construction was done in 2000.\nThe assessee had acquired the plot in 1996 and constructed a boundary wall and a temporary room in 1997 to protect the plot from encroachment and avoid the non-utilization fee.\nThe T.O. wrongly estimated the construction cost at Rs. 400,000 without proper evidence to support the claim.\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition but did not provide reasoning.\nTribunal's View: The construction was for protective purposes and was completed years before the alleged construction in 2000. No evidence was provided to justify the cost estimation.\nOutcome: The addition regarding construction costs was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.\nPenalty for Concealment of Income:\nThe T.O. levied a penalty for concealment of income based on his treatment of the income as business income.\nThe T.O. treated the income as business income, while also asserting it as concealed income.\nThe assessee argued that there was no deliberate concealment or intent to evade tax, and the difference of opinion regarding the nature of the income was not enough to justify a penalty.\nTribunal's View: The department failed to present evidence that would show the assessee’s intentional concealment of income. Mere disagreement between the T.O. and the assessee was insufficient to impose a penalty.\nOutcome: The penalty imposed by the T.O. was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.\nLegal Principles:\nTaxation of Capital Gain: A capital gain from a one-off sale, especially when the assessee is not in the business of buying and selling properties, is not considered as business income unless evidence suggests otherwise.\nAdditions without Basis: The addition made by the T.O. must be based on clear evidence, and assumptions without proper documentation or proof cannot justify tax increases.\nPenalty for Concealment: Penalty for concealment of income can only be imposed if there is clear evidence that the taxpayer has deliberately misstated or concealed information. Differences in opinion between the T.O. and the taxpayer are not sufficient grounds for penalty imposition.\nConclusion:\nThe re-assessment by the T.O. and subsequent penalties were invalid, and the Tribunal rightly deleted the additions regarding capital gain, construction costs, and the penalty.\nThe matter was remanded back to the Taxation Officer for fresh adjudication based on clear and substantiated evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,184,205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 951/KB and 1151/KB of 2005, decision dated: 16-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Pasha and Nadeem Dawoodi for Appellant\nNazeer ahmed Soomro, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 45 = 2010 SLD 45 = (2010) 101 TAX 115 = 2010 PTD 753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nIssue: Penalty for Non-Payment of Tax During Stay Period\nLegal Provisions:\nSection 183: Penalty for Non-Payment of Tax.\nSection 190: Procedure for Recovery of Tax.\nFacts:\nThe assessee was subject to a tax demand by the Taxation Officer.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and was granted a stay order against the recovery of the tax demand during the pendency of the appeal.\nDespite the stay, the Taxation Officer issued a show-cause notice for the imposition of penalty due to the non-payment of the tax.\nThe assessee challenged the imposition of penalty, arguing that the default in payment was caused by the stay order and was not due to any deliberate action or inaction on their part.\nKey Issues:\nPenalty for Non-Payment of Tax:\nSection 183 empowers the Taxation Officer to impose penalty for the non-payment of tax if the default is deliberate or intentional.\nHowever, the assessee argued that the non-payment was due to the stay order granted by the Appellate Tribunal, which suspended the recovery of tax. The assessee contended that since the stay order protected them from paying the tax, it was not a deliberate failure to make payment.\nImpact of Stay Order on Penalty:\nA stay order is a legal mechanism that suspends or prevents the enforcement of the tax demand temporarily, usually until the final decision of the appeal.\nDuring the stay period, the demand is effectively non-existent, as the recovery is provisionally suspended.\nThe Taxation Officer cannot impose a penalty for non-payment of tax when the non-payment is caused by the operation of law, i.e., the stay order.\nTherefore, the failure to pay during the period when a stay is in operation is not considered a default on the part of the assessee.\nAppellate Tribunal's Ruling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that stay orders granted by competent authorities effectively suspend the tax demand, meaning the tax demand does not become final while the appeal is pending.\nThe Tribunal emphasized that the stay order had a material impact in suspending the recovery process, and the assessee could not be held responsible for non-payment during this period.\nThe Tribunal ruled that the Taxation Officer could not impose penalties for non-payment of tax if the non-payment was due to the stay order.\nThe Appellate Tribunal directed that the department should not take coercive measures for recovery of the tax demand or initiate penalty proceedings while the stay order was in effect.\nThe stay petition was granted for an additional 60 days or until the decision of the main appeal, whichever was earlier.\nConclusion:\nThe show-cause notice for the imposition of penalty due to non-payment of tax was invalid because the non-payment was caused by the stay order granted by the Appellate Tribunal.\nThe Appellate Tribunal protected the assessee from any coercive actions, including the imposition of penalty, while the stay order was in effect.\nThe Miscellaneous Application was accepted, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, halting any penalty imposition during the stay period.\nLegal Principles:\nStay Order Suspends Recovery: A stay order granted by a competent authority suspends the recovery of tax, and any failure to make payment during this period cannot be treated as a default for penalty purposes.\nNon-Existence of Demand During Stay: When a stay order is in effect, the tax demand is provisionally suspended, and the department cannot take any coercive recovery actions or impose penalties for non-payment during this period.\nPropriety of Not Using Coercive Measures: It is proper for the department not to engage in coercive recovery or penalty imposition when an appeal is pending and a stay order is in place.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=183,190 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Stay) No. 60/IB of 2009, decision dated: 18-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atif Waheed for Applicant\nM. Aamir Ilyas, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 46 = 2010 SLD 46 = (2010) 101 TAX 282 = 2010 PTD 755", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETA", + "Key Words:": "Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 12(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nClause (108) & Clause (118D) of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nSection 2(20) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nSection 251(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nS.R.O. 1283(I)/90, dated 30-12-1990.\nFacts:\n•\nA company declared bonus shares during its Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 30th January 1997.\n•\nThe company was benefiting from a tax holiday under Clause (118D) of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, through S.R.O. 1283(I)/90, which expired on 22nd October 1996.\n•\nThe company claimed exemption from tax on the bonus shares declared during the AGM, citing the tax holiday period.\n•\nThe Tax Authorities assessed the declared bonus shares as income and charged tax on them, arguing that the tax holiday had already expired, and the exemption under Clause (108) applied only for the period 1st July 1997 to 30th June 2001 and did not cover the bonus shares declared before that.\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTax Treatment of Bonus Shares:\no\nThe bonus shares declared by the company were argued to be income and taxable under Section 12(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which deemed the declared bonus shares to be part of the company’s income for the assessment year.\no\nAccording to the Companies Ordinance (1984), bonus shares fall under the definition of dividends under Section 2(20), meaning the approval of the bonus shares at the AGM on 30th January 1997 was considered the date of declaration, and therefore, the bonus shares were taxable as income in that year.\n2.\nExemption from Tax and the Tax Holiday:\no\nThe company had enjoyed a tax holiday under Clause (118D) of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which ended on 22nd October 1996.\no\nThere was no specific exemption available from 1st July 1995 to 30th June 1997. The tax holiday under Clause (108) of the First Schedule was only available from 1st July 1997 to 30th June 2001, meaning the bonus shares declared in January 1997 fell outside the exempt period.\no\nAs the tax holiday expired in October 1996, the company was not entitled to the exemption on the bonus shares declared during the AGM on 30th January 1997.\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nInterpretation of Tax Laws:\no\nSection 12(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and Section 251(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 stipulate that the bonus shares declared in an AGM are considered income during that year.\no\nThe bonus shares were considered dividends under Section 2(20) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and thus, the date of declaration was the date of the AGM, i.e., 30th January 1997.\n2.\nTax Holiday:\no\nThe company enjoyed a tax holiday under Clause (118D) until 22nd October 1996, but the exemption provided by Clause (108) for the period from 1st July 1997 to 30th June 2001 was not retroactive, and hence, it could not be applied to the bonus shares declared in January 1997.\n3.\nProspective Application of Statutes:\no\nThe tax exemption under Clause (108) was not retrospective in operation. Therefore, it could not be applied to the bonus shares declared before the exemption period commenced.\n4.\nPrinciple of Statutory Interpretation:\no\nCourts must interpret statutes as they are written, without adding or supplying anything not provided in the law.\no\nStatutes should be read prospectively, unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise (i.e., being retrospective).\nRuling:\n•\nThe assessee-company was not entitled to the tax exemption for the bonus shares declared during the AGM on 30th January 1997, as the tax holiday expired in October 1996, and the subsequent exemption under Clause (108) of the First Schedule was not applicable retroactively.\n•\nThe Tax Authorities rightly treated the bonus shares as taxable income for the assessment year in question, which was after the expiration of the tax holiday.\nLegal Precedents:\n•\nPLD 1997 SC 582 and 1997 PTD 1555: Reference made to previous rulings related to the application of tax exemptions.\n•\n1993 SCMR 39 and 1993 SCMR 73: Further support to the principles of prospective application of tax laws and their interpretation.\nConclusion:\nThe decision highlights the non-retrospective nature of certain tax exemptions and reinforces the prospective reading of tax statutes unless explicitly stated otherwise. The bonus shares declared by the company were correctly treated as income for tax purposes, as the tax holiday had already expired, and no exemption applied during the relevant period.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,12(9),FirstSched.,Cl.108,Cl.118D ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 272 of 2007, decision dated: 18-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aleem for Applicant\nJaved Farooqi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "M/S ANSARI SUGAR MILLS LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 47 = 2010 SLD 47 = (2010) 101 TAX 129 = 2010 PTCL 1076 = 2010 PTD 763", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nLegal Provision:\nSection 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nFacts:\nA Gas Supply Company incurred expenditures on the maintenance of roads due to damage caused by heavy vehicles transporting gas cylinders.\nThe company also suffered a loss on the sale of gas cylinders.\nThe company sought to deduct these expenditures (maintenance of roads and loss on sale of cylinders) from its income for tax purposes.\nThe Tax Authorities were tasked with determining whether such expenditures were allowable as deductions under Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nKey Issues:\nExpenditure on Road Maintenance:\nRoads were damaged due to the heavy vehicles carrying gas cylinders, and the company needed to maintain and repair the roads as part of its operational activities.\nThe company argued that these repairs were necessary for its business operations, not capital in nature, and should therefore be deductible.\nLoss on Sale of Gas Cylinders:\nThe company also incurred a loss on the sale of gas cylinders, which it wished to deduct from its income.\nLegal Principles:\nDeductibility of Maintenance Costs:\nThe maintenance of roads was not capital in nature because the expenditures were incurred due to wear and tear from the company’s operational activities (i.e., the transportation of gas cylinders). These were necessary expenses directly related to the company’s day-to-day business operations.\nAccording to Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, expenditures incurred for the maintenance of business infrastructure, such as roads damaged in the course of operations, are generally considered deductible expenses provided they are not of a capital nature.\nLoss on Sale of Gas Cylinders:\nThe loss on the sale of gas cylinders was treated as a business loss, as it arose from the company’s regular course of trade, where the sale of gas cylinders forms part of its core business activities.\nLosses arising from the sale of business assets that are part of regular operational activities are typically deductible under tax laws.\nConclusion:\nThe expenditure on the maintenance of roads due to damage caused by the company’s operational vehicles was a necessary business expense and therefore deductible under Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as it was not capital in nature.\nThe loss on sale of cylinders was also deductible as it was incurred in the regular course of the company’s business activities.\nTherefore, the company was entitled to deduct both the maintenance costs and the loss on sale of cylinders from its taxable income, as both were necessary and incurred for the purpose of its business operations.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12 ", + "Case #": "Tax References Nos. 7 and 24 of 2004, decision dated: 14-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA, JUSTICE AND SYED QALB I HASSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Shaheena Akbar\nHafiz Muhammad Idrees for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE, ISLAMABAD\nVs.\nCAP GAS (PVT.) LTD., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 48 = 2010 SLD 48 = (2010) 102 TAX 159 = 2010 PTD 768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Section 170 and Refunds\nLegal Provisions:\nSection 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\nArticle 2A, 3, 4(2)(a), 9, 24, 25, 29, 31, and 37 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973\nKey Issues:\nFailure to Pass an Order on Refund Within the Prescribed Time:\nSection 170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 requires the Commissioner to pass an order on a refund application within 45 days from its receipt. If no order is passed within this period, the law assumes the failure as an order against the taxpayer, not in their favor.\nJurisdiction to Pass an Order After the Limitation Period:\nIf the Commissioner fails to pass an order within the 45-day period, the taxpayer is entitled to appeal under Part-III of Chapter X of the Income Tax Ordinance. However, this does not mean that the Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction to pass an order after 45 days. If no appeal is filed, the Commissioner can still pass an order after the specified period.\nEarly Refund Process and Appeal:\nUnder Section 170(5), a taxpayer may file an appeal with the First Appellate Authority if the Commissioner fails to act within the prescribed time. In such cases, the powers of the Commissioner to pass an order shift to the Appellate Authority. However, if no appeal is filed within the 45-day period, the Commissioner can still pass an order regarding the refund.\nProvisions Related to Refund (Section 170(2)(c)):\nSection 170(2)(c) is considered directory, not mandatory. The requirement to pass an order within two years is not absolute, and the law does not prohibit the Commissioner from passing an order even after the prescribed time, unless an appeal has been filed.\nFailure to Pass Orders Reflecting Inefficiency:\nWhile the law does not strictly prohibit the Commissioner from acting after the 45-day limit, the failure to pass an order within the prescribed period reflects a lack of interest and inefficiency in the administration of the tax system.\nRefund as an Amanah (Trust):\nRefunds are considered an Amanah (trust) in the hands of public servants, and it is their duty to return the overpaid tax to the taxpayer. Public servants are expected to act in good faith, ensuring that the rights of the taxpayers are not violated due to delays or technicalities.\nConstitutional Rights and Refunds:\nRefusal to grant a genuine refund claim due to technicalities, when the overpayment is verifiable, is considered unfair and a violation of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Constitution emphasizes the protection of fundamental rights and social justice, which extends to ensuring that taxpayers receive refunds to which they are entitled.\nRefund Limitation Period:\nThe two-year limitation is set to prevent claims for refunds that cannot be verified due to the lapse of time. This prevents bogus refunds and corruption. However, if the refund claim is easily verifiable, there is no bar to refunding the amount even after the two-year period.\nJurisdiction of the Appellate Authority:\nIf the Commissioner fails to pass an order after the 45-day period, the First Appellate Authority can direct the Commissioner to issue the refund, but only after verifying the taxpayer’s claim of overpaid taxes. The Appellate Authority can remand the case back for verification of overpaid tax and issue the refund accordingly.\nConclusion:\nSection 170(4): Failure to pass an order on a refund application within the prescribed time is presumed as an order against the taxpayer, and the taxpayer can appeal.\nCommissioner's Jurisdiction: The Commissioner can still pass an order after 45 days if no appeal has been filed by the taxpayer.\nRefunds and Appeals: The taxpayer has the option to appeal if there is a delay, shifting the jurisdiction to the Appellate Authority, who can issue the refund after verifying the claim.\nConstitutional Mandates: The Constitution mandates the timely refund of taxes, and taxpayers are entitled to refunds without delay if the overpayment is verifiable.\nTechnicalities and Justice: The government is expected to avoid denying people their rights on technical grounds, and public servants must ensure refunds are handled in accordance with the principles of fairness and justice.\nCase Impact:\nThis case emphasizes that while procedural deadlines are important, the primary goal of the tax system should be to ensure justice, fairness, and the proper return of overpaid taxes to taxpayers. The Commissioner’s failure to pass timely orders reflects inefficiency, and the law provides mechanisms for taxpayers to appeal such failures and secure refunds within a reasonable time frame.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,170(1),170(4),170(5),170(2)(c),170(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 696/LB of 2009, decision dated: 16-12-2009, hearing DATE : 16-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Latif, D.R. for Appellant. Qadeer Ahmad, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 49 = 2010 SLD 49 = (2010) 101 TAX 105 = 2010 PTCL 890 = 2010 PTD 802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Interest Income and Deductions\nLegal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nSection 23(1)(vii)\nSection 31(1)(b)\nSection 34\nSecond Schedule, Part-I, Entry 176\nKey Issues:\nInterest Income from Electric Power Generation Projects:\nInterest Income derived by the assessee-company from electric power generation projects is subject to tax. This interest income is not exempt under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance. The Second Schedule, Part-I, Entry 176 does not provide any exemption for such interest income.\nThe interest, whether generated during the pre-production or post-production period of the power generation project, is taxable and cannot be deducted from the income of the assessee.\nReference Case: Genertech Pakistan Ltd. and others v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan (2004 SCMR 1319) was cited to establish that the interest income in this context is taxable.\nDeduction of Interest Paid on Borrowed Capital:\nInterest paid by the assessee-company on capital borrowed for business purposes is deductible from its income under Section 23(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as long as the capital is used for business purposes.\nThis interest is not limited to interest earned on loans that generate income in the form of interest; it can be deducted under the head business or profession. \nSpecifically, interest paid during the pre-production period (before the commencement of business activities) can also be considered a business loss. This loss can be set off against any interest income earned by the assessee.\nReference Cases:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Pioneer Cement (2005 PTD 2086)\nAES Pak Gen (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Income Tax, decided on 16-6-2006.\nSet-Off of Business Loss:\nUnder Section 34 of the Income Tax Ordinance, if the business loss incurred by the assessee is exempt from income tax, the loss can still be set off against the taxable income of the assessee. This provision ensures that even if certain losses are not taxable, they can still be considered for set-off purposes to reduce the overall taxable income.\nConclusion:\nInterest Income on Electric Power Projects:\nInterest income from electric power generation projects, whether before or after production, is not exempt and is taxable. The assessee cannot claim deductions for this income.\nDeduction for Interest on Borrowed Capital:\nInterest paid on borrowed capital for business purposes is deductible under Section 23(1)(vii). This deduction is applicable even if the interest was paid during the pre-production period. In such cases, the interest paid may lead to a business loss, which can be set off against other income.\nSet-Off of Exempt Business Loss:\nBusiness losses, if exempt from income tax, can still be set off against other taxable income under Section 34, ensuring that the taxpayer does not lose the benefit of the losses incurred.\nKey Takeaways:\nInterest income from electric power projects is taxable and cannot be deducted.\nInterest on capital borrowed for business purposes is deductible, even if incurred before production, and may lead to a set-off of losses.\nExempt business losses can still be set off against other income, ensuring fairness in taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,31,34,23(1)(vii),31(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Nos. 26, 27, 51 of 2005, T.R. No.58, 59, 60, 61 of 2007, T.R. No.1, 2, of 2006, T.R. No.1, 2, 3 of 2008, T.R. No.161, 162, 163 and 164 of 2008, T.R. No.63 of 2008, T.R. No.17, 19, 21 and 22 of 2009, decision dated: 19-05-2009. dates of hearings: 6th, 8th and 15-05-2009.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA, JUSTICE AND SYED QALB I HASSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waseem Sajjad, Mustafa Ramday, Rashid Hafeez, Suleman Faisal vice Sardar Shahbaz Khan Khosa and Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Petitioners.", + "Party Name:": "TNB LIBETY POWER LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 50 = 2010 SLD 50 = (2010) 101 TAX 397 = 2010 PTD 819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQg", + "Key Words:": "Simultaneous Issuance of Notices under Sections 121 and 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nLegal Provisions:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\no\nSection 121: Best judgment assessment\no\nSection 122: Amendment of assessment\no\nSection 177: General provisions related to assessments\nKey Issues:\n1.\nSeparation of Sections 121 and 122:\no\nSections 121 and 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, are separate and independent provisions.\n\nSection 121(1) deals with best judgment assessments, where the tax officer makes an assessment based on available information when the taxpayer fails to provide adequate records.\n\nSection 122 applies to the amendment of assessments, where an assessment may be revisited and corrected if new or definite information comes to light, or if the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.\no\nBoth sections deal with different situations and cannot be applied simultaneously to the same case.\no\nSection 122 requires definite information or an erroneous order to be identified, while Section 121 applies when there is non-compliance by the taxpayer, such as failure to provide records or submit returns.\n2.\nSimultaneous Issuance of Notices:\no\nSimultaneous issuance of notices under Section 177, Section 122, or Section 121(1)(d) is not legally justified.\no\nSection 177 involves general assessment provisions, and Section 122 relates to reopening assessments, while Section 121(1)(d) is invoked when there is a default in submitting records or returns.\no\nThe simultaneous issuance of notices under these provisions violates the separate applicability of each section. The assessment order passed as a result of these simultaneous notices is considered unlawful and void.\no\nThe tax officer cannot amend an assessment under Section 122 unless there is definite information obtained through audit, and similarly, Section 121(1)(d) can only be applied if there is a default in submitting the required documents or returns.\n3.\nConditions for Applying Section 121 and 122:\no\nSection 121(1)(d): This provision is specifically applicable when the return is invalid or no return is filed, as outlined in Section 120(4) and Section 114(3) or (4) of the Ordinance.\no\nSection 122: The amendment of assessment under this section can occur even if the taxpayer fails to comply with notices under Sections 177 or 122(9), or if the necessary records are not produced.\n4.\nJudicial Findings:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the simultaneous issuance of notices under Section 121 and Section 122 was legally flawed and not sustainable. The assessment was declared invalid as the proceedings were found to be legally defective.\no\nThe First Appellate Authority had wrongly upheld the unlawful action of the Taxation Officers. The Appellate Tribunal canceled the assessment order, emphasizing that the legal procedures under the Income Tax Ordinance were not followed correctly.\nConclusion:\n•\nSections 121 and 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, should not be applied simultaneously in the same situation, as they address different circumstances—best judgment assessment (Section 121) and amendment of assessment (Section 122).\n•\nSimultaneous issuance of notices under Section 177 and either Section 121 or Section 122 is not valid and results in unlawful assessments.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal has the authority to annul such unlawful assessments, as the actions of the Taxation Officers were found to be legally defective.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority should not confirm actions that violate the law, as evidenced by this case where the assessment order was canceled by the Appellate Tribunal.\nReferences:\n•\nMohsin Raza v. Chairman, F.B.R., 2009 PTD 1507\n•\nI.T.A. No.30/IB of 2009\n•\n2008 PTD 1440 and 2008 PTD 1517", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,122,177,121(1),121(1)(d),122(1),122(5),122(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 452/IB of 2009, decision dated: 10-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idris for Appellant\nZiaullah Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 51 = 2010 SLD 51 = 2010 PTD 826 = (2010) 101 TAX 316 = 2010 PTCL 848", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRw", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Section 27-A and Reference under Section 196 of the Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nLegal Provisions:\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969)\nSection 27-A: Provisions related to the benefit of import duties.\nSection 196: Provisions related to the reference to the High Court on questions of law or fact arising from Tribunal's decisions.\nKey Issues:\nEligibility for Benefit under Section 27-A:\nSection 27-A of the Customs Act, 1969 provides certain benefits to the importer with respect to the importation of goods, but this benefit must be claimed prior to the filing of the declaration of the goods.\nThe benefit cannot be extended to the importer if it is claimed after the filing of the declaration. The law does not allow the benefit to be retroactively applied once the declaration has been filed.\nThis interpretation is grounded in the principle that statutory provisions must be applied as they are worded, and granting benefits outside the prescribed timelines would render the provisions of Section 27-A redundant or superfluous.\nThe Court emphasized that provisions of the law should not be interpreted in a manner that would make them meaningless or ineffective.\nPrinciple of Statutory Interpretation:\nThe Court referred to the principle of interpretation, which dictates that no provision should be read in a way that would make it redundant or superfluous. This principle prevents the misapplication of a law and ensures its provisions are given effect as intended.\nIn Tanveer Hussain v. Ravi Ryan Ltd., Master Molty Foam v. Government of Pakistan, and other cases, this interpretative approach was followed to ensure laws are applied according to their plain and clear meaning.\nReference to High Court Under Section 196:\nSection 196 provides that the High Court may be approached in cases where a question of law arises from the decision of the Customs Appellate Tribunal. However, the High Court cannot entertain a reference involving questions of fact that do not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal.\nThe High Court's jurisdiction under Section 196 is limited to questions of law, and questions of fact should not be entertained by the High Court.\nConclusion:\nBenefit under Section 27-A: The importer can only claim the benefit of Section 27-A if it is requested prior to filing the declaration of goods. A claim made after the declaration cannot be entertained, as granting such a claim would render the statute redundant.\nStatutory Interpretation: Courts must interpret laws in a way that preserves the intent and purpose of the statute, ensuring that no provision becomes ineffective or superfluous.\nJurisdiction of the High Court under Section 196: The High Court has no jurisdiction to decide questions of fact that do not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The High Court's role is confined to questions of law only.\nReferences:\nCollector of Customs v. Muzammil Ahmed, 2009 PTD 266\nSunny Traders v. Federation of Pakistan, 2009 PTD 281\nMessrs K & N's Poultry Farms (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs, 2006 PTD 2780\nTanveer Hussain v. Ravi Ryan Ltd., 2007 SCMR 737\nMaster Molty Foam v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 2005 SC 373\nAfteb Shaban Mirani v. Muhammad Ibrahim, PLD 2008 SC 779\nAccountant General Sindh v. Ahmed Ali U. Shaikh, PLD 2008 SC 522", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=27A,196 ", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.58 and C.M.As. Nos.586, 587 of 2009, decision dated: 8-01-2010.", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ammar Yaseer for Applicant. Sibtain Mahmood for Respondent. Ashiq Raza, Dy. A.G. on court notice.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS REAL TRADING CO. THROUGH WALI MUHAMMAD, KARACHI\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PACCS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 52 = 2010 SLD 52 = (2010) 101 TAX 297 = 2010 PTD 878", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-S. 177-Audit-Selection of case for total audit-Non-issuance of pre-show cause notice-Effect-Non-Issuance of pre-show-cause notice will make the selection of audit as illegal.\n \nWrit Petition No.4630 of 2009 rel.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-S.177-Audit-Notice before selection of case for audit-Inspite of absence of requirement of specific provision of notice in the law, before proceeding with the audit of an assessee, a prior notice was an essential requirement, as the audit of person's income tax affairs resulted in prejudice being caused to the tax payer who was subjected to scrutiny.\n \n2005 PTD 152 rel.\n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-S.177-Audit-Prior notice for selection of cases for audit was of immense significance and absence thereof in the cases render the letters to be devoid of any legal justification. \n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-S. 122(5A)-Amendment of assessment-Estimation of sales-Case of the assessee had been reopened under S.122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 despite the fact that sales of the taxpayer were under the strict control of Central Excise/Sales Tax Department and no discrepancy had been pointed out by the Department as well as by the Central Excise/Sales Tax Department-Estimation of Sales was not legally justified. \n \n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-S.39(3)-Income from other sources-Payment to third party by the sister concern of the assessee-Addition of-Validity-Additions under S.39(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could not be made to the Payments to the third party by the sister concern. \n \n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XIIX of 2001)-S.122(5A)-Amendment of assessment-Audit report-Initiation of Proceedings under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Validity-Proceedings under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had been based on audit report made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Taxation Officer-Such proceedings were not permissible under the law and order made by the Taxation Officer/Additional Commissioner was illegal-Proceedings under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 having been based on fresh evidence placing reliance on the audit report was not maintainable under the law as the proceedings in this respect had not been initiated with independent mind. \n \n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss. 122(5A) & 177-Amendment of assessment-Audit-Amendment of assessment by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax while the audit proceedings were pending before Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Taxation Officer-After selection of case for total audit by the Commissioner, the matter was assigned to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Taxation Officer, and proceedings were pending before him but the Additional Commissioner/Taxation Officer .without considering such fact had amended the assessment, without considering the explanations given by the assessee-No justification was available in amending deemed assessment by the Additional Commissioner/Taxation Officer under S.122(2A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which had been upheld by the First Appellate Authority without any justification-Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and the order passed by the Taxation Officer under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal in circumstances. \n \n2008 PTD 14191; Writ Petition No.5583 of 2009; Messrs Fauji Oil Terminal and Distribution Company Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner 2006 PTD 734 and C.A. No.778 and 2002 PTD 441 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=39,39(3),122,177,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 232/KB of 2009, decision dated: 30-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Monim Sultan for Appellant\nSyed Maroof Gallani, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 54 = 2010 SLD 54 = 2010 PTD 913", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) and (XLIX of 2001) - Refund Delays, Amendments to Assessments, and Compensation\nKey Legal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979):\nSections 59A, 62, 63/132, 103, 156: Relating to assessments and re-assessments.\nSection 171: Deals with additional payment for delayed refunds.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001):\nSection 122A: Pertains to additional payments for delayed refunds.\nKey Issues & Analysis:\nDelayed Refund and Additional Payment for Delay:\nThe Income Tax Ordinance provides for additional payments when refunds are delayed. In this case, the complainant's refund was delayed by five and a half years, and the additional payment for this delay was claimed.\nThe First Appellate Authority had set aside the assessments under Section 62, but the Income Tax Department re-assessed the complainant's case ex parte under Sections 63/132, which delayed the refund further.\nGross maladministration was found, as the Department failed to issue refunds as per law, obstructed due process, and violated the directions given by the First Appellate Authority and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the complainant be compensated for the delayed refund in accordance with Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The refund should be issued within 30 days, and the officers involved were asked to explain their actions.\nLegality of Amending Assessments Based on Gross Profit Rate:\nThe departmental officers sought to amend assessments based on the gross profit rate, alleging the complainant had inadequately disclosed the gross profit and failed to properly state the nature of the business.\nThe Court ruled that there is no fixed gross profit rate for businesses; instead, there are industry norms that businesses should conform to. These norms are useful for reference but cannot be the sole basis for amending the disclosed results of a business.\nThe officers were criticized for not understanding that variations in gross profit rates are normal and cannot be used to amend a business’s disclosures without proper evidence or justification.\nEstimation of Turnover by Assessing Officer:\nThe Assessing Officer has the authority to estimate turnover if the declared turnover is not properly substantiated. However, this estimation cannot be done arbitrarily or whimsically.\nThe officer must provide an objective basis for discarding the declared turnover and substituting it with a higher estimate. The estimation process must be based on facts and reasonable judgment rather than subjective assumptions.\nChanges to Compensation for Delayed Refunds:\nSection 171 was amended in 2004, reducing the rate of compensation for delayed refunds from 15% to 6%.\nThe change applied only to refunds that were due after July 1, 2004.\nSince the complainant's refund was created on June 28, 2003, the lower compensation rate under the 2004 amendment did not apply. The refund created earlier was governed by the law as it existed at the time, meaning the compensation at 15% would apply, not the reduced rate.\nConclusions:\nAdditional Payment for Delayed Refund: The complainant was justified in seeking compensation for the delayed refund, and the Tax Ombudsman recommended that the amount due be paid according to the law within 30 days. Officers involved in the delay were required to explain their actions and face appropriate departmental action.\nAmendments Based on Gross Profit Rate: The officers' attempt to amend the assessment based on gross profit rate was found to be improper, as industry norms are a useful reference but cannot be the sole basis for amending the disclosed financial results.\nEstimation of Turnover: The Assessing Officer must have a solid, objective basis for estimating turnover, and cannot make arbitrary decisions without adequate evidence.\nImpact of 2004 Amendment to Section 171: The reduction in the compensation rate from 15% to 6% only applied to refunds created after July 1, 2004. Since the complainant’s refund was created earlier, the original 15% rate applied to his case.\nReferences:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 59A, 62, 63/132, 103, 156, 171\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Section 122A\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Recommendations", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,171,122A,59,59(A),62,63,103,132,156 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 503-L of 2009, decision dated: 3rd December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nYawar Mehdi Naqvi for Authorized Representative.\nDr. Muhammad Idress, Addl. C.I.T. for Departmental Representative.", + "Party Name:": "M/S REAL TRADING CO. THROUGH WALI MUHAMMAD, KARACHI\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PACCS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 55 = 2010 SLD 55 = 2010 PTD 927", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Rectification of Mistake and Tax Deduction Disputes\nKey Legal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001):\nSections 221, 170(4), 115(4), 153(1)(b), 122: Pertaining to rectification of mistakes, tax deductions, service providers, and contractors.\nKey Facts:\nTax Deduction for Services Rendered:\nThe assessee filed a statement under Section 115(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on the assumption that the tax deducted on services rendered was final.\nLater, the assessee filed a revised statement and a normal return, claiming that the tax deducted under Section 153(1)(b) should be adjustable, not final.\nRefund and Rectification:\nThe claim was accepted, and an order under Section 170(4) was issued to refund the amount the assessee had requested.\nSubsequently, the order was rectified under Section 221, and the assessee was treated as a contractor, not a service provider, which affected the tax treatment of the amounts.\nIssue with Rectification:\nThe First Appellate Authority observed that under Section 122, the power to amend an assessment order is given, and that no amendment to the income or tax liability could be made under Section 170(4) once the order had been issued. The decision under Section 170(4) that treated tax deducted under Section 153(1)(b) as final discharge of liability was deemed illegal.\nThe First Appellate Authority annulled the rectified order passed under Section 221, stating that the earlier treatment of the tax liability was not sustainable under the law.\nLegal Analysis:\nSection 170(4) vs. Section 122:\nSection 170(4) deals with refunds and adjustments, but it does not permit changes to the income or tax liability of the taxpayer once the tax deduction has been settled.\nSection 122, however, provides a legal framework for amending an assessment or correcting mistakes in an earlier assessment. This section gives authorities the power to rectify or amend assessments if the assessment was found to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.\nMisapplication of Section 170(4):\nThe order under Section 170(4) initially treated the tax deducted under Section 153(1)(b) as a final discharge of the taxpayer's liability. This was incorrect, as this provision applies specifically to payments made by contractors, not to service providers.\nThe rectification under Section 221 attempted to change the taxpayer's status from a service provider to a contractor, which had significant implications for tax treatment. This was found to be incorrect because Section 170(4) was never intended for such substantial changes to tax liability.\nDecision of the First Appellate Authority:\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly identified that such a change in the taxpayer's status could only be made under Section 122, not Section 170(4).\nThe earlier order under Section 170(4) was annulled, and the taxpayer's claim was upheld because the amendment of tax liability under Section 170(4) was not legally permissible.\nConclusion:\nThe First Appellate Authority's decision to annul the order passed under Section 221 was correct and in line with the legal provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, maintaining that the taxpayer’s claim for refund and the application of the tax rules was legitimate and that the earlier treatment of tax deducted under Section 153(1)(b) as final discharge of liability was illegal.\nFinal Ruling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal confirmed the First Appellate Authority’s order to annul the rectified order passed under Section 221, affirming the legality of the taxpayer's claims and the illegality of the tax treatment applied by the tax authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,115,115(4),153,153(1)(b),170,170(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 434/Kb of 2009, decision dated: 20-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN AND MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Basharat Ahmed Qureshi D.R. for Appellant\nAbdul Tahir, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 56 = 2010 SLD 56 = (2010) 101 TAX 313 = 2010 PTD 930", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Withholding Tax on Gas Bill Collection Charges\nKey Legal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001):\nSections 21(c), 153, 162, 156, 233(2), 122(5A)\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979):\nSections 23 & 50(4)\nKey Facts:\nNature of Charges:\nThe assessee, a gas supply company, has customers who discharge their monthly gas liabilities by depositing amounts with designated banks/financial institutions.\nThese banks/financial institutions deduct certain charges, referred to as “gas bill collection charges,” before remitting the net amount to the assessee. The charges are recorded as “gas bill collection charges” in the financial statements.\nTax Deduction Dispute:\nThe tax authorities amended the assessment of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct withholding tax under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 in relation to the gas bill collection charges paid to the banks/financial institutions.\nThe tax authorities contended that these charges were not allowable deductions under Section 21(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nAssessee's Defense:\nThe assessee argued that no tax was deductible because the company itself did not pay any amount to the banks/financial institutions. The banks acted as collecting agents and remitted only the net amounts to the assessee after deducting their charges. Therefore, the provisions of Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance were not applicable.\nDepartment’s Position:\nThe tax department invoked Section 162(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, suggesting that the assessee was still responsible for withholding tax on the gas bill collection charges despite not paying them directly to the banks.\nThe department’s action was based on the presumption that the charges did not qualify as allowable deductions under Section 21(c) and required withholding tax.\nLegal Analysis:\nSection 153 - Withholding Tax:\nSection 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 pertains to withholding tax on payments made by the assessee. However, in this case, the assessee did not make any payments to the banks/financial institutions directly. Instead, the banks collected and remitted the net amounts after deducting their charges. Hence, Section 153 did not apply.\nSection 233(2) - Withholding Tax Parallel:\nThe tax authorities sought to apply Section 233(2), but there was no parallel provision under Section 153 that would impose withholding tax in the circumstances at hand. This made the department’s claim untenable, as Section 233(2) was specific to certain payments, and no similar provision existed for withholding tax on collection charges.\nSection 162(2) - Misapplication:\nSection 162(2), which relates to recovery of taxes from persons not complying with withholding tax obligations, was misapplied. Since the banks/financial institutions had already discharged their tax liability, the assessee was not responsible for withholding tax.\nThe department failed to invoke Section 162(1) against the banks, which would have been the proper course of action if the banks had not fulfilled their tax obligations.\nAllowable Deductions under Section 21(c):\nThe gas bill collection charges were related to services rendered by banks/financial institutions to the assessee. The assessee contended that these charges should be treated as allowable deductions under Section 21(c), but the department argued they did not qualify as such.\nHowever, the First Appellate Authority found that the charges were legitimate business expenses and therefore allowable.\nConclusion:\nThe assessee was not required to withhold tax on the gas bill collection charges, as the tax obligations were already fulfilled by the banks/financial institutions.\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly held that no withholding tax was due, and the department’s action to amend the assessment was unjustified.\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, dismissing the departmental appeals.\nFinal Ruling:\nThe assessee was legally correct in not withholding tax on the collection charges. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the departmental appeals was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,21(c),122,122(5A),153,161(1B),162,156,233,233(2),162(1),162(2),111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 871/LB to 874/LB of 2008, decision dated: 16-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Asif, D.R. for Appellant\nAsim Zulifqar Ali FCA for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 57 = 2010 SLD 57 = 2010 PTD 954", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Unexplained Income and Maladministration\nKey Legal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001):\nSection 111: Deals with the unexplained income or assets.\nEstablishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000:\nSection 2: Defines maladministration and the powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman.\nSection 22: Provides for the initiation of proceedings for maladministration.\nKey Facts:\nAddition of Unexplained Income:\nThe complainant was subject to an addition in income on the grounds of unexplained gain from the sale of property.\nThe taxation authorities had made these additions under Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), regarding the unexplained income or assets.\nFailure to Provide Statutory Notice:\nThe complainant contended that the additions were made unjustifiably, without giving the statutory notice or providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing as required by law.\nMaladministration Allegation:\nThe complainant argued that the decision was made arbitrarily and without due process, violating the principles of fairness in administration.\nRole of the Federal Tax Ombudsman:\nThe complainant approached the Federal Tax Ombudsman, alleging that the actions of the taxation officer amounted to maladministration, which is defined in Section 2 of the Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nLegal Analysis:\nFailure to Issue Show Cause Notice:\nSection 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) provides for the addition of unexplained income when the taxpayer fails to explain the source of income or assets.\nHowever, the tax authorities must provide the taxpayer with a show cause notice and an opportunity to be heard before making any adverse decision.\nIn this case, the authorities failed to issue the necessary notice, which led to the conclusion that the process was arbitrary and violated the taxpayer's rights to fair hearing.\nMaladministration under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance:\nThe failure to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to follow the proper procedural requirements constitutes maladministration as defined in the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\nThe actions of the taxation officer were deemed to fall under the categories of maladministration as defined in Sections 3(i)\n(a) and 3(ii) of Section 2 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, as they involved arbitrary decision-making without adherence to due process.\nRecommendations by the Federal Tax Ombudsman:\nSecretary of Revenue Division:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Secretary, Revenue Division, seek a written explanation from the taxation officer as to why proceedings under Section 22 of the Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 should not be initiated against the officer for maladministration.\nThe officer should also be asked whether they wish to be heard in person before any further action is taken.\nConclusion:\nThe addition of unexplained income was made by the tax authorities without providing the complainant with the required statutory notice or reasonable opportunity of hearing, which led to the determination that the actions of the authorities were arbitrary and violated due process.\nThe case was deemed to involve maladministration, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that proceedings be initiated against the taxation officer for failing to follow the required legal procedures.\nFinal Ruling:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the Secretary, Revenue Division to take action against the taxation officer for maladministration and to initiate proceedings for failure to follow due process.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=50(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 337-L of 2009, decision dated: 26-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Ahmad, Advisor (Dealing Officer). S.A. Khan for the Complainant. Ms. Saima Ejaz, Deputy and Khuram Ali Qadir, Taxation Officer for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MAJOR (RETD.).JAVED ZAMIR AHMAD\nVS.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 8 = 2000 SLD 8 = 2000 PTD 1438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQw", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner - Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nKey Legal Provisions:\n1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979):\no\nSection 66-A(1)(aa): Confers the power upon the Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Assessing Officer).\n________________________________________\nKey Facts:\n1.\nAssessment and Appellate Tribunal Decision:\no\nThe assessee was confronted with figures relating to an investment shown in his ledger account during the assessment process.\no\nThe issue was ultimately decided by the Appellate Tribunal, which concluded the matter.\n2.\nIssuance of Fresh Notice:\no\nAfter the Appellate Tribunal's decision, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 66-A based on the same material, but this time with different figures extracted from the same ledger account.\no\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner then directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment after investigating the source of investment over and above the amount that had already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal.\n________________________________________\nLegal Analysis:\n1.\nUse of Different Figures:\no\nThe assessee was confronted with new figures in the fresh notice, which were extracted from the same ledger account.\no\nThe issue arose as to whether these different figures constituted a new point on which the Inspecting Additional Commissioner could exercise jurisdiction under Section 66-A.\no\nSection 66-A(1)(aa) allows for the revision of orders made by the Deputy Commissioner, but this revision must be based on new material or new facts.\n2.\nJurisdiction and Misuse of Power:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal observed that the Inspecting Additional Commissioner had misdirected himself by attempting to revise the assessment based on different figures, which were extracted from the same ledger account.\no\nIf the Assessing Officer or Revising Officer failed to properly examine the ledger accounts and extract the correct figures, this fault lay with them and not the assessee.\no\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner could not assume fresh jurisdiction merely on the grounds of these different figures, as they did not constitute new points or facts.\n3.\nFinal Decision:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal declared the assessment completed in pursuance of the direction from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner to be illegal.\no\nThe Tribunal held that the Inspecting Additional Commissioner had gone beyond his jurisdiction by revising the assessment based on previously examined material without any new basis for the revision.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner misused his powers under Section 66-A by issuing a fresh notice based on different figures extracted from the same ledger account.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that the revised assessment was illegal, as the new figures did not constitute a new point that justified the exercise of revisionary powers.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the illegal assessment and clarified that fresh jurisdiction could not be assumed without new material.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,66A(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2170/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 18-12-1999, hearing DATE : 18-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. S. Jafari for Appellant. \nMuhammad Saeed, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 9 = 2000 SLD 9 = 2000 PTD 1443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRA", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Additional Assessment - Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nKey Legal Provisions:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979):\nSection 59(1): Relates to self-assessment by the assessee.\nSection 65: Concerns the procedure for additional assessments when a case is reopened.\nKey Facts:\nSelf-Assessment and Profit Rate:\nThe assessee filed a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme, declaring a net profit rate of 9.32%.\nThe Department finalized the assessment by applying a 15% gross profit (G.P.) rate.\nReopening of the Case:\nThe case was reopened based on an amount deposited in the bank that related to a sale not accounted for by the assessee.\nThe assessee explained that the commission received from the sale was offset by the expenses incurred, leading to no income being declared from that sale.\nDepartment’s Response:\nThe Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's explanation and made an addition to the income.\nFirst Appellate Authority's Decision:\nThe First Appellate Authority did not accept the assessee's explanation to accept the case under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nInstead, the First Appellate Authority reduced the net profit rate from the declared 9.32% to 5%, as compared to the 15% G.P. rate applied by the Department.\nLegal Analysis:\nSelf-Assessment Scheme:\nUnder the Self-Assessment Scheme, the assessee is allowed to assess and declare their profits, subject to the finalization of the assessment by the tax authorities.\nThe Department can intervene if there are discrepancies, such as unaccounted deposits, and can initiate an additional assessment.\nDiscrepancy in the Bank Deposit:\nThe case was reopened due to an unexplained deposit in the bank, which the assessee did not account for in their return.\nThe assessee explained that the commission received from the sale was offset by corresponding expenses, thus no additional income needed to be declared.\nThe Assessing Officer rejected this explanation, leading to an adjustment in the income.\nReduction in Net Profit Rate:\nThe First Appellate Authority found that the net profit rate declared by the assessee (9.32%) was unreasonable in light of the discrepancies, and thus reduced the rate to 5%.\nThis adjustment was based on the nature of the assessee’s business and the overall facts of the case.\nJurisdiction and Validity of the Order:\nThe First Appellate Authority provided sufficient cause for reducing the profit rate, explaining that the previous declared rate (9.32%) was inconsistent with the facts and the department’s findings.\nThe Department’s appeal was dismissed because the First Appellate Authority’s decision was found to be reasonable and legally valid.\nConclusion:\nThe First Appellate Authority acted within its powers by reducing the net profit rate to 5% after considering the discrepancies in the assessee’s accounts.\nThe assessee’s explanation regarding the unaccounted sale was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, leading to the adjustment.\nThe Departmental appeal was dismissed, as the First Appellate Authority’s decision was deemed justifiable, and there was no need for further interference.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 251/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 21st December 1999, hearing date: 16-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Soomro, D.R. for Appellant\nAbdul Tahir, I. T. P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 58 = 2010 SLD 58 = (2010) 101 TAX 297 = 2010 PTCL 948 = 2010 PTD 1016", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQQ", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistake by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nKey Legal Provisions:\n1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979):\no\nSection 60: Deals with the jurisdiction and powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\no\nSection 80-C: Concerns the rectification of mistakes in orders.\no\nSection 156: Addresses the rectification of mistakes by the Tribunal.\n________________________________________\nKey Facts:\n1.\nInitial Appeal:\no\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal initially allowed an appeal filed by the income tax authorities, recording a finding based on certain facts.\n2.\nRectification of Mistake:\no\nAfter the order was passed, it was found that the facts recorded by the Tribunal were incorrect and did not pertain to the appeal at hand.\no\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal received a rectification application, and upon reviewing the case, it decided to recall its earlier order and replaced one of the paragraphs of the earlier order with a new, corrected paragraph.\n3.\nJurisdictional Dispute:\no\nThe tax authorities raised a plea, asserting that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review or recall its own order once passed.\n4.\nRectification Process:\no\nThe mistake was not purely arithmetic or clerical, but was substantive and procedural in nature, as it involved incorrect facts.\no\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acknowledged that the earlier order caused prejudice to the assessee due to the incorrect facts recorded.\n5.\nOutcome:\no\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rectified the mistake under its jurisdiction as granted by Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, replacing the incorrect part of the order.\no\nThe High Court declined to interfere, concluding that the Tribunal was within its rights to rectify the apparent and patent mistake and dismissed the reference application.\n________________________________________\nLegal Analysis:\n1.\nRectification vs. Review:\no\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the authority to rectify mistakes in its orders, but it does not have the power to review its orders. However, rectification can be made if the mistake is apparent and patent on the record.\no\nA mistake in facts that is obvious from the record and has caused prejudice to the party can be corrected. This includes substantive or procedural mistakes, not just arithmetic or clerical errors.\n2.\nSection 156 - Jurisdiction to Rectify:\no\nSection 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 provides the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with the jurisdiction to rectify mistakes in its orders.\no\nThe mistake must be evident from the record, and the Tribunal is required to provide notice to both sides before proceeding with the rectification.\n3.\nSubstantive Mistake:\no\nThe Tribunal, in this case, found that it had recorded incorrect facts that were clearly not related to the appeal, which caused prejudice to the assessee. It thus exercised its powers under Section 156 to correct this mistake.\n4.\nJudicial Precedents:\no\nIn Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mr. Abdul Ghani (2007), the Supreme Court affirmed that the rectification of mistakes by the Tribunal was within its authority, especially when the mistake was apparent and material from the record.\no\nOther judicial decisions further supported the view that mistakes of fact can be rectified, especially when they have caused prejudice to a party.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acted correctly by rectifying the substantive and procedural mistake in its previous order, as the mistake was apparent and had caused prejudice to the assessee.\n•\nAlthough the Tribunal does not have the power to review its own order, it does have the power to rectify mistakes under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, provided the mistake is apparent and both parties are given a hearing.\n•\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal’s action and dismissed the reference application, confirming that the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction to rectify the mistake.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=60,80,156,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No. 181 of 2007, decision dated: 2-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMAD, JUSTICE AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Farooqui for Appellant\nIqbal Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION), LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI\nVs.\nPARACHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 59 = 2010 SLD 59 = 2010 PTD 1038", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Depreciation Allowance, Addition of Machinery, Assessment, and Surcharge Issues\nA. Depreciation Allowance and First Year Allowance:\n1.\nKey Legal Provision:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979):\n\nThird Schedule, Rule 5A: Deals with first year allowance for machinery installed in new industrial undertakings.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nThe Assessee, operating a spinning unit, sought a first year depreciation allowance for machinery added to the unit.\no\nThe First Appellate Authority rejected the claim, stating that the first year allowance is only applicable to new industrial undertakings set up after a specific date, not to machinery added or renewed in an existing unit.\no\nThe Assessee argued that the machinery was essential for the value-added process in spinning (converting cotton into yarn), a crucial step in the overall manufacturing process, which should qualify for the first year allowance.\n3.\nAppellate Tribunal's Ruling:\no\nThe Tribunal found that the first year allowance is not limited to new setups but is also applicable where there is value addition in existing industrial processes, such as in the spinning unit.\no\nThe Tribunal used the ordinary meaning of value-added to determine that the claim was valid. It concluded that the value-added process involved in the spinning unit qualified for the first year allowance, and thus directed the allowance to be granted.\n4.\nConclusion:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed the first year allowance for the machinery installed in the spinning unit, interpreting value added as a factor making the machinery eligible for the allowance, irrespective of whether the unit was newly established or not.\n________________________________________\nB. Assessment and Evidence under Section 62(1):\n1.\nKey Legal Provision:\no\nSection 62(1): Addresses the requirement for Assessing Officers to scrutinize accounts and confront the assessee with any discrepancies found during the scrutiny process.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nThe Assessee, an unlisted public limited company, maintained proper accounts and provided them to the Assessing Officer for review.\no\nThe Assessing Officer failed to issue a notice under Section 62(1) for discrepancies in the profit and loss account, as required by law.\no\nBased on this failure, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the add backs made by the Assessing Officer in the profit and loss account were incorrectly made.\n3.\nAppellate Tribunal's Ruling:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal emphasized that Section 62(1) mandates that the Assessing Officer must not only review the accounts but also confront the assessee with any discrepancies before making adjustments.\no\nSince the Assessing Officer did not fulfill this mandatory requirement, the Tribunal ruled that the add backs were improperly made and deleted them.\n4.\nConclusion:\no\nThe Assessing Officer's failure to issue a notice and provide the assessee with an opportunity to address discrepancies led to the Appellate Tribunal's decision to delete the add backs made to the profit and loss account.\n________________________________________\nC. Surcharge on Minimum Tax Liability under Section 80DD:\n1.\nKey Legal Provisions:\no\nFirst Schedule, Part-III & Section 80DD of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979:\n\nRelates to tax exemptions for certain persons, including those with disabilities.\no\nC.B.R. Circular No. 5 of 2001, dated 4-7-2001: Concerned the application of a 5% surcharge on minimum tax liabilities.\n2.\nFacts:\no\nThe Assessing Authority imposed a 5% surcharge on the minimum tax liability of an individual under Section 80DD.\no\nThe Assessee contended that the 5% surcharge was not applicable to the provisions under Section 80DD regarding minimum tax.\n3.\nAppellate Tribunal's Ruling:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal concluded that the 5% surcharge under the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 does not apply to the provisions under Section 80DD, which relate to minimum tax liability.\no\nThe Tribunal vacated the orders of the authorities below, ruling that the 5% surcharge was improperly levied.\n4.\nConclusion:\no\nThe Tribunal ruled that the 5% surcharge on the minimum tax liability under Section 80DD was not applicable, thus vacating the order of the lower authorities.\n________________________________________\nOverall Conclusion:\n1.\nDepreciation Allowance: The Tribunal rightly granted the first year depreciation allowance for machinery added to the spinning unit, interpreting value-added as encompassing both new and existing industrial undertakings.\n2.\nAssessment Process: The Appellate Tribunal correctly ruled that the Assessing Officer's failure to issue a notice under Section 62(1) and provide the assessee with the opportunity to address discrepancies led to the deletion of add backs.\n3.\nSurcharge on Minimum Tax: The Tribunal appropriately vacated the surcharge imposed on the minimum tax liability under Section 80DD, as the surcharge provisions were not applicable in this case.\nThe rulings provide clarity on first year allowances, scrutiny procedures, and surcharge applicability under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, benefiting both taxpayers and tax authorities in understanding these complex provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,80DD,ThirdSchedule,R.5A,62(1),FirstSched:Part-III ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6020/LB of 2004, decision dated: 3rd September, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmad for Appellant\nSajjad Rizvi, L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 60 = 2010 SLD 60 = 2010 PTD 1046", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRw", + "Key Words:": "Finance Act (V of 1989) - Capital Value Tax on Leasehold Property\nKey Legal Provisions:\nFinance Act (V of 1989):\nSection 7(7): Relates to the levy of Capital Value Tax (CVT) on the value of certain assets, specifically properties, including leasehold rights.\nSection 7(CA)(A)(ii): Details the application of CVT on the value of immovable properties.\nSection 8(1): Specifies the method of valuation for the purpose of applying Capital Value Tax.\nFacts of the Case:\nThe Assessee acquired a right to use a leasehold plot for a period of 99 years. This right was obtained from the original lessee for a term of more than twenty years.\nThe value of the property was not recorded in the original deed of assignment.\nHowever, when executing the lease assignment in favor of the Assessee, the value of the property was recorded in the sub-lease deed, and Capital Value Tax (CVT) was paid at the rate of 2% on the recorded value.\nThe Assessing Officer later sought to charge CVT at Rs. 50 per square yard on the grounds that the value of the property had not been recorded in the original deed.\nRuling of the First Appellate Authority:\nThe First Appellate Authority annulled the Assessing Officer's order, stating that the value of the plot had been properly recorded as per the Conveyance Deed.\nSince CVT at 2% had already been charged on the recorded value, the Assessing Officer's charge of CVT at Rs. 50 per square yard was contrary to the express provisions of law.\nAppellate Tribunal's Ruling:\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s order, agreeing that the value of the property had been correctly recorded in the Conveyance Deed.\nThe Capital Value Tax had already been rightly charged at 2% on the recorded value, in compliance with the law.\nTherefore, the departmental appeal was dismissed, and the order of the First Appellate Authority was maintained.\nConclusion:\nThe value of the property had been properly recorded in the Conveyance Deed, and the Capital Value Tax was applied correctly at 2% of the recorded value.\nThe Assessing Officer’s attempt to impose CVT at Rs. 50 per square yard was found to be invalid and contrary to the provisions of the Finance Act (V of 1989).\nThe decision of the Appellate Tribunal reinforced the correctness of the First Appellate Authority’s ruling, and the departmental appeal was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1989=7,7(7),7(CA)(A)(ii),8(1),8 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 65/KB of 2009, decision dated: 8-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK ABDUL SAMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Abdul Sattar Abbasi, D.R. for Appellant\nA.S. Jaffri for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 61 = 2010 SLD 61 = (2010) 101 TAX 393 = 2010 PTD 1056", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Amendment of Assessments & Claim of Expenses\nKey Legal Provisions:\n1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001):\no\nSection 122(5): Relates to the amendment of assessments, specifically concerning the circumstances under which an assessment can be revised or rectified by the tax authorities.\no\nSection 40: Details the deductions allowed in computing income, particularly under the head Income from Other Sources, including specific allowable expenses.\no\nSection 122(5A): Provides for the amendment of an assessment if it is found to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue.\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nThe Assessee failed to respond to a query during the assessment process, leading the Assessing Officer to amend the assessment based on available information.\n•\nThe Assessee claimed that the expenses associated with ground rent were admissible under Section 40 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as legitimate expenses in computing income from Income from Other Sources. \n•\nThe First Appellate Authority annulled the assessment, accepting the documentary evidence produced by the Assessee after the assessment.\n•\nThe Department argued that the First Appellate Authority was wrong in accepting evidence that had not been presented during the original assessment, citing Section 122(5), which outlines that additional evidence can only be admitted if the taxpayer had sufficient cause for not presenting it earlier.\nRuling of the First Appellate Authority:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority annulled the amended assessment, agreeing with the Assessee's claim that the ground rent expenses were deductible under Section 40 of the Ordinance.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority accepted the documentary evidence produced before them, even though it had not been presented to the Assessing Officer earlier.\nRuling of the Appellate Tribunal:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision, reasoning that the amended assessment was not based on definite information about concealment, as required by Section 122(5).\n•\nThe Tribunal agreed that the amendment of the assessment should only occur based on concrete evidence, such as information from an audit or other reliable sources. The evidence in this case was not from such a source.\n•\nIn the absence of definite information of concealment, the assessment could not be amended under Section 122(5). Additionally, the First Appellate Authority had acted correctly in reviewing and accepting the evidence presented at that stage.\n•\nThe Tribunal concluded that the Department's appeal was without merit and upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the First Appellate Authority’s decision to annul the assessment was correct because the assessment had not been amended based on definite information as required by Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nThe claim for ground rent expenses was found to be admissible under Section 40 and thus the Amended Assessment was invalid.\n•\nThe Department's appeal was dismissed, and the First Appellate Authority's ruling was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),40,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 34/IB of 2009, decision dated: 13-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ziaullah Khan, D.R. for Appellant\nHafiz Muhammad Idrees for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 62 = 2010 SLD 62 = (2010) 101 TAX 238 = 2010 PTD 1067", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Best Judgment Assessment & Jurisdictional Issues\nKey Legal Provisions:\n1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001):\no\nSection 121: Concerns best judgment assessment and applies where the taxpayer has failed to file a return or maintain required documentation.\no\nSection 122: Relates to the amendment of assessments, including provisions for both definite information and cases where assessments may need to be revised due to errors or omissions.\no\nSection 114: Deals with the requirement to file a return of income by individuals or entities.\no\nSection 116: Pertains to the filing of statements of assets and liabilities, including the requirement to file a wealth statement.\no\nSection 174: Requires taxpayers to maintain records and accounts for assessment purposes.\no\nSection 177: Deals with audit selection of cases for examination, which could lead to changes in the assessment.\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nThe Assessee was confronted with combined notices issued under Sections 121 and 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The notices sought to amend the assessment but did so under different provisions of the law without clarifying the relevant subsections.\n•\nThe Assessee argued that the simultaneous application of Sections 121 and 122 was not justified and that the issuance of combined notices under these provisions, without specifying the applicable subsections, was illegal and void.\n•\nThe Department contended that the failure to mention subsections did not invalidate the notice, but the case presented a unique issue of jurisdictional defect due to the use of two separate sections, which were incompatible in this context.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority annulled the amended assessment on the grounds of the jurisdictional defect, ruling that the combined notices under Sections 121 and 122 were invalid.\nKey Issues Addressed:\n1.\nJurisdictional Defect in Combined Notices:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision, stating that the issuance of combined notices under Sections 121 and 122 was a fatal error.\no\nSection 121 applies in cases where a taxpayer has failed to file a return or has not provided necessary documents, while Section 122 deals with the amendment of assessments. The use of both provisions simultaneously created jurisdictional issues, as the taxpayer was not given clarity on the basis of the notice or the relevant subsections.\no\nSection 122 specifically requires information from an audit, or from other sources, to amend the assessment, and a failure to issue a proper show-cause notice (with clear grounds) rendered the combined notices invalid.\n2.\nApplicability of Section 121:\no\nThe Tribunal held that Section 121 applies only when there is non-filing of the return, non-filing of a wealth statement, or failure to provide necessary documents under Section 174. In the present case, the Assessee had filed a return under Section 114, making Section 121 inapplicable.\no\nSince the Assessee had filed a return, the provisions of Section 121(1), which typically applies in cases of non-filing or incomplete filings, were not relevant.\n3.\nAssessment Procedure and Jurisdiction:\no\nThe Tribunal emphasized that the deemed assessment remains valid unless amended under Section 122(5) or Section 122(5A). In this case, the deemed assessment should have been amended based on definite information received (e.g., from an audit).\no\nThe correct course of action would have been for the Taxation Officer to issue a proper notice under Section 122(5) for amending the assessment, following the receipt of relevant information.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority, concluding that the combined issuance of notices under Sections 121 and 122 was invalid due to jurisdictional defects.\n•\nSection 121 applies only to situations where a return has not been filed or where there are failures in submitting necessary documents or wealth statements. Since the Assessee had filed a return under Section 114, Section 121 was not applicable.\n•\nThe amendment of the assessment should have followed the procedures outlined under Section 122(5) or Section 122(5A), and the failure to issue a proper show-cause notice with clear grounds rendered the notices and the amended assessment invalid.\nThe Department's appeal was dismissed as without merit, and the First Appellate Authority's decision was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(3),114(4),116,174,120,121,121(1),121(c),121(d),122,122(5),122(1),122(9),177(2),177(4),177 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 406/IB to 408/IB of 2008, decision dated: 3rd April, 2009.", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Ahmed Shakeel, D.R. for Appellant\nAtif Waheed for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 63 = 2010 SLD 63 = (2010) 101 TAX 208 = 2010 PTD 1081", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) – Additional Tax vs. Penalty\nKey Legal Provision:\n•\nSection 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Relates to the imposition of additional tax on the late payment of tax due. This section emphasizes the levy of additional tax for the delay in depositing the taxes, not as a penalty for non-compliance, but to compensate the government for the delayed use of funds.\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nThe Assessee, a company, was subject to the levy of additional tax for not depositing tax deducted/collected within the stipulated time frame.\n•\nThe company argued that the delay in depositing the deducted tax was due to internal controls and administrative procedures rather than willful negligence or bad faith.\n•\nThe Assessee contended that, despite the delay, there was no mala fide intention, and the tax was deposited voluntarily as soon as the internal procedures were completed.\nIssue:\n•\nThe main issue was whether the additional tax should be waived, given that the company had no mala fide intention and the tax was paid as soon as internal procedures were completed.\n•\nThe Assessee sought to argue that the delay was due to administrative reasons and therefore should not result in the imposition of additional tax.\nLegal Distinction Between Penalty and Additional Tax:\n•\nPenalty and additional tax are distinct:\no\nPenalty is imposed as a punishment for non-compliance or willful neglect to adhere to tax laws within the prescribed timeframe.\no\nAdditional tax is not a penalty; it is levied to compensate the government for the deprived utility of its funds during the period of delay.\no\nThe purpose of additional tax is not to penalize the taxpayer for negligence but to account for the use of public funds by the taxpayer during the period of non-payment.\nCourt's Analysis and Ruling:\n•\nAdditional Tax:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal rejected the Assessee's stance that the delay was due to internal controls, emphasizing that additional tax is distinct from penalty.\no\nThe tax was due and not paid on the due date, which meant the taxpayer effectively used public money for a period without remitting it to the government.\no\nThe imposition of additional tax was in accordance with equity and natural justice, as the government was deprived of the use of the tax funds during the delay.\n•\nMala Fide Intention:\no\nThe Tribunal emphasized that even if the delay was not willful (i.e., there was no mala fide intention), the Assessee could not be absolved from paying the additional tax for the late payment of the admitted tax liability.\no\nThe additional tax is due regardless of the intention behind the delay, as it compensates for the time the government was deprived of the funds.\n•\nAppeal Dismissed:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the imposition of additional tax, dismissing the Assessee’s appeal on the grounds that the tax was due and the delay was not excusable.\nLegal Precedent:\n•\nTaimur Shah v. CIT (1976) and Ghulam Muhammad Lundkor v. Safdar Ali PLD 1967 SC were referenced, underscoring the importance of equity in such matters and the distinction between penalty and additional tax.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, confirming that the levy of additional tax was legally valid and not dependent on the intent of delay. The Assessee's administrative procedures did not absolve it from the responsibility to pay additional tax for the late deposit of tax deducted/collected.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=205 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 474/lB of 2008, decision dated: 2-09-2009.", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal M. Banday, FCA for Applicant\nM. Asif, D.R. and M. Zaheer Qureshi, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 64 = 2010 SLD 64 = (2010) 102 TAX 22 = 2010 PTD 1094", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Non-declaration of Property Value in Wealth Assessment\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 13(1)(e), Second Proviso & Section 13(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): These provisions relate to the declaration of property values in wealth assessments and the approval required for adding undeclared property value to the assessee’s income. The requirement for two prior approvals from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner (I.A.C.) was part of the law before the Finance Act (VII of 1992), which amended these provisions.\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nThe Assessee failed to declare the actual value of a property purchased by him in his wealth assessment for the year 1987-88.\n•\nThe Assessee admitted that he did not declare the correct value of the property during the assessment.\n•\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) decided to add the actual value of the property to the assessee’s income based on his admission. However, the addition was made with the single prior approval of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner (I.A.C.).\nLegal Issue:\n•\nThe issue was whether the Income Tax Officer (ITO) could make such an addition based on the single prior approval of the I.A.C., or if two approvals were required as per the previous provisions under Section 13(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act (VII of 1992).\nCourt’s Analysis and Ruling:\n•\nPre-Finance Act 1992 Position:\no\nSection 13(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 required two prior approvals from the I.A.C. before an addition could be made to the assessee’s income based on a failure to declare property value.\no\nThe requirement for two approvals was enforced before the Finance Act of 1992 came into force.\n•\nAmendment by the Finance Act (VII of 1992):\no\nSection 13(2) was amended by the Finance Act (VII of 1992), and it deleted the need for the first approval required by the earlier law.\no\nAfter the amendment, only one approval from the I.A.C. was necessary for such additions, thus simplifying the process.\n•\nIn the Present Case:\no\nThe Assessee’s failure to declare the value of property was an issue that could be corrected by the Income Tax Officer based on the Assessee's admission.\no\nSince there was no estimation or enhancement of property value, and the additions were based solely on the Assessee’s admission, only one approval from the I.A.C. was required.\no\nThe single prior approval from the I.A.C. was sufficient under the amended provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (post-1992).\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe addition of the actual value of the property to the assessee's income was valid as it was based on the assessee's admission and made with one prior approval from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner (I.A.C.), which complied with the amended law under Section 13(2) after the Finance Act (VII of 1992).\no\nThe decision of the Income Tax Officer was upheld, and the requirement for two approvals no longer applied post-amendment.\nLegal Precedents:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax Zone-B Lahore v. East Pakistan Chrome, Lahore (2001): Referenced as it dealt with similar matters of property declaration in wealth assessments.\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Muhammad Kassim (2000): Relied on to support the application of the amended provisions under Section 13(2).\nConclusion:\nThe amendment in Section 13(2) by the Finance Act (VII of 1992) effectively removed the requirement for two prior approvals from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner for making additions based on the non-declaration of property value. The single prior approval was sufficient, and the Income Tax Officer's decision to make the addition was valid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(e),13(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 49 of 1995, decision dated: 19-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwer Kashif Mumtaz for Applicant\nNasrullah Awan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "JAMSHED AHMED AZMI\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 65 = 2010 SLD 65 = (2009) 100 TAX 378 = 2010 PTD 1099", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Taxation of Income from Northern Areas\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): This section outlines the taxation of income, and the applicability of the ordinance to different areas.\n•\nNotification No. NA-9(7)80, dated 3-4-1999 and Letter No. NA-9(7)/80, dated 3-3-1981: These notifications were central to determining the taxation of income in the Northern Areas.\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nThe Assessee filed returns showing losses from operations in areas other than the Northern Areas, but did not disclose any receipts earned from the Northern Areas.\n•\nStatutory notices were issued to the Assessee, and in response, the Assessee disclosed the receipts from Northern Areas, stating that since the Northern Areas were not part of Pakistan, these receipts were kept undisclosed.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer (AO) taxed the entire income of the Assessee, including the income from the Northern Areas and other areas of Pakistan, by concluding that the Northern Areas were part of Pakistan.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority confirmed the decision of the AO.\nLegal Issue:\n•\nThe issue at hand was whether the income earned from the Northern Areas was taxable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, considering that the Northern Areas were not originally considered part of Pakistan under the applicable tax laws.\n•\nThe Assessee argued that income earned from the Northern Areas was not taxable as the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not apply to the Northern Areas at the time, and the income was therefore outside the scope of tax laws.\nCourt’s Analysis and Ruling:\n•\nTaxability of Northern Areas:\no\nThe Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had been withdrawn in the Northern Areas, and people from the Northern Areas were only liable to pay taxes that were competently imposed. This meant they were liable to pay taxes that were specifically imposed through legislation or notifications.\no\nThe term competently imposed was crucial and meant that taxes could only be levied if they had been explicitly imposed via legislation or notification, which was not the case for the Northern Areas under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nWithdrawal of Applicability:\no\nThe Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas had withdrawn the application of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in the Northern Areas through specific notifications.\no\nAs a result, the Assessee’s income from the Northern Areas was not taxable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nUnjustified Taxation of Income from Northern Areas:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that taxing the income from Northern Areas was illegal and unjustifiable, as it was not covered by the applicable tax laws.\no\nThe orders of the First Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer were set aside because they had wrongly taxed income earned from the Northern Areas.\n•\nRemand for Fresh Assessment:\no\nThe case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to finalize the assessments afresh, but this time only for income earned from areas outside the Northern Areas.\no\nThe Assessing Officer was also instructed to carefully examine the accounts and documents provided by the Assessee to ensure the causes of any losses were genuine and supported by solid documentary evidence.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, setting aside the orders of both the First Appellate Authority and Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that the income earned from the Northern Areas could not be taxed, as the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not applicable to those areas, and taxes on Northern Areas were only competently imposed through specific legislation or notifications.\n•\nThe case was remanded for a fresh assessment, with clear instructions to the Assessing Officer to focus only on income from areas outside the Northern Areas and to examine the Assessee's losses and documents carefully to ensure fairness and compliance with the law.\nLegal Precedents:\n•\n1999 SCMR 1379: Cited to support the legal principles regarding the imposition of taxes and the jurisdictional applicability of tax laws in specific territories like the Northern Areas.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.11/IB to 16/IB and 529/IB of 2006, decision dated: 23rd December, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LIAQUAT ALI CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Hussain, ACMA for Appellant\nMuhammad Tahir Khan, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 66 = 2010 SLD 66 = (2010) 101 TAX 174 = 2010 PTD 1119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQw", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of 'Turnover' under Section 80(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 80(2), Explanation of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): This provision relates to the definition of 'turnover' and its implications for the tax calculations.\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nThe case concerns the interpretation of the term 'turnover' under the Income Tax Ordinance, specifically in the context of determining taxable income.\n•\nThe Assessee was involved in activities that generated various sources of income, including gross receipts from the sale of goods, rendering services, and subsidies received from the government.\nIssue at Hand:\n•\nWhether licence fees or subsidies received from the government can be considered as part of the 'turnover' for the purposes of income tax calculations.\n•\nThe central question is how the term 'turnover' should be defined in the context of the Income Tax Ordinance, especially with regard to government subsidies and licence fees.\nCourt’s Interpretation:\n•\nDefinition of 'Turnover':\no\nThe court held that 'turnover' refers to the gross receipts derived from:\n\nSale of goods\n\nRendering services\n\nExecution of contracts\no\nThese elements reflect the primary business activities of an entity that directly generate revenue.\n•\nExclusion of Certain Income Types:\no\nThe court specifically ruled that certain forms of income, such as:\n\nLicence fees,\n\nSubsidies from the government, do not qualify as 'turnover'.\no\nThese sources of income are considered separate from the regular business income and therefore do not fall under the definition of turnover for tax purposes.\nRuling:\n•\nThe court affirmed that only income generated directly from business operations, such as the sale of goods, services, or contracts, qualifies as 'turnover'.\n•\nIncome derived from licence fees and government subsidies is excluded from this definition and cannot be considered as part of the turnover for tax assessment under Section 80(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979).\nConclusion:\n•\n'Turnover' under Section 80(2) includes only the gross receipts from regular business activities, such as sales, services, and contracts.\n•\nLicence fees and government subsidies are not part of the 'turnover' as defined in this section, and should not be included when calculating taxable turnover for income tax purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80(2) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 5 of 2003, decision dated: 27-07-2009, hearing DATE : 10-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA AND MUHAMMAD RAMZAN CHAUDHRY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Munawar Iqbal for Petitioner\nHafiz Muhammad Idrees for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/COY ZONE, ISLAMABAD\nVs\nPAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 67 = 2010 SLD 67 = (2010) 102 TAX 70 = 2010 PTD 1121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRA", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistake and Taxability of Interest Income under the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Deals with the rectification of mistakes in tax assessments.\n•\nSection 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Allows for the amendment of assessments based on specific grounds, particularly when there are errors in the assessment.\n•\nSection 39 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Covers the taxability of income, including interest income.\n•\nSecond Schedule, Part-I, Clause 132: Specific provisions related to exemptions.\nFacts of the Case:\n•\nThe assessee was involved in a power generation project and claimed an exemption on income from other sources, which included interest income.\n•\nThe Taxation Officer charged tax on the aggregate income of the power generation project and found that the interest income could not be attributed to the operation of the project.\n•\nThe assessee had declared the interest income as exempt, as it was connected with the running of the project, but the \nTaxation Officer disagreed.\n•\nA notice was issued under Section 221, leading to the adjustment of tax assessments.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority held that the issue was debatable and thus did not fall under the provisions of rectification under Section 221, suggesting that the matter should be dealt with under Section 122 for amendment of the assessment.\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRectification under Section 221: Whether the assessment of the interest income as taxable under Section 39 should be rectified based on the ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the taxability of such income.\n2.\nScope of Rectification: Whether rectification of mistake is applicable when the issue is controversial and involves a debate on the interpretation of the law.\n3.\nTaxability of Interest Income: Whether interest income from a power generation project should be exempt from tax based on its connection to the project.\nCourt’s Interpretation:\n1.\nRectification under Section 221:\no\nThe court found that rectification of a mistake under Section 221 is only applicable when there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record.\no\nInterest income of power generation projects had been previously adjudicated by the Supreme Court, which had clarified the taxability or exemption of such income.\no\nIf the Taxation Officer’s assessment or the assessee’s disclosure conflicted with the Supreme Court's ruling, this would constitute a mistake apparent on the record, making it eligible for rectification under Section 221.\n2.\nDebatable Issues and Rectification:\no\nThe court emphasized that rectification is not intended for debated or contentious issues. For matters that are subject to arguments and counter-arguments, the proper course of action is to amend the assessment under Section 122, rather than using the rectification provisions.\no\nSince the taxability of interest income was a contested issue, the matter should be addressed under Section 122 for amendment, not under Section 221 for rectification.\n3.\nInterpretation of Statutes:\no\nThe court noted that the real meaning of a provision of law is clarified through interpretation by the courts, which administrative authorities and lower judicial fora are required to follow.\no\nThe interpretation provided by the Superior Court on the taxability of interest income must be adhered to, and any assessments that conflict with this interpretation should be rectified in line with the court's ruling.\n4.\nPast Assessments and Rectification:\no\nThe court held that past assessments that were contrary to the interpretation of the superior court should be rectified under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance.\no\nAssessments that do not align with the interpretation of the Supreme Court must be brought in line with the court’s judgment.\nRuling:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority’s order was vacated, and the case was remanded to be adjudicated in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on the taxability of interest income.\n•\nThe rectification of assessments should be carried out in accordance with the Superior Court’s interpretation, and Section 221 could be invoked where there is an apparent mistake.\n•\nSection 122 should be invoked for debated issues related to the assessment, not Section 221.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest income from a power generation project should be taxed or exempt based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, and any conflicting tax assessments must be rectified.\n•\nDebatable issues fall outside the scope of rectification under Section 221 and should be handled under Section 122 for amendment of assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=39,122,221,SecondSched.,Cl.132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 861/LB and 862/LB of 2008, decision dated: 8-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Tasleem Azam, D.R. for Appellant\nDr. Ikram ul Haq and Mansoor Baig for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 68 = 2010 SLD 68 = (2010) 102 TAX 25 = 2010 PTD 1127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQQ", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Provisions under the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 132(2A) of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Deals with the disposal of appeals by the Appellate Tribunal and the limitation period for the decision.\n•\nSection 221(1) & (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001): Concerns the rectification of mistakes by the First Appellate Authority and the limitation for rectifying such mistakes.\n•\nClause 3A of Part-IV, Second Schedule: Relates to exemption for income on account of waiver of mark-up or debt under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n________________________________________\nKey Issues Addressed:\n1.\nLimitation for Disposal of Appeals (Section 132(2A)):\no\nIssue: Whether the Appellate Tribunal is bound by a six-month period for passing orders after the filing of an appeal.\no\nAnalysis:\n\nThe legislature did not specify a limitation period for the decision of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 132(2A).\n\nIf the legislature had intended to impose a specific limitation, it would have been explicitly mentioned in the law.\n\nConclusion: Since no such provision was made, the six-month limitation period does not apply, and Section 132(2A) is considered directory rather than mandatory.\n________________________________________\n2.\nRectification of Mistakes (Section 221(1) & (3)):\no\nIssue: The limitation for rectifying mistakes under Section 221 and its application to the Appellate Tribunal.\no\nAnalysis:\n\nThe First Appellate Authority is required to pass an order for rectification before the expiration of the financial year following the notice of the mistake.\n\nThe Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the limitation period under Section 221(3) for rectifying its orders. Therefore, the Tribunal has the discretion to rectify mistakes without the same limitation.\n\nConclusion: The rectification provisions in Section 221 are applicable, but limitation only binds the First Appellate Authority and does not apply to the Appellate Tribunal.\n________________________________________\n3.\nDeeming Relief for Failure to Pass Orders (Section 132(2A)):\no\nIssue: Whether the taxpayer is entitled to deemed relief if the Appellate Tribunal fails to pass an order within six months.\no\nAnalysis:\n\nThere is no deeming provision in Section 132(2A) that automatically grants relief to the taxpayer if the Appellate Tribunal does not issue a decision within the prescribed period.\n\nThe lack of a deeming provision means that the failure to pass an order within six months does not result in a deemed decision or automatic relief.\n\nConclusion: The taxpayer’s argument for deeming relief due to the Tribunal's failure to decide within six months was rejected because no such provision exists in the law.\n________________________________________\n4.\nRetrospective Application of Exemption (Clause 3A of Part-IV, Second Schedule):\no\nIssue: Whether the waiver of mark-up under Clause 3A of Part-IV should be applied retrospectively for tax year 2004.\no\nAnalysis:\n\nThe exemption provision was introduced in 2004 and came into effect from 1 July 2004.\n\nThe Tax Department argued that such exemptions should not apply retrospectively, especially since the provision related to a charging provision.\n\nConclusion: The exemption could not be applied retrospectively, and the taxation of mark-up waiver for tax year 2004 was valid as per the enactment.\n________________________________________\n5.\nStrict Construction of Fiscal Statutes:\no\nIssue: The interpretation of fiscal statutes, particularly the provisions regarding exemptions and tax concessions.\no\nAnalysis:\n\nFiscal statutes should be interpreted strictly, especially in the case of exemption provisions.\n\nExemptions are only applicable when specifically provided by law, and extending such benefits beyond the law’s scope is unacceptable.\n\nConclusion: The court emphasized that exemptions cannot be extended unless explicitly provided in the law.\n________________________________________\nKey Rulings:\n1.\nSection 132(2A) is considered a directory provision, and failure of the Appellate Tribunal to pass an order within six months does not automatically grant relief to the taxpayer.\n2.\nThe six-month limitation for the Appellate Tribunal to pass orders is not legally binding and does not lead to automatic relief.\n3.\nThe First Appellate Authority has a limited time period under Section 221(3) for rectifying mistakes, but this limitation does not apply to the Appellate Tribunal.\n4.\nExemptions under the Income Tax Ordinance are to be strictly construed, and retrospective application of provisions is not permissible unless explicitly stated by the legislature.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal is not bound by a six-month limitation for disposing of appeals under Section 132(2A), and the deeming relief argument raised by the taxpayer in case of failure to decide within this period is not sustainable.\n•\nThe rectification of mistakes by the Appellate Tribunal does not fall under the limitation prescribed for the First Appellate Authority.\n•\nExemption provisions under Clause 3A of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance can only be applied prospectively and cannot be retrospective.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=132,132(2A),221,221(1),221(3),SecondSched.,Cl.3A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 281/LB of 2008, decision dated: 30-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA LEHRASAB KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ameenudin Ansari for Appellant\nTariq Mustafa D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 69 = 2010 SLD 69 = (2010) 102 TAX 1 = 2010 PTD 1159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) and Related Legal Provisions\n________________________________________\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 99, 101, 107, and 152(1AA) of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as amended by Finance Act (I of 2008).\n•\nSection 2(xxvii) of the Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000).\n•\nArticle 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973): Relating to constitutional petitions.\n•\nAgreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation: Applicable to foreign non-resident insurance companies in the context of re-insurance premiums.\n________________________________________\nKey Issues Addressed:\n(a) Tax Deduction on Re-Insurance Premiums:\n•\nIssue: Whether Pakistani companies are required to deduct tax at source on re-insurance premiums paid to foreign non-resident insurance companies that do not have a Permanent Establishment in Pakistan but belong to countries having Agreements for Avoidance of Double Taxation (DTAA) with Pakistan.\n•\nAnalysis:\no\nPrior to the amendments in 2008, Pakistani companies were not required to deduct tax on re-insurance premiums paid to such foreign companies.\no\nWith the insertion of Section 152(1AA) in 2008, such payments would be considered as Pakistan-source income, necessitating tax deductions at source.\no\nHowever, under the DTAA, these foreign companies were exempt from tax in Pakistan, as their income (including re-insurance premiums) was not taxable in Pakistan under the terms of the agreement.\no\nThe High Court ruled that Section 107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, which gives precedence to DTAA provisions, meant that these premiums could not be taxed as Pakistan-source income, nor could they be treated as income arising in Pakistan.\n•\nConclusion: The tax demand by the tax department was invalid, and the High Court quashed the demand. The Pakistani company was not required to deduct tax on the re-insurance premiums under the relevant provisions of the DTAA.\n________________________________________\n(b) Constitutional Petition Against Tax Demand:\n•\nIssue: Whether the constitutional petition filed by the Pakistani company challenging the demand for tax was maintainable, given that there was an alternate remedy through filing an appeal or revision.\n•\nAnalysis:\no\nThe tax department had already refused to issue a nil withholding certificate to the petitioner.\no\nThe High Court noted that filing an appeal or revision would be futile, as the issue required an authoritative pronouncement.\no\nTherefore, the constitutional petition was maintainable, and the High Court overruled the department's objection to its maintainability.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court upheld the constitutional petition, ruling that the issue warranted judicial intervention, and the alternate remedy of appeal or revision would be ineffective in this context.\n________________________________________\n(c) Interpretation of Statutes - Mandatory vs. Directory Provisions:\n•\nIssue: Whether the use of the word shall in Section 152(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) made the provision mandatory.\n•\nAnalysis:\no\nThe use of the word shall in a statute does not automatically make a provision mandatory. Courts must examine the intent behind the provision to determine if the language is directory or mandatory.\no\nIn this case, Section 152(5) was found to be directory, meaning it did not impose mandatory consequences in case of non-compliance.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court ruled that the provision in Section 152(5) was directory, and the taxpayer could not be penalized for failing to obtain approval from the Commissioner for re-insurance payments to non-residents without tax deduction.\n________________________________________\n(d) Duty of the Court in Statutory Interpretation:\n•\nIssue: What is the court's duty while interpreting a statute?\n•\nAnalysis:\no\nThe court's role is to determine the legislative intent behind the statutory provision, as the intention of the legislature is the essence of the statute.\no\nThe intention is what the law seeks to achieve, and the statute must be interpreted in light of that objective.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court emphasized that the intention of the legislature should guide the interpretation of any statutory provision.\n________________________________________\n(e) Favorable Interpretation for the Taxpayer:\n•\nIssue: When a provision is open to two interpretations, which interpretation should be adopted?\n•\nAnalysis:\no\nIn cases where there are two reasonable interpretations of a statutory provision, the interpretation that is more favorable to the taxpayer should be adopted.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court adopted the taxpayer-favorable interpretation when deciding on the validity of tax demands and exemptions in this case.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court quashed the tax demand on the grounds that the re-insurance premiums were exempt from tax under the DTAA and could not be considered Pakistan-source income.\n•\nThe constitutional petition was maintainable, as the matter required judicial intervention.\n•\nThe interpretation of statutes emphasized the intent of the legislature and the favoring of taxpayers when two reasonable interpretations exist. The taxpayer was entitled to the exemption, and the tax authority's refusal to issue an exemption certificate was wrong.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21(c),99,101,102,107,152,152(5A),152(1AA),152(1BB),152(5),161,163,163(2),163(2)(a),163(2)(b),163(2)(c),163(2)(d),163(2)(e),205 Insurance Ordinance, 2000=2 Income Tax Rules, 1982=20 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1141 to 1149, 1177 and 2308 of 2009, decision dated: 8-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque Memon and Arshad Siraj Memon for Petitioners. Jawaid Farooqui for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. THROUGH JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI\nVS.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS." + }, + { + "Case No.": "184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 1174 = 2010 SLD 1174 = (2010) 101 TAX 389 = 2010 PTD 1174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss. 121, 114(4), 111(1)(6) & 239(1)-Best assessment-Limitation-Assessment year 2002-2003-Assessee contended that assessment for the assessment year 2002-2003 should be made under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as had been provided in saving clause under S.239(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but order had been made under S.121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 after issuing notices under Ss.114(4) and 111(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which was nullity in the eyes of law-Appeal was rejected by the First Appellate Authority being barred by limitation-Validity-Limitation to file appeal against the order which had been passed without lawful jurisdiction would cease to run-Appeal against such order could be instituted at any time-Taxation Officer had passed an order under S.121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 without having jurisdiction and against the clear provision of law-First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without any justification-Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and the order passed by the Taxation Officer under S.121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \n2009 PTD 1392; 2000 PTD 2407; 2002 PTD 506; (2002) 85 Tax 98 (Lah.); 2002 PTD 1035; PLD 1969 Lah. 1039; PLD 1970 Lah. 6 and 2004 PTD (Trib.) 838 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(6),114,114(4),121,239,239(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1302/LB of 2009, decision dated: 15-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Munir Hussain for Appellant AND Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 70 = 2010 SLD 70 = 2010 PTD 1181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-S.122, Second Sched., Part IV, Cl. (46-A)-Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss.59A & 62-Amendment of assessment-Assessment year 2000-2001-Assessment was finalized under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Inspection note was received by the Assessing Officer that consumption of Sui gas was a major raw material energy source which reflected the volume of business-Assessment was amended under S.122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which was annulled by the First Appellate Authority-Department contended that First Appellate Authority was not justified to annul assessment order on legal grounds in view of Explanation given in Finance Ordinance, 2002-Validity-Action taken by the First Appellate Authority in cancelling the assessment order for the assessment year 2001-02 was perfectly justified as the assessment was deemed to be accepted under S.59A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 before 30-6-2002-Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could not be applied to the assessment completed under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 prior to 1-7-2003-Appeal filed by the department was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal being devoid of any merit. \n \n2006 SCMR 109 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,SecondSched.,Cl.46A,59,59A,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1324/LB of 2007, decision dated: 22-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Latif, D.R. for Appellant. Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 71 = 2010 SLD 71 = 2010 PTD 1191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.156 & 65-Rectification of mistake-Application for rectification was moved on the ground that not only the proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were illegally initiated but the notice under said section had also been issued in absence of any lawful authority; such plea going to the root of the assessment order, same should have been decided by the First Appellate Authority at the first place-Validity-Such legal controversy needed to be thrashed out at the first appellate stage because it was the preliminary and primary contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were ab initio void and illegal-First Appellate Authority having not passed a speaking order, the case was sent back by the Appellate Tribunal to First Appellate Authority to look into the assessee's contentions in depth and pass a comprehensive on the legal issues raised before him. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.116 & 111-Imposition of penalty after notice of hearing, etc.-Assessee contended that reasons advanced for imposition of penalty were the same as were noted by the Assessing Officer at the time of formulating additional assessment under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, whereas the penalty proceedings were independent in its character and were not based on the reasons recorded in the assessment order and that penalty proceedings were criminal in nature and onus to prove guilt on the part of assessee squarely lay on the Department-Validity-Penalty proceedings were criminal in nature-Guilt was to be established independently on the basis of cogent evidence as was required in the criminal proceedings-Assessing officer was supposed to establish mens rea in such cases which was a sine qua non-First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal in a summary manner without adhering to the judicial pronouncements-First set of appeals having been set aside, penalty appeals were also remanded back by the Appellate Tribunal to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication with the directions that First Appellate Authority shall dispose of the penalty appeals after considering the facts of the case in its totality as well as ratio and principle decided in the case law.\n \n(1992) 65 Tax 2005 (L.H.C.) (sic); 1989 PTD 521; 2001 PTD 1348; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1068; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1076; 1994 PTD (Trib.) 688; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1121; 2004 PTD (Trib.) 1225 and 1994 PTD 675 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,65,116,111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5011/LB to 5015/LB, 5847/LB to 5851/LB of 2005, decision dated: 22-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh for Appellant. S.A. Masood Raza Qazilbash, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 72 = 2010 SLD 72 = (2010) 101 TAX 127 = 2010 PTD 1194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.2(16)(bb)-Trust Act (II of 1882), S.5-Trust formed under provisions of general law i.e. Trusts Act, 1882 and not under a special law, would not fall within scope of definition of `company' given in S.2(16) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.2(16)-Trusts Act (II of 1882), S.5-Phrase a trust formed, under any law for the time being in force -Connotation-Trust formed under a special law would fall into the definition of a company for the purposes of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and a trust formed under the provisions of general law, i.e. Trust Act, 1882, is outside the scope of the definition of a company given in S.2(16) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(16),2(16)(bb) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 33 of 2007, decision dated: 27-07-2009, hearing DATE : 10-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA AND MUHAMMAD RAMZAN CHAUDHRY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Ghulam Dastagir for the Petitioner. Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COYS ZONE, ISLAMABAD\nVs.\nAL MUSTAFA TRUST, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 73 = 2010 SLD 73 = 2010 PTD 1196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss.111(1)(b) & 184-Unexplained income or assets-Addition-First Appellate Authority deleted the additions made by the Taxation Officer under S.111(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as documentary evidence was furnished showing that the taxpayer had the source of investment-Penalty made under S.184 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 being consequential to such addition had also been annulled-Iqrar nama deed of agreement and other documents had been furnished-Appellate Tribunal held that First Appellate Authority had rightly deleted the addition and annulled the consequent penalty mad by the Taxation Officer-No interference was warranted in the order of First Appellate Authority and appeals filed by the Department were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(b),184 Air University Ordinance, 2002=555 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 626/LB and 627/LB of 2009, decision dated: 13-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for the Appellant. Shoaib A. Sh. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 74 = 2010 SLD 74 = 2010 PTD 1197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss.153 (6B), 153(6A) & Second Sched., Part-IV, Cl.46A-Payment for goods and services-Federal Board of Revenue had explained the provision of subsection (6B) of S.153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through Cl. (46-A) of Part-IV of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Department applying the same considered the assessee to be covered within the Final Tax Regime being a manufacturer-Assessee had contended that the High Court had held the said explanation of FBR to be ultra wires to the powers of Federal Board of Revenue and application of provision of S.153(4)(6A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was independent and was to be read and applied ignoring Cl. (46-A) of Part-IV of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Validity-Keeping in view the principle, when the law required a thing to be done in a particular manner it would be legal and valid only if it was done in that manner and not otherwise , it was held that the case was not covered by Final Tax Regime-Appeal filed by the taxpayer was allowed and the action of the officers below was held to be unlawful-Assessee, in circumstances, was not covered by Final Tax Regime-Deemed assessment was restored and the orders of the officers below were cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \n2009 PTD 809 distinguished.\n \n2008 PTD 1563 and 2005 MLD 1239 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,153(6A),153(6B),153(4)(6A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.741/KB of 2009, decision dated: 20-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Mehtab Khan for Appellant. Basharat Ahmed Qureshi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Qw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 75 = 2010 SLD 75 = (2010) 101 TAX 344 = 2010 PTD 1199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Qw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss. 182(1) & 114-Penalty for failure to furnish a return or statement-Notice dated 2-3-2009 under S.114(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was received by the assessee on 6-4-2009 and admittedly assessee had filed return on 9-4-2009-Penalty was imposed for failure to furnish return-Validity-Time was extended on request of assessee for filing the return-Taxation Officer in the notice under S.114(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had allowed 30 days time after the receipt of that notice and in failure to comply with that notice the ex parte assessment/penalty/prosecution etc. were to be initiated-Returns admittedly had been filed on 9-4-2009 in response to the notice-If the penalty order was to be made same could be made only for not more than 7 days but the Taxation Officer had calculated the defaulted days as 53-Advance tax paid by the assessee was more than the tax liability for the year under review and the assessee had to receive back the refund-Under S.182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 the penalty for failure to furnish a return or statement could be made when the default was without reasonable excuse-Reasonable cause for not filing the return had been established which was due to `the record of the case' being before the auditors, and the Taxation Officer himself had allowed the time on such ground-No justification existed for the penalty which was upheld by the First Appellate Authority without any basis-Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and the order made by the Taxation Officer under S.182(I)/114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \nMessrs Asim Textile Mills Ltd. I.T.As. Nos. 276 to 278 and 569/LB of 2006; I.T.As. Nos.166 to 169/LB of 2006 and 2004 PTD 1179 rel.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-\n \n-S. 182(1)-Penalty for failure to furnish a return or statement-Purpose of penalty-Purpose of levying penalty is to deter the assessee from repeating the default in future and it cannot be made as resource mobilization/revenue generation measure.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182,182(1),114,114(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1546/LB of 2009, decision dated: 1st February, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Appellant. Imran Raza Kazmi, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 10 = 2000 SLD 10 = 2000 PTD 1444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 59(1)-Self-Assessment Scheme-Question of fact and law-Plea that return should be accepted under Broad Based Self-Assessment Scheme can be taken at any stage of appeal because it is a mixed question of law and fact. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.59(1)-Self-Assessment Scheme-Notice for selling apart case outside the ambit of Self-Assessment Scheme-Limitation-To set apart Return outside the ambit of Self-Assessment Scheme, Assessing Officer has to inform the assessee by 30th June of relevant assessment year. \n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 59(1) & 63-C.B. R. Circular No. 16 of 1996, dated 3-9-1996-Self­ Assessment Scheme-Notice for short documents-Setting apart of Return outside the ambit of Self-Assessment Scheme-Return was filed under Self­ Assessment Scheme-Short documents notice was issued by the Assessing Officer as the relevant columns of the Return were not filled-Complete details were available from the computation chart annexed with the Return, as were required in the notice-Assessment was finalized ex parte under S.63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Validity-Assessing Officer had issued the short documents notice owing to misconception of facts and had erroneously excluded the assessee's Return of income from the ambit of the' Self-Assessment Scheme although same fully qualified to be accepted under S.59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Assessing Officer was directed to accept the returned income of the assessee under S.59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by the Appellate tribunal in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4535/LB of 1999, decision dated: 7-02-2000, hearing DATE : 27-01-2000", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Shahid Bashir, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 76 = 2010 SLD 76 = (2010) 101 TAX 518 = 2010 PTD 1209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.80-C, 59 & 61-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.23, 4 & 8-C.B.R. Circular No.15 of 1980, dated 26-6-1980-C.B.R. Circular No.26 of 1980 dated 12-10-1980-Tax on income of certain contractors and importers-Self-assessment-Commission agent-Franchisee-Assessing Officer OUSTED the case from Self-Assessment Scheme due to reason that the notices claiming for short documents had not been complied with within the prescribed time limit and commission receipts fell under the ambit of S.80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as provided under subsection (2)(a)(ia) of the Self-Assessment Scheme-Assessments were finalized under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Assessee contended that nature of business had not been properly appreciated as the assessee was not a commission agent but as a Franchisee rendering services to his company as was running a Franchise to solicit customers for company's customers subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement and was merely a franchisee not an agent of the company and as such his relationship with the company was not that of a commission agent-Validity-Assessee placed on record a copy of invoices raised to company to support his contention that the nature of receipts were services rather than commission, which revealed that assessee was generating revenue line rent, retention, upgradation, international roaming etc., and all such transactions were out of purview of definition of `commission' as revenue in this regard had not been generated from the sale of goods but by providing services-Transactions of the assessee fell out of the definition of `commission'-Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and assessments were set aside with the directions for fresh consideration.\n \n2008 PTD 1751 rel.\n \n(b) Words and phrases-\n \n-Franchised dealer-Agent-Distinction-Franchised dealer was defined as a retailer who sells the product or service of a manufacturer of supplier under a franchise agreement which generally protects the territory for the retailer and provides advertising and promotion support to him -Such definition showed that a franchisee had a similar role as that of an agent in its wider perspective. \n \nBlack's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) and 2008 PTD 1751 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C,59,61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6713/LB and 6714/LB of 2005, decision dated: 13-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Mutee Babri, I.T.P. for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Qg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 11 = 2000 SLD 11 = 2000 PTD 1447", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Qg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 59(1) & 66-A-C.B.R. Circular No.5 of 1997, dated 12-7-1997, para. 3(II)(a)-C.B.R. Circular No.11 of 1997, dated 9-9-1997-Self­Assessment Scheme-Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioner's order-Assessment year 1997-98-New assessee-Condition of filing wealth statement-Assessment completed under S.59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was cancelled by Inspecting Additional Commissioner under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that no wealth statement was filed alongwith the income-tax return which was obligatory upon the new assessee in terms of para. 3(II) of C.B.R. Circular No.5 of 1997, dated 12-7-1997-Assessee contended that condition of filing statements, accounts, details and documents had been waived through C.B.R. Circular No. ll of 1997, dated 9-9-1997, therefore; assessee was not required to file wealth statement to be legible to avail the Self-Assessment Scheme-Department pleaded that this concession was only for old taxpayers-Validity-Condition of filing statements, accounts, details and documents alongwith the returns was waived off by the Central Board of Revenue through Circular No. II of 1997, dated 9-9-1997-Contention of Department that benefits of the concession were meant for the old tax-payers only and the new taxpayers were outside the pale of this concession did not find support from any provision in the Circular-Term statements used in C. B. R. Circular No. l l of 1997 would include the wealth statements -Concession given by said circular to the assessee not to file various statements, accounts, details and documents would, therefore, extend to the new tax-payers also-Return filed by the assessee was rightly accepted under S.59(l) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and there was no justification with the Inspecting Additional Commissioner to invoke the provisions of S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3673/LB of 1999, decision dated: 13-10-1999, hearing DATE : 8-10-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Rw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 77 = 2010 SLD 77 = (2010) 101 TAX 354 = 2010 PTD 1221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Rw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss.122(5) & 122(1)-Amendment of assessment-Definite information-Taxation Officer without confronting the assessee had made addition assuming the jurisdiction under S.122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 despite the fact that no notice had ever been issued under S.122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Validity-Taxation Officer assumed jurisdiction without issuing proper notice under S.122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 having no definite information and had amended the assessment without giving any basis which had been upheld by the First Appellate Authority without considering the facts as well-Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and order passed by the Taxation Officer under S.122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \n2007 PTD (Trib.) 2601; 1993 SCMR 1108 = 1993 PTD 1108 and 2002 PTD 102 rel.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-\n \n-S.122(5)-Amendment of assessment-Definite information-Reason to believe-Scope-Tangible information and such proof that led to the `reason to believe' could only be considered as a `definite information'-Any estimate, gossip, personal whims or surmises could not be termed as the `definite information'-Prefix of definite with suffix of information had made the term more strong-Any information which created doubts or provided reason to suspect that the income had been concealed did not ,form a part of the term `definite information'.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1),122(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1363/LB of 2009, decision dated: 1st February, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Anwar Baig for Appellant.n Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 12 = 2000 SLD 12 = 2000 PTD 1450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982-Rr. 158, 159, 161 & 162-Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199-­Constitutional petition-Appointment of Receiver -Notice to show cause-­Petitioner was appointed as Official Receiver within the meaning of Rr.158, 159 & 161 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982-Defaulter was arrested for non­payment of utility bills-Receiver served the warrant under R.162(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1982 upon the Superintendent Jail for continued detention of the defaulter till the recovery of income-tax/wealth tax-Defaulter was released by the Income-tax Authority after recovery of Rs.2 crores and further taking Bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.1 crore-Defaulter left the country-Income-tax Authorities refused to pay remuneration to Receiver on the ground that recovery was not effected on account of the efforts of the Receiver but that of the Department itself-Contention of the Department was that Revenue had only authority under 8.158 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982 to initiate proceedings for attachment or arrangement of the business of defaulter and had no authority to take coercive measures against the defaulter such as arrest of detention as per his terms and conditions of appointment-­Validity-Controversy between the parties was a factual controversy which could not be resolved under the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court-Matter was sent to Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, by the High Court with direction to constitute high powered committee to initiate proceedings against -the official /officer who provided the facility to the defaulter to leave the country-Such committee shall also complete the process of the subject-matter of remuneration of Revenue and in case the said Committee had come to the conclusion that Receiver's claim was genuine and correct, then the amount shall, be released forthwith. \n \nMuhammad Younas's case 1993 SCMR 618 and Hafiz Muhammad Arif Dar's case PLD 1989 SC 109 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=158,158,161,162 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12359 of 1999, heard on 14-01-2000, hearing DATE : 14-01-2000", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Khan for Petitioner. Subah Sadiq Klasoon with Wakil A. Khan, Regional Commissioner for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "AWAIS SHEIKH\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others." + }, + { + "Case No.": "196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 78 = 2010 SLD 78 = (2010) 101 TAX 341 = 2010 PTD 1231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss. 183, 182 & 190-S.R.O. No. 708(I) of 2007 dated 14-7-2007-Penalty for non-payment of tax-Non-payment of tax for tax year 2003 as the determined refund was already with the department and the taxpayer had requested the department to adjust the tax liability from that determined refund-Return for tax year 2007 was filed in Regional Tax Office as the Federal Board of Revenue e -portal was not functioning-Levy of penalty-Cancellation of such penalties by the First Appellate Authority-Validity-Determined refund was admittedly available with the department and the taxpayer had already requested the department to adjust the tax liability from that determined refund-Likewise, Taxation Officer instead of verification to establish genuineness of submissions of return from service counter of Regional Tax Offices had imposed the penalty despite the fact that e-Portal of Central Board of Revenue was not functioning properly as was admitted by the Central Board of Revenue in the newspapers of that period:-Taxpayer had already fulfilled his obligations of filing the return on the counter of Central Board of Revenue-As the returns were filed before the Tax Facilitation Centre by the taxpayer it was established that the taxpayer had discharged his liability honestly and legally by filing his returns-Appeals filed by the Department having no merits, were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182,183,190 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1537/LB to 1539/LB of 2009, decision dated: 1st February, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Raza Kazmi, D.R. for Appellant. Tauseef Alam Siddiqui, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Rg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 79 = 2010 SLD 79 = 2010 PTD 1245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Rg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.80-D-Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.113-Banking company incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984 working under licence issued by State Bank of Pakistan-Turnover tax, levy of-Scope-Purpose of introducing S.80D in Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not merely to enhance exports of country-Lawmakers by adding explanation to S.80D(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had in fact removed doubt, it any, in interpreting term turnover by giving descriptions of certain items, which could be included in its definition-No distinction existed between S.80D of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and S.113 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Section 80D of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 starting with non obstente clause stipulated that if either no tax was payable or tax paid by a company was less than half per cent of amount representing its turnover from all sources, then company would have to pay a tax known as turnover tax, which would be half per cent of amount of its turnover-Turnover would mean gross receipts, exclusive of discounts shown on invoices or bills, derived from giving or supplying services also-Such company was giving and supplying services-Banking companies used to give discounts and rebate to its customers in respect of amounts charged by them from its customers-Such company was liable to pay turnover tax in circumstances. \n \nPLD 1993 Kar. 799 ref.\n \nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Orix Leasing Pakistan Ltd. 2007 PTD 115 rel.\n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes-\n \n-No part of section of a statute would be read in isolation without making reference to other parts of same section. \n \nHumayoon Muhammad Khan v. Province of Sindh 2009 CLC 909 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D,80D(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Applications Nos.D-459 to 464 of 2006, decision dated: 10-03-2010, hearing DATE : 4-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, Justice(s),", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "FIRST WOMEN BANK LIMITED through Head of Finance Planning & Operation, Karachi\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LEGAL DIVISION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Sw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 80 = 2010 SLD 80 = (2010) 101 TAX 324 = 2010 PTD 1255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Sw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss.122(5A), 39 & Second Sched., Part-I, Cl. 132-Amendment of assessment-Income from other sources-Sale of sludge and scrap sale-Re-opening of case under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the reason that the assessment was erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the taxpayer had not offered other income for tax in the return and the tax thereon had not been paid thereon as per law-Assessee contended that scrap sales and sludge sales were not actually the income of taxpayer but was a reduction in cost of input and such an activity directly related to the use of plant for power generation income which was exempt and as such other income consisting of sale of scrap and sludge was also exempt-Validity-Profit derived by the assessee from sale of sludge (which according to assessee was waste) was outside the main business activities and squarely fell in the ambit of income from other sources chargeable to tax under S.39 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Orders of the officers below were upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and appeals filed by the taxpayer were dismissed. \n \n2001 SCMR 1376 = 2001 PTD 2097 rel.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-\n \n-S.2(29)-'Income'-Definition-Nature-Definition in sub-S. (29) of S.2 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was inclusive and not exhaustive wherein it includes all kinds of profits and gains or receipt that were chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,2(29),39,122,122(5A),SecondSched.,Cl.132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1386/LB and 1387/LB of 2009, decision dated: 1st February, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousuf Saeed, F.C.A. for Appellant. Mansoor Awan, L.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 81 = 2010 SLD 81 = 2010 PTD 1260 = (2010) 102 TAX 58 = 2011 PTCL 563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss. 147, 235 & First Schedule, Part-IV-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3-Electricity bill-Withholding or advance income-tax on electricity bill as a tax on expenditure-Scope-Constitutional petition filed by appellants to declare the imposition of advance income tax or withholding tax on electricity bills harsh and unreasonable was dismissed by Single Bench of High Court-Contention of the appellants in intra-court appeal was that prior to amendment of S.235 of the Income Tax Ordinance through Finance Act, 2008 on 1-7-2008, Rs.2000 were being charged as withholding tax or advance income tax on the electricity bills amounting to Rs.20, 000 or more, however, the bills less than the said amount were chargeable on other percentage, but on account of the change brought in law, the percentage had incredibly been increased-Appellants further contended that withholding tax or advance income tax on electricity bills was a tax on expenditure, rather than the income and the matter did not fall within the Federal/Concurrent Legislative List and, therefore, the competence of the Parliament to impose said tax was confiscatory, harsh, unreasonable and amounted to a double taxation-Validity-Withholding tax or advance income tax was advance nature of the tax on income, which was permissible under the law; it was not a new concept (advance tax) to the income tax regime and was enforced as per the provisions of S.147 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Advance tax was ultimately founded upon and was embedded in the domain of the income-Advance tax or withholding tax squarely fell in Entry Number 47 of the Federal Legislative List, which had to be given widest possible meaning and amplitude and thus, on account of any misnomer of describing same as an expenditure could not be held to be beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament-Intra-Court appeals were dismissed. \n \nState and another v. Sajjad Hussain and others 1993 SCMR 1523; Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance 1992 PTD 576; Elahi Cotton Mills' case PLD 1997 SC 582; Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 3 others 1999 SCMR 382; Government of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Ashraf and others PLD 1993 SC 176; Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Finance, Islamabad and 6 others PLD 1997 SC 582; Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938, AIR 1939 FC 1 equal to PTCL 1986 FC 33; Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938 AIR FC 1 = PTCL 1986 FC 33; Lt.-Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty, Government of Pakistan, Karachi and others PLD 1962 SC 335; the Province of Madras v. Messrs Boddu Paidanna and Sons AIR 1942 FC 33; Call Tell (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Representative and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad and others 2004 PTD 3032 and Call Tell and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2005 PTD 833 ref.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-\n \n-S. 235-Electricity bills-Standard and measure-Final liability-Adjustment of-Scope-Electricity bills inclusive of whatsoever charges were added thereto have been made the yardstick, the standard and the measure for the purposes of collecting the advance which was liable to be adjusted as against the final liability of the taxpayer and if founded to be paid in excess, the refund in this behalf was contemplated to be made within a particular period of time. \n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-\n \n-S. 235-Withholding tax or advance tax-Imposition of-Discriminatory-Scope-Withholding tax or advance tax on electricity bills was founded upon the rule of parity and equality-It has been imposed upon all those, who fall within the category of S.235 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, but subject to the exemption, which has been granted to certain sectors.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=147,235,FirstSched ", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeal No.361 in Writ Petition No.3132 of 2009, I.C.As. Nos.321, 323 to 329, 331, 332,....decided on 24-12-2009.", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Sajjad H. Rizvi and Ch. Aamer Rehman, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALKHALIL COLD STORAGE\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 82 = 2010 SLD 82 = 2010 PTD 1271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss.218(2), 114(4) & 121-Service of notices and other documents-Issuance of notices through courier-Notices under S.114(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were issued through courier service which remained uncomplied with-Further notices were issued through the same courier service, which were also not responded to-Assessments were framed under 5.121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Assessee contended that no proper service of notices was made upon the taxpayer; that assessee was a leading club of the city and mode of service of notice by using courier service could not be considered as proper services; that law provided that service of notice shall be treated as properly, served on the person, if personally served on the representative of person; that no such effort was made by the Department which opted for the mode of courier service instead of registered post and that assessments framed in the absence of taxpayer could not be given legal credence-Validity-Section 218 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 clearly showed that service through courier service had been provided under the law but this could not be read in isolation-One could not overlook mode provided under S.218(2)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which provided that notice personally served upon the representative of a person shall be treated as proper service-In case, the taxpayer did not appear before the tax authorities in response to the modes of service provided in S.218(a)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the Department ought to have adopted mode of service provided in S.218(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, where procedure for service of notice as provided under Civil Procedure Code, 1908, had been laid down that in case of failure to serve the notices in the prescribed manner, service of notice could be made through affixture-Admittedly, it was not difficult at all to serve the notice on the taxpayer or its authorized representative-No serious effort was made by the Department to approach the taxpayer in order to frame the assessments-Tribunal observed that Department will have to bring stark changes in its mindset and shed lethargic attitude in conducting tax proceedings, especially, in the light of prevalent tax culture in the country, where a taxpayer always feel pride in not paying the tax-Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated, case was set aside and remanded to the Taxation Officer for de novo assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(4),121,218,218(2),218(2)(a),218(2)(a)(b),218(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1129/LB to. 1132/LB of 2008, decision dated: 20-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Appellant. S.A. Masood Raza Qazilbash, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 83 = 2010 SLD 83 = (2010) 102 TAX 44 = 2010 PTD 1275 = 2011 PTCL 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Reference Application (ITRA) Against Tribunal’s Order\nDetails:\nAn Income Tax Reference Application (ITRA) was filed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 21-04-2005 in R.A No. 413-KB/2004. The applicant raised multiple questions of law, including the legality of the transfer of jurisdiction, the reopening of assessments under the Self-Assessment Scheme, and the validity of actions taken by the DCIT and IAC. The applicant also contested issues related to the treatment of Forex Association of Pakistan transactions, the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, and the Tribunal’s treatment of various profits and claims in the assessment.\nThe applicant’s senior counsel argued that:\nThe transfer of jurisdiction from Circle 12 to Circle 5 was illegal and arbitrary.\nThe re-opening of the assessment under section 65 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was unjustified, particularly against the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nThe Court disposed of the ITRA, directing the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to provide a full opportunity of hearing to the applicant before making any additions to the income. The decision was to be made within two months, based on proper legal reasoning and evidence.\nHeld:\nThe Court directed that the A.O. should make decisions based on sound reasoning, evidence, and a full opportunity for the applicant to present their case. The assessment should be completed within two months after receiving the Court’s order.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,22,62,65,136,136(2),133 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.186 of 2006, decision dated: 10-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Applicant. Mohsin Imam for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BOSTAN INTERNATIONAL\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE C, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 84 = 2010 SLD 84 = 2010 PTD 1295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) The Income Tax Ordinance (2001) outlines the calculation and payment of advance tax under various sections (4(6), 147, 161(1B), 205, 231A, 233, 233A & 235). These sections specify the computation formula and criteria for the payment of advance tax.\n(b) A constitutional petition was filed by a consumer against the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) concerning the charging of advance tax on electricity bills. The petitioner argued that paying the tax for the tax year 2009 through other sources should not lead to double taxation for the same year, as it would violate constitutional rights. The High Court ruled that charging advance tax on the same amount for a year already settled by the taxpayer would result in double taxation, which is unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the demand was unlawful and set it aside.\nReferences:\n•\nUnion Bank Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, 1998 PTD 2116\n•\nElahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997 SC 582\n•\nIndus Jute Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, 2009 PTD 1473\n•\nCIT v. Marghalla Textile Mills Ltd., 2008 PTD 1982\n•\nProsperity Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, 2006 PTD 402\nConclusion:\nThe High Court held that demanding advance tax for a tax year where tax has already been paid constitutes double taxation, violating the constitutional principle of economic justice and fundamental rights. The Court ruled the demand unconstitutional and set it aside, reinforcing that advance tax cannot be charged as arrears after the close of the tax year.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=4,4(6),147,161,161(1B),190(3),190,205,231A,233,233A,235,231 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 38 of 2010, decision dated: 18-03-2010, dates or hearing: 1st, 3rd and 4th, February, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS PVT. LTD. through Tax Manager\nVs\nLAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (LESCO) through Chief Executive and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 12 = 2000 SLD 12 = 2000 PTD 1467 = (2000) 82 TAX 33 = (1999) 240 ITR 693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Assessment on Arrears of Salary\nDetails:\nThis case concerns the interpretation of Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the assessment of salary received in arrears by the assessee, Arjun Singh Ahluwalia, from Kalyanmal Mills Ltd. The assessee had entered into an agreement with the mills in 1946, but disputes led to a final decree in 1965, resulting in payments to the assessee in 1965-66 and 1966-67. These payments were treated as salary by the Income Tax Authorities and were brought to tax for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68.\nThe key question was whether these payments, which were not charged to tax in 1946-47 and 1947-48, could be assessed in the years they were paid (1966-67 and 1967-68), or whether they should have been assessed in the earlier years.\nThe Income Tax Tribunal initially held that these payments were to be taxed as salary under Section 15, but the dispute hinged on whether they should be considered arrears of salary under clause (c) of Section 15, which would apply to payments that were not taxed in earlier years.\nThe assessee argued that these payments should be taxed under clause (a) as salary due in earlier years, while the Revenue contended that clause (c) applied, as the payments had not been taxed in the earlier years.\nThe High Court, following the reasoning of the third learned judge (the Chief Justice), concluded that clause (c) of Section 15 applied, and the payments were arrears of salary, which could be taxed in the years they were paid.\nHeld:\nThe first question was answered in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the payments were to be taxed as arrears of salary under clause (c) of Section 15. No answer was needed for the second question.\nThe appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed, and the appeals by the Revenue concerning the second question were disposed of without consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=15 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1206, 1207 with 1508 and 1509 of 1982, decision dated: 26-10-1999. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated 25-04-1980 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M. C. C. No. 146 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND V. N. KHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar and K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocates. S. Wasim A. Qadri, S. K. Dwivedi, Anil K. Sharma, S. K. Gambhir, Vivek Gambhir and M. M. Kashyap, Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSARDAR ARJUN SINGH AHLUWALIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 85 = 2010 SLD 85 = (2010) 102 TAX 137 = 2010 PTD 1373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRw", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Penalty for Late Filing of Tax Return\nDetails:\nThis appeal arises from the order dated 21-12-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIR(A)] Islamabad for the tax year 2008. The Department challenged the deletion of a penalty imposed under Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, by the Taxation Officer for late filing of the assessee-company's tax return.\nThe assessee filed its return for the tax year 2008 on 29-1-2009, which was late by 29 days, as the due date was 31-12-2008. The Taxation Officer issued a show-cause notice and imposed a penalty of Rs.33,180 for the late filing of the return. The assessee’s explanation, filed on 30-3-2009, was rejected by the Taxation Officer, and the penalty was upheld. The assessee then appealed to the CIR(A), who deleted the penalty, concluding that the delay was not wilful and, therefore, the penalty was not justified.\nThe Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal, arguing that the penalty should have been upheld since the assessee failed to file the required statements on time. The Department also contended that the CIR(A) had no sufficient reason to delete the penalty.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal upheld the order of the CIR(A), agreeing that the delay in filing the return was not wilful. The assessee had filed the return within the extended time requested, and the Taxation Officer had failed to adequately consider this fact. The Tribunal emphasized that the imposition of penalties was not legally justified, particularly in the absence of additional tax demand or wilful default by the taxpayer.\nMoreover, the Tribunal noted that the Taxation Officer’s calculation of the penalty was incorrect and inconsistent with the show-cause notice, which specified a minimum penalty for 14 days of delay rather than the 29 days stated in the penalty order. The Tribunal dismissed the Department’s appeal, affirming that the penalty imposition was not warranted under the circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 234/IB of 2010, decision dated: 30-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ayesha Khalid for Appellant. \nNasir Absar for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 86 = 2010 SLD 86 = (2010) 102 TAX 196 = 2010 PTD 1394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSA", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Penalty for Late Filing of Tax Return\nDetails:\nThis appeal arises from the order dated 15-1-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIR(A)] Islamabad for the tax year 2008. The Department challenged the deletion of a penalty imposed under Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for the late filing of the assessee-company’s tax return.\nThe assessee, a private limited company engaged in road construction, filed its return for the tax year 2008 late by 16 days. The return included an amount of Rs.63,924,144 that had already been withheld at source. The Taxation Officer, invoking Section 182(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, imposed a penalty of Rs.1,022,786 based on the formula of one-tenth of one percent of the tax payable for each day of delay.\nDissatisfied with the penalty, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIR(A), who deleted the penalty. The CIR(A) reasoned that the company had already discharged its tax liability through tax withheld at source and no additional tax was payable. Additionally, the CIR(A) noted that the taxpayer was not informed about the refusal of the extension until 27th January, by which time 12 days had already passed.\nThe Department appealed, arguing that the CIR(A) erred in deleting the penalty, as the return was filed late by 16 days, and the penalty was legally justified.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal upheld the CIR(A)’s decision, agreeing that no tax was payable by the taxpayer due to the tax already withheld at source. The Tribunal referred to Section 182(1), noting that the imposition of penalties under this section is contingent on tax payable, and since no tax was due, the penalty could not be imposed. The Tribunal also referenced the principle of casus omissus, stating that it is not the court’s role to fill in omissions in legislation. The Tribunal found no error in the CIR(A)’s order and dismissed the Department's appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,115,115(4),153,182,182(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 327/IB of 2010, decision dated: 16-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Ali Khawaja, D.R. for Appellant. \nAsad Azam, FCA for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1 = 2001 SLD 1 = 2001 PTD 26 = (1999) 238 ITR 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRQ", + "Key Words:": "Challenge to Release of Seized Property under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, the Income Tax Department, sought to quash the order dated September 30, 1997, passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 289 of 1997. The order affirmed the Magistrate’s decision on May 20, 1997, to release seized materials in favor of the accused (opposite-party No. 1) in connection with a case under the Bihar Money Lenders’ Act.\nOn April 6, 1997, the police seized substantial assets, including cash and ornaments, from opposite-party No. 1’s premises in connection with alleged violations of the Bihar Money Lenders’ Act. The accused filed a petition for the release of the seized materials, which was granted by the Magistrate. On June 10, 1997, the Income Tax Officer approached the Magistrate, invoking Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to have the assets handed over, asserting that they were unassessed assets under the Income Tax Act. However, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to obtain a stay order before proceeding.\nThe petitioner filed a revision application, which was eventually dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on September 30, 1997.\nHeld:\nThe Court dismissed the petitioner’s application, concluding that the power under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act must be exercised immediately after the seizure of the property by making a requisition to the police. Since no requisition was sent to the police at the time of the seizure, and the Income Tax Officer only invoked Section 132A after the Magistrate had issued the release order, the Court found that the power under Section 132A was not properly exercised. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 226(4) of the Income Tax Act, which allows the Assessing Officer to apply to the Court for the release of money, was not applicable in this case, as there was no tax due.\nThe Court noted that there was an efficacious remedy available under the Income Tax Act, and since the authorities had initiated penalty proceedings against the opposite-party, the petitioner had other avenues to recover the unassessed wealth. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the lower courts and dismissed the petition.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=132A(1)(C),226(4) ", + "Case #": "No. 20818 of 1997, decision dated: 17-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "NARAYAN ROY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.N. Rastogi, Senior Advocate and S.K. Saran for Petitioner. Janki Nandan Prasad for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "JANARDAN DAS\nVs\nBINDESHWARI PRASAD SAH and another." + }, + { + "Case No.": "207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 2 = 2001 SLD 2 = 2001 PTD 31 = (1999) 238 ITR 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRg", + "Key Words:": "This case revolves around reassessment proceedings for capital gains under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The key points discussed are:\n________________________________________\n1.\nCapital Gains and Valuation Report:\no\nThe assessee had disclosed capital gains in the original return of income, and the Assessing Officer had accepted these figures.\no\nSubsequently, a report from the Valuation Officer suggested that the fair market value of the property was higher than what was disclosed by the assessee.\no\nHowever, no evidence was found of an understatement of the consideration for the transfer of property by the assessee.\n________________________________________\n2.\nReassessment Proceedings:\no\nThe Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on the Valuation Officer's report.\no\nThe reassessment was challenged on the ground that a valuation report is merely an opinion and does not prove that there was any underhand dealing or that more consideration had passed than what was disclosed by the assessee.\n________________________________________\n3.\nLegal Interpretation:\no\nIt was held that no additional tax can be levied on the basis of a mere valuation report unless there is concrete evidence of an understatement of consideration.\no\nThe reassessment proceedings based solely on the report of the Valuation Officer, without any evidence of underreporting, were deemed invalid.\no\nThe court emphasized that the Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act if there is no evidence of the assessee’s understatement of capital gains.\n________________________________________\n4.\nRelevant Precedents:\no\nThe judgment referred to several cases to support the ruling, including:\n\nBrooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. v. CIT (1996) – where the court noted that reassessment cannot be based solely on a valuation report without evidence of underreporting.\n\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) – reaffirming the need for concrete evidence of underreporting.\n\nRattan Gupta v. Union of India (1998) and other precedents on the same lines.\n________________________________________\nConclusion: The court ruled that the reassessment proceedings based on the mere valuation report were invalid, as there was no evidence showing that the assessee had understated the consideration for the property transfer. The Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 148 based solely on the report of the Valuation Officer.\nThis case reaffirms the principle that tax cannot be imposed on capital gains beyond what is disclosed unless there is clear evidence of underreporting.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1603 of 1995, decision dated: 17-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debiprosad pal and Miss Manisha Seal for Petitioner. Prodosh Kumar Mallick and P.K. Bhowmick for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nVs.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 3 = 2001 SLD 3 = 2001 PTD 38 = (1999) 238 ITR 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSw", + "Key Words:": "This case revolves around the application of Section 164 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the taxation of income received by a trustee on behalf of beneficiaries.\n________________________________________\n1.\nSection 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:\no\nSection 164 applies to situations where income is received by a trustee or representative assessee, and the income is held for the benefit of the beneficiaries.\no\nThe section mandates the application of the maximum marginal rate of tax if the shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate or unknown.\no\nIt is essential that the beneficiaries’ shares be unclear or unknown for the provision to apply; the discretion of the trustees regarding the timing and extent of income disbursal does not affect this.\n________________________________________\n2.\nCondition for Maximum Marginal Rate:\no\nThe section is not triggered if the trustee receives the income solely for the benefit of a known beneficiary, with no discretion to apply the income for anyone else’s benefit.\no\nThe discretion that trustees have in deciding the timing and amount of income disbursal does not matter if the obligation to apply the income solely for the beneficiary's benefit is clear.\n________________________________________\n3.\nInterpretation of Section 164:\no\nThe court emphasized that the obligation to apply the income for the benefit of the beneficiary is the key factor, not the trustees’ discretion over disbursement.\no\nSection 164 is meant to discourage uncertainty in the distribution of income; however, where there is a clear obligation to benefit the sole beneficiary, the maximum marginal rate does not apply.\no\nA plain reading of Section 164 indicates that the conditions for it to apply are not met when trustees do not have discretion in choosing beneficiaries and are bound by the trust deed.\n________________________________________\n4.\nRuling Based on Trust Deed:\no\nIn this case, the trust deed explicitly stated that all assets were held solely for the benefit of a single beneficiary, with no provision for any other beneficiary or third-party benefit.\no\nThe trustees had no discretion regarding the selection of the beneficiary and could only use the assets for the sole beneficiary’s benefit.\no\nThe discretion available to the trustees in terms of when and how much income to distribute to the beneficiary was not material to the application of Section 164.\n________________________________________\n5.\nPrecedent Cases Referenced:\no\nThe court referred to previous decisions, including CIT v. Hemant Bhagubhai Mafatlal (1982), CIT v. T. G. K. Raman (1995), and Gosar Family Trust v. CIT (1995), which upheld similar interpretations of Section 164 and the tax treatment of income received by trustees for specific beneficiaries.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe court held that since the trust deed specified a sole beneficiary and no discretion existed regarding the selection of the beneficiary, the income received by the trustee was not subject to the maximum marginal rate of tax under Section 164.\n•\nThe application of Section 164 was therefore not valid in this case, and the trust was taxed at the normal rate.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=164,164(1) ", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos. 784 of 1986 and 455 of 1987 (References Nos. 489 and 235 of 1987), decision dated: 10-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN and Y.R. MEENA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. \nP.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSAROJA RAMAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 4 = 2001 SLD 4 = 2001 PTD 43 = (1999) 238 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTA", + "Key Words:": "This case discusses the income tax treatment of lottery agents, focusing on the income derived from lottery tickets and the requirement of tax deduction at source under Section 194B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n________________________________________\n1.\nDefinition of Lottery and Agent's Income:\no\nThe term lottery is defined under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically under sub-clause (ix) that includes winnings from lotteries as taxable income.\no\nTo be considered a lottery, three things must concur: (1) a prize or prizes, (2) the distribution of prizes by chance, and (3) participants paying consideration for the right to participate.\no\nAn agent or trader of lottery tickets does not participate in the draw and thus cannot win a prize. Instead, the agent earns income from selling the tickets, which is considered business income under Section 28, not lottery winnings.\no\nIncome from unsold or unclaimed prize-winning tickets held by the agent is regarded as business income, not winnings from a lottery. Therefore, it is not covered under Section 2(24)(ix).\n________________________________________\n2.\nTax Deduction at Source under Section 194B:\no\nSection 194B requires tax to be deducted at source on winnings from lotteries, but this applies only when actual payment is made to the winner.\no\nThe person responsible for making the payment of lottery winnings must deduct tax at source when the payment is made, not when the winnings are credited or allocated.\no\nSince no actual payment is made to the agent regarding the unsold or unclaimed tickets, the agent is not required to deduct tax under Section 194B.\n________________________________________\n3.\nConclusion on Tax Liability:\no\nIn this case, since the agent does not receive payment for the unclaimed prizes from the unsold lottery tickets, the agent is not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194B.\no\nThe income derived by the agent from the sale of lottery tickets is treated as business income, assessable under Section 28, and does not fall under the category of lottery winnings.\n________________________________________\n4.\nReference to Precedent Cases:\no\nThe case Commercial Corporation of India Ltd. v. ITO (1993) and others were cited, where similar issues of tax treatment for lottery agents were discussed, confirming the stance that income from unsold tickets is business income and not subject to the provisions of Section 194B.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe petitioner, as a lottery agent, is not liable to deduct tax at source for unsold or unclaimed prize-winning tickets, and the income from such tickets is classified as business income, not lottery winnings.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rules Nos. 405 and 2786 of 1994, decision dated: 12-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SMT. M. SHARMA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. B.P. Todi, Government Advocate for Petitioner. R. P. Agarwalla and B.J. Talukdar for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Dr. A.K. Saraf, P. Upadhaya, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwal for Respondents Nos.4 and 5.", + "Party Name:": "DIRECTOR OF STATE LOTTERIES\nVs.\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 5 = 2001 SLD 5 = 2001 PTD 55 = (1999) 238 ITR 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQw", + "Key Words:": "This case pertains to the issue of regular assessment and block assessment following a search and seizure under Chapter XIVB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It highlights the requirement that block assessment must precede regular assessment, and discusses the process for assessing undisclosed income in both regular and block assessments.\n________________________________________\n1.\nBlock Assessment vs. Regular Assessment:\no\nChapter XIVB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, governs the block assessment process. When a search and seizure occur, the total income for the past ten years is computed under this chapter, irrespective of whether a notice has been served under section 148.\no\nIn block assessment, the Assessing Officer considers materials obtained from search and seizure, as well as other materials like returns already filed by the assessee. After determining the block period income, income previously assessed or returned is deducted, and any undisclosed income is taxed at 60% under section 113.\n________________________________________\n2.\nSection 158BA and Block Assessment:\no\nSection 158BA is a non-obstante provision that mandates the assessment of undisclosed income under the new Chapter XIVB, overriding other provisions in the Income Tax Act. It specifies that the tax on undisclosed income is charged at a flat rate of 60% under section 113.\no\nThe section clarifies that the regular assessment and block assessment operate in different fields. The regular assessment is based on the return filed under section 139, and the block assessment is determined by the second total income computed under section 158BB.\n________________________________________\n3.\nInteraction Between Block and Regular Assessments:\no\nThe second total income computed under section 158BB must be used for the regular assessment under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer cannot use different computations for the same assessment year in the block and regular assessments.\no\nThe Explanation to section 158BA emphasizes a strict division between undisclosed and disclosed income to avoid double taxation. The tax for block periods cannot be credited in the regular assessment.\n________________________________________\n4.\nPrecedence of Block Assessment:\no\nIt is crucial that the block assessment precedes the regular assessment. The regular assessment for an assessment year must be based on the return filed under section 139, with any adjustments for arithmetical errors made during the block assessment.\no\nIf the block assessment is not made before the regular assessment, the regular assessment would be incomplete and could lead to legal issues.\n________________________________________\n5.\nOutcome in This Case:\no\nThe regular assessment made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1995-96 was set aside. The appeal filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous because the Assessing Officer had made the regular assessment based on the return filed by the assessee without considering the block assessment.\no\nThe Assessing Officer was directed to complete the regular assessment after the finalization of the block assessment within six months.\n________________________________________\n6.\nObiter Dicta on Penalties:\no\nThe court noted that if the block assessment is made first, the regular assessment would not find excess income compared to the return filed by the assessee, and thus no penalty under section 271 would be levied.\no\nThe introduction of section 158BFA, dealing with penalty and interest for block return flaws, does not change the situation significantly. The block return, once assessed under Chapter XIVB, limits the assessee’s liability to 60% of the undisclosed income, and penalties under section 271 do not apply in this case.\n________________________________________\n7.\nReference to Previous Cases:\no\nThe court referred to various cases, including John N.T v. CIT (1997) and New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Raval (ICU.), ITO (1959), which dealt with similar issues related to block assessments, regular assessments, and penalties.\n________________________________________\nConclusion:\n•\nThe regular assessment must follow the block assessment, and penalties under section 271 are not applicable if the block assessment is finalized before the regular assessment. The Assessing Officer is required to complete the regular assessment based on the return filed under section 139, after finalizing the block assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 443 of 1998, decision dated: 23rd February, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "AJOY NATH RAY, Justice", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.N. Bajoria for Petitioner. AND Mullick and Shome for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "SHAW WALLACE & CO. LTD.\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 6 = 2001 SLD 6 = 2001 PTD 77 = (1999) 238 ITR 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURA", + "Key Words:": "The assessee, a registered firm, sought to set off unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years. The Tribunal, relying on decisions from the Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts, ruled against the claim. However, after the Tribunal's decision, the Madras High Court in CIT v. Nagapatinam Import and Export Corporation (1979) held that such a set-off was permissible. The assessee filed a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to amend the Tribunal's order.\n________________________________________\nHeld:\n•\nThe Tribunal’s decision was based on debatable issues and there was no jurisdictional High Court ruling at that time. The subsequent Madras High Court judgment could not be treated as a mistake that required rectification, as the law had not been settled at the time of the Tribunal's order.\n•\nRectification under section 254(2) is only applicable if there is a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal did not commit a mistake as the judgment of the Madras High Court came after its decision.\n•\nTherefore, the rectification application was not maintainable.\n________________________________________\nKey References:\n•\nKuppuraj (MK) v. ITO (1995) 211 ITR 853 (Mad.) overruled.\n•\nCIT v. Nagapatinam Import and Export Corporation (1979) 119 ITR 444 (Mad.).\n•\nCIT v. Garden Silk Weaving Factory (1975) 101 ITR 658 (Guj.).\n•\nK.T. Wire Products v. Union of India (1973) 92 ITR 459 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations, 1993=254(2) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 934 of 1983 (Reference No. 490 of 1983), decision dated: 18-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "J. KANAKARAJ AND K. NATARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar for the Assessee. AND C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "SREE PALANIAPPA TRANSPORTS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 7 = 2001 SLD 7 = 2001 PTD 81 = (1999) 238 ITR 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQQ", + "Key Words:": "In the assessment year 1971-72, relevant to the accounting year ending June 30, 1970, the assessee claimed a deduction for a reserve created for a deficit stock amounting to Rs. 1,87,544, which represented the estimated value of damaged stock. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction because the value of the goods had not been written off in the books of account. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the loss of stock had not been sufficiently proved and the assessee could claim a deduction only after the departmental enquiry under the Cooperative Societies Act settled the issue of how the loss occurred and whether anything could be recouped.\n________________________________________\nHeld:\n•\nThe legal position is that a deduction for a reserve created for deficiency in stock is only permissible if it is shown that there was a loss in the year of account and the reserve was created for that loss.\n•\nIf the deficiency had been written off in the year of account, it would be considered a loss of stock, and the reserve created for that purpose would be allowed as a deduction to the extent of the deficiency written off.\n•\nSince the reserve was not written off and the loss was not sufficiently proven, the deduction was not allowable.\n________________________________________\nKey References:\n•\nNorth Arcot District Cooperative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 623 (Mad.).\n•\nGoenka (R.N.) v. CWT (1989) 176 ITR 129 (Mad.).\n•\nUnion of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 178 ITR 548 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.455 of 1980 (Reference No.224 of 1980), decision dated: 13-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.S. Sivaraman for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NORTH ARCOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 8 = 2001 SLD 8 = 2001 PTD 84 = (1999) 238 ITR 630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax — Deduction of Tax at Source — Cooperative Society — Exemption from Liability to Deduct Tax at Source:\nSection 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mandates the deduction of tax at source on income by way of interest (other than interest on securities) paid or credited to a person. However, subsection (3) of section 194A provides exemptions to certain categories of persons, including cooperative societies engaged in the business of insurance.\nThe issue arose regarding the applicability of the exemption to cooperative societies. The court held that cooperative societies, as defined under section 2(19) of the Income-tax Act, are exempt from the liability to deduct tax at source under section 194A. The exemption should be interpreted liberally to include cooperative societies, and it is not necessary to apply definitions from other Acts like the Banking Regulation Act, which might require further investigation into eligibility.\nThus, cooperative societies are exempt from the obligation to deduct tax at source on interest payments.\n________________________________________\nHeld:\n•\nCooperative societies are exempted from the requirement to deduct tax at source under section 194A of the Income-tax Act, based on the liberal interpretation of the term cooperative society as per section 2(19) of the Income-tax Act.\n________________________________________\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes — Provision for Exemption — Liberal Interpretation:\nThe court emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of exemption provisions, especially when the terms are not explicitly defined or are ambiguous. The interpretation should favor the taxpayer in cases where multiple legal definitions or provisions could apply.\nKey case law referenced:\n•\nAlikunju (P.), M.A. Nazeer Cashew Industries v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 804 (Ker.)\n•\nBroach Dist. Cooperative Cotton Sales, Ginning and Pressing Society Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 418 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. Nos. 12927, 14931, 15432, 16389 and 17082 of 1997, decision dated: 10-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "P. SHANMUGAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raveendranatha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioners.", + "Party Name:": "In re MOOLAMATTOM ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 9 = 2001 SLD 9 = 2001 PTD 89 = (1999) 238 ITR 483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURw", + "Key Words:": "Standard Deduction – Personal Use of Employer-Provided Car\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a whole-time executive director of Brakes India Ltd., was provided with a company car, which he was permitted to use for personal purposes upon payment of Rs. 100 per month to the employer. For the assessment year 1977–78, the assessee claimed the full standard deduction under Section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer reduced the deduction to Rs. 1,000, holding that the car was not used wholly and exclusively for official duties. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed this view. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim for the full deduction, reasoning that since reimbursement was made by the assessee for personal use, the vehicle should be treated as used wholly and exclusively for official purposes.\nHeld:\nThe Madras High Court held in favor of the Revenue, ruling that since the vehicle was admittedly used for both official and personal purposes (even though personal use was reimbursed), it could not be said to be used wholly and exclusively for official duties. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim the full standard deduction. The Tribunal's reasoning was rejected as unsustainable.\nCitations:\nCIT v. P. Gency (1986) 162 ITR 434 (Bom.) – Distinguished\nCIT v. A.R. Adaikappa Chettiar (1973) 91 ITR 90 – Distinguished", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=16(i), Proviso Clause (ii) Income Tax Rules, 1962=3(c)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No: 1659 of 1984 (Reference No. 1184 of 1984), decision dated: 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. \nS.A. Balasubramaniam for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nS. VIJI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 10 = 2001 SLD 10 = 2001 PTD 92 = (1999) 238 ITR 931", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSA", + "Key Words:": "Section 143(1)(a), Section 154, and Section 115J Adjustments – Jurisdictional Overreach by Assessing Officer\nDetails:\nThe Revenue filed petitions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking reference of questions arising from the Tribunal’s order, which invalidated adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(1)(a) while computing book profits under Section 115J for assessment years 1988–1990. The AO had excluded unabsorbed depreciation in computing business loss, increasing the assessee’s tax liability. The assessee challenged this via a rectification application under Section 154, which was rejected. The Tribunal held that the adjustment involved a debatable issue and hence could not be made under Section 143(1)(a). The Revenue contended that since the CBDT Circular No. 495 (1987) clarified the treatment of depreciation, the issue was not debatable.\nHeld:\nThe Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Revenue’s petitions. It held that:\nAdjustments under Section 143(1)(a) can only be made when the issue is not debatable.\nAt the relevant time, the legal position regarding depreciation treatment under Section 115J was unsettled.\nThe AO exceeded jurisdiction under Section 143(1)(a) by making unilateral adjustments on a controversial issue.\nThis error in law was apparent and could be rectified under Section 154.\nThe Tribunal’s decision not to refer the matter was correct, and no question of law requiring reference arose.\nThe Court also rejected the belated argument by the Revenue that the Tribunal overstepped its appellate jurisdiction by adjudicating on the validity of adjustments under Section 143(1)(a), as the issue had not been raised in the petition under Section 256(2).\nCitations:\nV.V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 508 (AP) – Distinguished as it was decided after the disputed intimation", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=143(1)(a),154,256(2),115J ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. Nos. 94, 11.6, 122, 128 and 134 of 1998, decision dated: 26-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND A. HANUMANTHU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. S.Ravi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nORBIT TRAVEL AND TOURS (PVT.) LTD. and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 11 = 2001 SLD 11 = 2001 PTD 97 = (1999) 238 ITR 945", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURQ", + "Key Words:": "Residential Status under Section 6(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act – Maintenance of Dwelling Place by HUF\nDetails:\nThis reference under Section 256(1) and 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to determining the residential status of the assessee for the assessment year 1980–81. The key issue was whether the assessee, who spent only 75 days in India during the relevant previous year and whose family resided in an ancestral house owned by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) at Ottapalam, could be deemed a resident under Section 6(1)(b). The Revenue contended that the dwelling place was maintained for the assessee through the HUF and should qualify under the residential condition of the Act.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the assessee was not a resident for the relevant assessment year. It ruled that:\nUnder Section 6(1)(b), both the following conditions must be fulfilled:\nThe assessee must stay in India for 30 days or more (fulfilled).\nThe assessee must maintain or cause to be maintained a dwelling place in India for 182 days or more (not fulfilled).\nMerely having a share in an HUF property where family resides is not sufficient to show that the dwelling place was maintained for or by the assessee.\nThe principle laid down in CIT v. K.S. Ratnaswamy (1980) 122 ITR 217 (SC) was applied. That decision clarified that a house maintained by the HUF for the family’s collective benefit does not amount to a dwelling place being maintained by or for an individual member unless it is done at the instance or for the specific benefit of that member.\nSince the essential second condition under Section 6(1)(b) was not met, the assessee could not be treated as a resident in India.\nCitations:\nCIT v. K.S. Ratnaswamy (1980) 122 ITR 217 (SC)\nRamjibhai Hansjibhai Patel v. ITO (1964) 53 ITR 547 (Guj.) – Distinguished and not followed\nOutcome:\nQuestion No. 1: Answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.\nQuestions Nos. 2 to 4: Not answered, being rendered academic by the decision on Question No. 1.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=6(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. Nos.68 of 1994 and 55 of 1996, decision dated: 31st July, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. K.M.V. Pandalai for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nP. GANGADHARAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 12 = 2001 SLD 12 = 2001 PTD 101 = (1999) 238 ITR 939", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURg", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Interest Deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a partnership firm engaged in construction, claimed deduction of interest on borrowed capital for Assessment Years (AY) 1978-79 and 1979-80. The interest amounts were ₹1,58,354 and ₹2,26,180 respectively. However, during the relevant periods, the firm had advanced substantial interest-free loans to close relatives of the partners. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a portion of the claimed interest—₹13,122 for AY 1978-79 and ₹37,146 for AY 1979-80—on the ground that borrowed funds had been diverted for non-business purposes.\nThe assessee contended that the advances were made from contract realisations and not directly out of borrowed funds. It argued that since the borrowed funds were initially used for business purposes, subsequent utilisation of other funds for personal advances should not affect the deductibility of interest. The Revenue, however, maintained that the funds used for advances included contract realisations, which inherently contained recouped borrowed capital. Therefore, the diversion rendered the associated interest ineligible for deduction.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held in favour of the Revenue. It ruled that under Section 36(1)(iii), capital borrowed must not only be for business purposes at the time of borrowing but must also continue to be used for such purposes. The moment funds are diverted for non-business purposes, even if originally used in the business, interest paid on those diverted funds ceases to qualify as a deductible business expenditure. The Court rejected the assessee’s argument that once borrowed funds are invested in business, subsequent diversions are immaterial. It emphasized that continued use for business is essential for deductibility. The finding of fact by the Tribunal that there was a diversion of funds was supported by evidence and thus binding.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [(1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC)]\nCIT v. Coimbatore-Salem Transport (P) Ltd. [(1966) 61 ITR 480 (Mad)]", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=36(1)(iii) ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 125 and 126 of 1986 (Reference No.55 of 1986), decision dated: 3rd August, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA.BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S Jarthana Raja for the Assessee. \nMrs. Chitra Venkatraman for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "K. SOMASUNDARAM & BROTHERS\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 13 = 2001 SLD 13 = 2001 PTD 108 = (1999) 238 ITR 963", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSw", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Annual Value of Let-Out Properties\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a closely held company, owned two residential properties in Madras—at Adyar and Alwarpet—let out to its subsidiary companies. For the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the properties were valued at Rs.6,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively, based on actual rent received and consistent with Corporation of Madras valuations. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) accepted these values after due enquiry. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT), invoking Section 263, held that the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue due to an apparent increase in market rents in the locality and the unchanged annual value since 1972-73. He directed a reassessment. The Tribunal set aside the CIT’s order, holding there was no error in the ITO’s order warranting revision under Section 263, as the ITO had duly considered the facts and Corporation valuations, and the CIT had no specific material to show under-assessment.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that:\nThe CIT cannot invoke Section 263 based solely on assumptions or general trends without concrete material.\nActual rents received were in line with or above Corporation valuations.\nAbsence of any enquiry by the CIT or error in law by the ITO negated the basis for revision.\nThe letting out to sister concerns alone does not warrant suspicion of undervaluation. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s cancellation of the CIT’s order under Section 263 was justified.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=23(1),263 ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1655 and 1656 of 1986 (References Nos. 1125 and 1126 of 1986), decision dated: 22-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA.BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janardhan Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nAMALGAMATIONS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 14 = 2001 SLD 14 = 2001 PTD 113 = (1999) 238 ITR 978", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTA", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Interest – Income-tax Act – Principles of Natural Justice\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, a licensee of an arrack blending and bottling unit and an income-tax assessee, had filed returns for AYs 1984-85 and 1985-86 pursuant to a settlement with the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Madras, post an IT raid. Despite settling and paying tax based on the agreed estimated income, the Income Tax Officer levied interest under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner filed waiver applications under rules 40(5) and 117A of the Income-tax Rules, claiming the interest should be waived due to the nature of the settlement and under the amnesty scheme.\nThe partial waivers granted were challenged under section 264 of the Act. The Commissioner rejected the petitions, stating no further jurisdiction for waiver existed. The petitioner argued the absence of proper notice before interest levy and cited M.G. Brothers v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 695 (AP), which emphasized the requirement of giving the assessee an opportunity before charging interest.\nHeld:\nThe High Court found that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause before levying interest, violating principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it quashed the impugned order only to the extent of the waiver of interest, and remanded the matter back to the respondent to reconsider the waiver petition after giving the petitioner a proper hearing. The respondent was directed to dispose of the waiver petitions within three months.\nCitations:\nM.G. Brothers v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 695 (AP)\nSmt. Harbans Kaur v. CWT (1997) 224 ITR 418 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139(8),215,264 Income Tax Rules, 1962=40(5),117A(v) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 13559 and 13560 of 1988 and W.M.P. Nos.20314 and 20315 of 1988, decision dated: 30-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Subbaraya Aiyer for Petitioner. C.V. Rajan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "V. RAMANUJAM\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 15 = 2001 SLD 15 = 2001 PTD 118 = (1999) 238 ITR 968", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQw", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Appeal Against Levy of Interest – Section 139(8) – Appellate Jurisdiction of CIT(A)\nDetails:\nTwo references were made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar II, Ranchi, concerning the competence of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to cancel interest charged under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged only the levy of interest in appeal, not the entire assessment order. The Revenue argued that such an appeal was not maintainable unless the assessment order itself was also challenged. The assessee contended that an isolated appeal against interest was maintainable, especially when the ground taken was non-liability to interest.\nThe court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961, which held that:\nAn appeal lies against a levy of interest only if the assessee disputes the liability to the interest itself, not merely seeking waiver or reduction.\nIssues concerning waiver or reduction of interest must be addressed through revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 or via application to the Income-tax Officer under the relevant Rules (e.g., Rule 117A).\nHeld:\nAppeal against interest levied under section 139(8) is maintainable only when the assessee disputes liability to pay interest at all. If the grievance relates only to the waiver or reduction of interest (and not its applicability), the remedy lies in making an application to the assessing authority or approaching the Commissioner under revisional jurisdiction, not via an appeal. Accordingly, the CIT(A) was not competent to cancel interest under section 139(8) merely based on Rule 117A without such jurisdiction being properly invoked.\nCitations:\nCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC)\nNational Products v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 935 (Kar.)\nBhikhoobhai N. Shah v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 197 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139(8),215,246,264 Income Tax Rules, 1962=117A ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 76 and 77 of 1985, decision dated: 28-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "B. M. LAL, C.J. AND S. K.SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. K.N. Jain, Senior Advocate and Vikash Jain for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nHINDUSTAN MALLEABLE AND FORGINGS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 16 = 2001 SLD 16 = 2001 PTD 121 = (1999) 238 ITR 505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRA", + "Key Words:": "Power of Tribunal to Rectify Order under Section 254(2) – Effect of Subsequent Supreme Court Rulings\nDetails:\nThe assessee filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of an earlier order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (dated July 5, 1979) in respect of the assessment year 1972–73. The dispute arose over disallowance of a deduction claimed for expenditure incurred in Ceylon, which the Tribunal had earlier upheld relying on Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (1976) 102 ITR 287 and R.K. Malhotra v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai (1977) 109 ITR 537.\nSubsequently, the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996, held that the audit party's opinion on law could not be a valid basis for reopening assessments under section 147(b). On this basis, the assessee sought rectification, but the Tribunal rejected the application stating that the law applied at the time of the original order was binding then, and there was no “mistake apparent from the record.”\nThe High Court clarified that:\nThe Tribunal erred in stating that the later Supreme Court decision could not override an earlier decision. As per Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding and applies retrospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.\nHowever, rectification under section 254(2) is a discretionary power, not a right. It must be exercised in accordance with principles of justice and only where a mistake apparent from the record exists.\nIn this case, allowing rectification would have led to a result contrary to section 57(iii), which prohibits deductions not incurred wholly and exclusively for earning the income. Since the deduction was impermissible under the substantive law, the Tribunal rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting the rectification.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 254(2);\nThe Tribunal erred in holding that the later decision of the Supreme Court could not be followed due to an earlier decision, but the error was immaterial as discretion was rightly exercised;\nThe Tribunal was right in holding that allowing rectification would lead to tax escapement, and the application could be declined to preserve the integrity of the assessment process.\nCitations:\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC)\nKalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC)\nR.K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai (1977) 109 ITR 537 (SC)\nParshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. D.R. Trivedi, WTO (1975) 100 ITR 651 (Guj.)\nSree Palaniappa Transports v. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 492 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=57(iii),147(b),254(2) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1302 of 1985 (Reference No.808 of 1985), decision dated: 24-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. JAYASIMHA BABU AND N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. Srinivasan for the Assessee. \nC.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "Dr. RAJAH SIR M.A. MUTHIAH CHETTIAR Legal Heir\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 17 = 2001 SLD 17 = 2001 PTD 127 = (1999) 238 ITR 987", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQQ", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Government Subsidy – Capital vs. Revenue Receipt\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a Kerala Government undertaking involved in meat and meat product manufacturing, received ₹5 lakhs from the Government of Kerala (Animal Husbandry Department) via a government order dated April 30, 1981. The Assessing Officer treated the subsidy as a revenue receipt liable to tax. However, the CIT (Appeals) reversed this, holding the subsidy to be a capital receipt, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s view.\nThe Revenue sought a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raising the following question:\n Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsidy given by the Government of Kerala is a capital receipt not liable to tax? \nThe High Court observed that the ITAT failed to record a clear finding on the purpose of the subsidy – whether it was intended for setting up or completing a project (which would make it a capital receipt), or to support ongoing business operations post commencement of production (which would make it a revenue receipt). The Court relied on the principle laid down in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC), which held that the purpose test is determinative of whether a subsidy is capital or revenue in nature.\nSince there was ambiguity in the factual findings regarding the purpose of the subsidy under the government order, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to record a specific finding on this issue and decide the appeal afresh.\nHeld:\nThe question was returned unanswered. The matter was remanded to the ITAT to determine the purpose of the subsidy based on the test laid down in Sahney Steel (1997), and then decide the appeal afresh.\nCitations:\nSahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 86 of 1996, decision dated: 31st July, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P. Balachandran for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nMEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 18 = 2001 SLD 18 = 2001 PTD 129 = (1999) 238 ITR 1003", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQg", + "Key Words:": "Section 69D – Applicability to Borrowings on Documents Written on Hundi Paper\nDetails:\nFor assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the assessee had borrowed and repaid sums allegedly on Hundis, but not through account-payee cheques. The Income-tax Officer invoked section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which relates to borrowings and repayments on Hundis, and added ₹24,140 (AY 1978-79) and ₹12,750 (AY 1979-80) to the income of the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) upheld these additions.\nThe assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which held, based on precedent (ITO v. M.K.A. Chinnaswamy Nadar Sons, ITA No. 1039/Mds/1981), that the documents were not Hundis. Although written on Hundi paper and prepared as if they were Hundis, the documents were in English and lacked essential elements of a Hundi (e.g., conditional payment, customary form, or negotiability features). The Tribunal therefore concluded that section 69D did not apply.\nThe High Court referred to CIT v. Paranjothi Salt Co. (1995) 211 ITR 141 (Mad), which emphasized that form alone is not decisive; the content and characteristics of the document determine whether it qualifies as a Hundi. Since the ITAT had recorded a factual finding that the documents did not possess the essential attributes of Hundis, the Court held that section 69D was not attracted.\nHeld:\nBoth questions of law were answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The documents, although written on Hundi paper, were not Hundis in law, and therefore, section 69D was not applicable. Additions were rightly deleted by the Tribunal.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Paranjothi Salt Co. (1995) 211 ITR 141 (Mad)\nITO v. M.K.A. Chinnaswamy Nadar Sons, ITA No. 1039/Mds/1981, dated 27.03.1982", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=69D ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.559 and 560 of 1984 (References Nos. 501 and 502 of 1984), decision dated: 3rd November, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner K.C. Rajappa for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nMADURA DEVAKOTTAI TRANSPORTS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 19 = 2001 SLD 19 = 2001 PTD 131 = (1999) 238 ITR 989", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRw", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Processing under Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Validity of CBDT Circulars\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, an assessee under the Income-tax Act, was engaged in the purchase and resale of kendu (bidi) leaves. The leaves purchased often required sorting, elimination of defective types, and special drying to be made saleable. The petitioner previously received exemption certificates under the proviso to Section 206C, which exempts tax collection at source (TCS) on forest produce undergoing processing . However, upon reapplication for such a certificate for the year 1996-97, the assessing officer rejected the request relying on CBDT circulars dated January 10 and 17, 1996, which stated that such operations did not amount to processing . The petitioner filed a writ challenging the rejection and the CBDT circulars, contending that the activities did constitute processing , and that circulars contrary to prior interpretations had no binding effect.\nHeld:\nThe Orissa High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the petitioner’s activities—sorting, eliminating substandard leaves, and drying—did not constitute processing as contemplated under the proviso to Section 206C. The Court relied on Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and other precedents to hold that for an activity to be considered processing , it must result in some transformation or change in the commodity. Since the nature of the leaves remained the same, the activities did not amount to processing . Additionally, the Court held that circulars issued by CBDT are not binding where they conflict with judicial interpretations.\nCitations:\nChowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1981) 47 STC 124 (SC)\nBengal Iron Corporation v. CTO AIR 1993 SC 2414; (1993) 90 STC 47\nCIT v. Ashwin Kumar Gordhanbhai Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1995) 212 ITR 614 (Guj.)\nCIT v. London Star Diamond Co. (I.) Ltd. (1995) 213 ITR 517 (Bom.)\nCBDT Circulars dated January 10 and 17, 1996 (Annexure 5 series)", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.J.C. No. 4226 of 1996, decision dated: 26-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SUSANTA CHATTERJI, ACTG., C.J. AND C.R. PAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Lal, M.R. Mishra and S. Lal for Petitioner, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "SAGARMAL AGRAWAL\nVs.\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 20 = 2001 SLD 20 = 2001 PTD 138 = (1999) 238 ITR 1005", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSA", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Interest under Section 139(8) – Validity in Assessment under Section 147(a)\nDetails:\nThe case concerns the assessment year 1984–85, where the assessee filed a return on March 31, 1987, in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 147(a) read with Section 143(3) and levied interest under Section 139(8) for the delay in filing the return. The assessee contested this, arguing that an assessment under Section 147 is not a regular assessment, and hence, interest under Section 139(8) cannot be levied.\nSection 139(8)(a) mandates interest on delayed returns based on tax payable on regular assessment. The key legal issue was whether a first-time assessment under Section 147(a) can be considered a regular assessment for this purpose.\nHeld:\nThe Court ruled in favour of the Revenue. It held that an assessment made for the first time under Section 147(a) read with Section 148 is a regular assessment for the purposes of Section 139(8). This conclusion relied heavily on:\nExplanation 2 to Section 139(8) (inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, w.e.f. April 1, 1985), which clarifies that such an assessment is to be treated as a regular assessment.\nThe Full Bench ruling in Lally Jacob v. ITO (1992) 197 ITR 439 (Ker), which held that Explanation 2 is clarificatory and thus applies retrospectively.\nThe Court distinguished the assessee’s reliance on CIT v. G.B. Transports (1985) 155 ITR 548 (Ker) and Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC), noting that those cases did not deal directly with the question of first-time assessments under Section 147.\nCitations:\nLally Jacob v. ITO (1992) 197 ITR 439 (Ker.)\nCIT v. G.B. Transports (1985) 155 ITR 548 (Ker.)\nModi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139(8),143(3),144,147(a),148 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 63 of 1996, decision dated: 31st July, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner AND P. Balachandran for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nK. GOVINDAN & SONS." + }, + { + "Case No.": "226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 21 = 2001 SLD 21 = 2001 PTD 141 = (1999) 238 ITR 1008", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRQ", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Reassessment Notice Issued to a Deceased Person and Inclusion of Spouse’s Income under Section 64\nDetails:\nThe case involves assessment years 1975–76 to 1980–81, concerning reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the deceased assessee, Vishandas, who had passed away on January 12, 1981. Notices under Section 148 were issued on March 3, 1981, in the name of the deceased and served to Shri C.B. Tahilyani. Returns were filed under protest by the widow, Smt. Kaushalyabai, who also participated in the reassessment proceedings. The assessments were completed under Section 144 read with Section 147. The reassessment was initiated on the grounds that the share income of Smt. Kaushalyabai, arising from an investment of a ₹20,000 gift received from her husband in a firm, was includible in the income of the deceased under Section 64.\nThe legal questions referred were:\nWhether reassessment is valid when notice under Section 148 is issued in the name of a dead person and served on someone not authorized by the legal representatives.\nWhether the share income of the spouse (Smt. Kaushalyabai) can be legally included in the income of the deceased under Section 64.\nHeld:\nQuestion 1 – Validity of Notice to a Deceased Person: The Court held that although the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of a deceased person, the issue had become academic since the legal heir (the widow) had already participated in the proceedings. Referring to Section 292B (which cures procedural defects), the Court found that the defect stood cured and reassessment proceedings were valid.\nHeld in favour of the Revenue.\nQuestion 2 – Inclusion of Spouse’s Income under Section 64: The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the income earned by Smt. Kaushalyabai from the firm, derived from a gift given by her husband, was rightly includible in the income of the assessee under Section 64.\nHeld in favour of the Revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=64,143(2),144,147,148,256(1),292B ", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No. 185 of 1989, decision dated: 17-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner,", + "Party Name:": "Smt. KAUSHALYABAI\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 22 = 2001 SLD 22 = 2001 PTD 720 = (1999) 239 ITR 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRg", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance under Section 40A(3) and Applicability of Section 43B to Interest Payable on Arrears of Tax\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a company engaged in the business of cotton and cotton seed trading, was assessed for the assessment year 1984–85. The Income-tax Officer disallowed two items:\nDisallowance under Section 40A(3): A sum of ₹35,384 paid in cash as market fee to the Market Committee, Sirsa, was disallowed, as the payment exceeded ₹2,500 and was not made by crossed cheque or draft as mandated by Section 40A(3). The assessee claimed that the Market Committee did not accept cheques, and submitted a certificate to this effect. However, the Tribunal dismissed this evidence as an afterthought and upheld the disallowance since the assessee failed to establish any exemption conditions under the Rule.\nDisallowance under Section 43B: The second issue was the allowability of ₹41,666 as interest payable to the Haryana Government on arrears of purchase tax. The Revenue contended that the interest was in the nature of tax and was thus hit by Section 43B, which mandates actual payment for deduction of statutory liabilities. The assessee relied on case law (notably Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. CIT [(1996) 218 ITR 450]) to argue that interest does not constitute tax under the Income Tax Act.\nThe Court distinguished between tax and deemed tax, and held that although the Haryana General Sales Tax Act deems interest as tax for collection purposes under Section 59(2), such a deeming provision cannot transform interest into tax for the purposes of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Reliance was also placed on CIT v. Syndicate Bank [(1986) 159 ITR 464] which held that deeming provisions only facilitate recovery but do not alter the substantive nature of the amount.\nHeld:\nDisallowance under Section 40A(3): Valid. The Tribunal rightly held that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for exemption from Section 40A(3), and the post-facto certificate from the Market Committee was rejected as an afterthought.\nHeld in favour of the Revenue.\nInterest and Section 43B: Interest payable on arrears of purchase tax cannot be treated as tax under Section 43B. The deeming provision in the state sales tax law is not sufficient to equate interest with tax for income tax purposes.\nHeld in favour of the Assessee.\nCitations:\nHindustan Motors Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 450 (Cal)\nCIT v. Syndicate Bank (1986) 159 ITR 464 (Kar)\nSection 59(2), Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=40A(3),43B ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 36 of 1992, decision dated: 4-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA AND DEBI PRASAD SIRCAR I, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramchandra for the Commissioner. J.P. Khaitan for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nPADMAVATI RAJE COTTON MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 23 = 2001 SLD 23 = 2001 PTD 781 = (2001) 83 TAX 489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSw", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of “Prior Approval” under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Pakistan)\nDetails:\nThe assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of spare parts, was subjected to reassessment for assessment years 1982–83 to 1984–85. The reassessment resulted in substantial additions to income under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, due to alleged undisclosed investments in machinery and factory building. The key legal question was whether two separate prior approvals from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) were required under Sections 13(1) and 13(2), or if a single combined approval would suffice.\nThe Tribunal had held that simultaneous approval sufficed, interpreting the statutory requirement flexibly and finding that both purposes—valuation check and evaluation of explanation—were met. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing the use of the word “prior” in both provisions, and the legislative intent behind requiring two distinct approvals. The court reasoned that simultaneous approval did not meet the safeguards intended by law, particularly because it could result in a post-facto endorsement rather than a preventive check.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that two separate prior approvals under Section 13(1) (second proviso) and Section 13(2) were mandatory and sequential. Simultaneous approval does not satisfy the legal requirement, and any assessment made without this procedural compliance is invalid in law.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Muhammad Kassim (2000 PTD 280)\nM/s. B.P. Biscuit Factory Ltd. v. Wealth Tax Officer (1996 SCMR 1470)\nV.N. Rakhani Company v. M.V. Lakatoi Express (PLD 1994 SC 894)\nSri Venkateswara Timber Depot v. Union of India (1991) 189 ITR 741\nAsanyasi Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1989) 178 ITR 31", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(2),136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 107 of 1991, decision dated: 26-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KHURRAM SAGHIR INDUSTRIES, LAHORE\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE A, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 24 = 2001 SLD 24 = 2001 PTD 143 = (1999) 238 ITR 1010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTA", + "Key Words:": "Challenge to Income Tax Recovery Proceedings – Validity of Notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nDetails: The petitioner, a regular income tax assessee since 1971-72, challenged a recovery notice dated February 17, 1995, issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Department had conducted a search at the petitioner’s residence in June 1983 and made substantial additions to income for assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1984-85. The petitioner argued that he had paid the tax for 1991-92, the assessment for 1990-91 had been set aside in appeal, and applications for stay of recovery for 1983-84 and 1984-85 were pending. He claimed that the Department’s actions were premature and without disposing of the stay applications.\nThe Department contended that the petitioner was avoiding tax payment despite repeated opportunities, including notices and personal hearing opportunities. They stated that assessment demands for 1982-83 to 1984-85 were based on seized materials during a legally upheld search and that sufficient notice had been served.\nHeld: The Court upheld the validity of the recovery proceedings under Section 226(3), stating that:\nThe petitioner failed to provide sufficient grounds for stay.\nThe petitioner did not pursue stay applications properly before the CIT (Appeals).\nThe search was valid and assessments based on seized materials were justified.\nFor the assessment year 1990-91, recovery could not proceed since the assessment was set aside.\nFor 1991-92, only the balance tax (after payment of Rs. 11,436) could be recovered.\nFor 1982-83 to 1984-85, recovery could proceed based on valid demand.\nThe writ petition was dismissed.\nCitations:\nMrs. R. Mani Goyal v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 641 (Distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=156,220,221,226(3) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1617 of 1995, decision dated: 15-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "GOUTAM ROY\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 25 = 2001 SLD 25 = 2001 PTD 149 = (1999) 238 ITR 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQw", + "Key Words:": "Characterization of Incentive Receipt under Sampat Incentive Scheme – Capital or Revenue Receipt\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a sugar manufacturing company, expanded its plant capacity from 1,219 TCD to 1,600 TCD by investing Rs. 243 lakhs, financed through loans from government financial institutions. As part of the Government of India’s Sampat Incentive Scheme (1975, modified in 1980), the assessee received additional free sale sugar quota as an incentive, subject to a condition that the funds realised from the sale of such quota must be used to repay the term loans obtained for the capital expansion. The Income Tax Tribunal held this additional realisation to be a capital receipt, not taxable as income.\nThe Revenue contended that such receipts were taxable. However, it was found that the incentive receipts had an overriding obligation — they were diverted at source to repay capital loans and hence did not accrue as income. Furthermore, the purpose of the incentive was to subsidize the cost of capital assets and not for assisting the assessee in day-to-day business operations.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal's view and held that the realisation from the additional free sale quota under the Sampat Incentive Scheme was a capital receipt. The amount was not taxable as income because:\nThere was diversion of income at source due to an overriding obligation to repay loans.\nThe incentive was intended to meet the capital cost of plant and machinery, not for operational support.\nCitations:\nPoona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC)]\nSahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC)]\nOstime’s case [(1946) 14 ITR (Suppl.) 45 (HL)]", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1997, decision dated: 30-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA AND BARIN GHOSH, Justice", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nBALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 26 = 2001 SLD 26 = 2001 PTD 154 = (1999) 238 ITR 450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRA", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Interest Received Under Arbitration Award\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a registered firm engaged in works contracts, executed a contract (Balimela Project) for the Government of Orissa. After disputes arose regarding additional work beyond the contract terms, the matter went to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded compensation including interest — both pre-award and pendente lite — totaling ₹5,19,324. The assessee treated ₹2,00,080 of this as non-taxable, contending it was ex gratia and not under any statute or contract. The Assessing Officer taxed it; the CIT(A) and ITAT both ruled in favour of the assessee, relying on the Orissa High Court decision in Govinda Choudhury & Sons v. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 497.\nHeld:\nThe High Court reversed the Tribunal's view and ruled in favour of the Revenue. It held that interest awarded for delayed payments due under contract was not an ex gratia or capital receipt, but rather a revenue receipt, taxable under the Income Tax Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's later decision in CIT v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881, the Court held that such interest is incidental and attributable to the assessee’s business activities and cannot be treated separately from the contract earnings.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC)\nRiches v. Westminster Bank Ltd. (1947) 15 ITR (Suppl.) 86 (HL)\nSecretary, Irrigation Dept., Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, AIR 1992 SC 732\nCIT v. Builders Union (1995) 211 ITR 993 (Orissa)\nCIT v. Lenka & Partners (1995) 215 ITR 298 (Orissa)\nGovinda Choudhury & Sons v. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 497 (Orissa) (overruled)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax, Reference No. 206 of 1982, decision dated: 23rd December, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "R. K. GULATI AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nMALIK CONSTRUCTION CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 27 = 2001 SLD 27 = 2001 PTD 160 = (1999) 238 ITR 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQQ", + "Key Words:": "Attachment of Property of Non-Partner Spouse in Recovery of Firm’s Tax Dues\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the attachment of her personal property for the recovery of income tax arrears owed by Komal Tea Co., a partnership firm in which she was not a partner. Her husband, a partner in the said firm, was the only person connected to the firm. The property under attachment had been acquired by the petitioner from her own independently taxed resources after selling previously owned properties.\nDespite these facts being communicated, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the attachment through the Tax Recovery Officer without adjudicating on the petitioner’s objection. The respondent authority argued that the petitioner lacked ostensible income and therefore held the property benami for her husband.\nHeld: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the attachment. It held that:\nThe Assessing Officer wrongly failed to distinguish between his roles as a prosecutor (who may form prima facie belief) and an adjudicator (who must act fairly and objectively).\nMerely being a woman or a wife does not justify an assumption of benami ownership in the absence of credible evidence.\nThe property was shown to be acquired from previously taxed capital; thus, the burden was on the Tax Recovery Officer to produce material beyond bald assertions to justify the benami claim.\nIt was procedurally improper to proceed with recovery without first adjudicating the petitioner’s objection.\nThe failure to provide such adjudication denied the petitioner her legal right of appeal/revision.\nHeld (continued): The Court directed the Assessing Officer/Tax Recovery Officer to:\nFirst adjudicate the petitioner’s claim and determine whether her property was legally attachable for dues owed by the firm.\nNot proceed with the recovery from her property until such adjudication was concluded.\nCitations:\nArticle 14, Constitution of India – Equality before law and non-discrimination on the basis of sex.\nProvisions relating to benami property and tax recovery under the Income-tax Act, 1961.\nGeneral principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.775 of 1999, decision dated: 7-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "BHARATIBEN JAYANTIBHAI THAKKAR\nVs.\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 28 = 2001 SLD 28 = 2001 PTD 163 = (1999) 238 ITR 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQg", + "Key Words:": "The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A , referred several questions under Section 256(1) relating to the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1970–71 and 1971–72.\nThe assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of ball bearings and mill stores, faced penalties for:\nUnexplained or bogus purchases\nUnderstatement of closing stock\nEstimated sales and profits inferred to be unaccounted\nAssessment Year 1970–71\nKey Additions in Assessment:\nRs. 6,396 – Out of cash purchases of Rs. 9,987 without proper proof or vouchers.\nRs. 37,535 – Understatement of closing stock as purchases were not traceable in sales or closing stock.\nRs. 15,000 – Estimated profits from alleged unaccounted sales (not subject of penalty).\nPenalty Order:\nThe Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) imposed Rs. 75,400 as minimum penalty under Section 271(1)(c).\nTribunal upheld penalty on Rs. 6,396 and Rs. 37,535, rejecting the argument that the basis for penalty changed during appellate stages.\nThe Tribunal excluded the estimated Rs. 15,000 from penalty in view of D.M. Manasvi and Lakhdhir Lalji precedents.\nAssessment Year 1971–72\nKey Points:\nIncome declared: Rs. 43,392\nAfter detailed inquiry, additions of Rs. 1,92,538 were made based on bogus purchases, inflated stock figures, etc.\nAO estimated gross profit at 50% on a turnover of Rs. 6 lakhs, later reduced to 35% by AAC.\nPenalty Order:\nIAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,16,754.\nThe Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) was invoked as returned income was less than 80% of assessed income.\nTribunal found sufficient material to sustain findings of concealment/fraud and upheld penalty.\nAssessee’s Arguments Rejected:\nChange of Basis Argument:\nCourt held that the basis of penalty (undisclosed stock worth Rs. 37,535) remained unchanged.\nInference of unaccounted sales did not contradict original finding of concealment in stock.\nLakhdhir Lalji did not apply since the basis of concealment remained the same throughout.\nEstimate-based Assessment:\nThe estimate was based on specific defects, including bogus purchases, not mere guesswork.\nHence, S.P. Bhatt and Sharadchandra Harilal were held inapplicable.\nAlleged Improper Penalty Orders:\nThough worded poorly ( directing ITO to levy ), the orders effectively imposed the penalty.\nPenalty orders were held valid and made by the IAC, who had jurisdiction under Section 274(2).\nSection 292B protected such procedural irregularities.\nLegal Reasoning by Court:\nPenalty justified for concealment or inaccuracy if:\nSpecific particulars of income are not disclosed;\nFalse claims are made;\nIncorrect stock, purchases, or sales are shown.\nExplanation to Section 271(1)(c) shifts burden to assessee if returned income is less than 80% of assessed income.\nPresumption of concealment holds unless assessee proves absence of fraud or gross/wilful neglect.\nThe Court emphasized specific evidence of falsehood or omissions, not mere low profits, as sufficient for penalty.\nFinal Judgment\nThe High Court answered all questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, holding:\nPenalty was properly levied for both years.\nThere was no change in the basis of penalty.\nPenalty orders by IAC were valid.\nExplanation to Section 271(1)(c) was properly applied for A.Y. 1971–72.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 185 of 1983, decision dated: 29-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Soparkar with M.K. Kaji for the Assessee. M.J. Thakore with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "A.M. SHAH & COMPANY\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 29 = 2001 SLD 29 = 2001 PTD 187 = (1999) 238 ITR 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRw", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Income-Tax Officer's Powers in Fresh Assessments Set Aside for De Novo Assessment\nDetails: The assessee sought a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raising the legal issue of whether the Income-tax Officer (ITO) was legally justified in making additions from sources of income not previously considered in the original assessment proceedings, after those assessments were set aside.\nThe case pertained to three assessment years: 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73.\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) had earlier set aside the original assessments entirely, with a direction to the ITO to make fresh assessments de novo and to conduct any enquiries he deemed fit.\nIn the reassessment proceedings, the ITO included new sources of income not examined in the original proceedings. The assessee challenged this action, arguing that the ITO was not entitled to consider income sources not raised earlier.\nHeld: The High Court did not answer the question due to the non-appearance of the assessee, despite repeated opportunities.\nHowever, the Court did elaborate on the legal position in the matter:\nWhen an assessment is entirely set aside with directions to reassess de novo, the ITO regains full powers equivalent to a fresh assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.\nThe reassessment is not confined to issues considered previously. The ITO can examine all aspects of income afresh, including new sources.\nThe AAC’s directions specifically permitted the ITO to conduct any necessary inquiries, affirming the broad reassessment scope.\nCitations:\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, Sections 143(3), 256(1)\nJudicial principle: De novo assessment equals original assessment in scope, unless expressly restricted.\nConclusion: Although the Court returned the reference unanswered due to lack of prosecution by the assessee, it clearly affirmed in its observations that the ITO has full authority in de novo assessments to include income from new sources, provided the reassessment is made in accordance with law.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 385 of 1984, decision dated: 2-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "NENMAL CHAMPALAL SHAH and others\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 30 = 2001 SLD 30 = 2001 PTD 189 = (1999) 238 ITR 473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSA", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Reference under Section 256(2) – Challenge to Genuineness of Partnership Firms Allegedly Benami\nDetails: This group of 24 applications was filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, challenging a common order dated August 3, 1998 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, concerning assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89. The dispute centered around the genuineness of five educational institutions operated as partnership firms.\nThe Revenue’s contention stemmed from a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of five educational institutions and the residential premises of certain partners, especially Shri Krishnakani G. Dholakia (KGD). The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that all five firms were benami entities controlled and owned by KGD and were not genuine partnerships.\nConsequently, the AO:\nHeld KGD as the real owner.\nDenied registration to all five partnership firms under the Act.\nHowever, on appeals filed by the assessees, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):\nReversed the AO’s decision.\nHeld that KGD was not the real owner.\nFound that the firms were genuine entities, entitled to registration under the Act.\nThe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings. Dissatisfied, the Revenue filed reference applications under section 256(1), which were rejected by the Tribunal. These 24 petitions under Section 256(2) sought a direction from the High Court to compel the Tribunal to refer questions of law arising from its decision.\nHeld: The Gujarat High Court rejected all 24 applications, holding that:\nNo question of law arose from the Tribunal’s decision.\nThe findings of both appellate authorities were pure findings of fact.\nThe Revenue failed to show that the Tribunal’s findings were perverse, unsupported by evidence, or based on irrelevant material.\nThe Court reaffirmed that Section 256(2) has a narrow scope and can only be invoked when:\nThe Tribunal’s refusal to refer questions is unsustainable or unreasonable.\nA substantial question of law arises, which was not evident here.\nSpecific factual findings cited by the Court included:\nEach firm had independent constitution via partnership deeds and independently earned and distributed profits.\nNo income was diverted to KGD or his wife.\nNo evidence was found of KGD owning the firms’ assets or enjoying their income.\nThe search revealed joint bank accounts, but that alone did not establish benami ownership.\nThe firms were registered continuously until 1997-98, supporting their genuineness.\nThe Court dismissed the Revenue’s argument that the Tribunal ignored material evidence. It held that the Tribunal was not required to reiterate all factual aspects already dealt with in detail by the CIT(A), especially since it affirmed the latter’s findings.\nCitations & Supporting Case Law:\nRatanchand Darbarilal v. CIT (1985) 155 ITR 720 (SC) – Courts cannot reappraise findings of fact in reference jurisdiction.\nSir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) – High Court cannot substitute its appreciation of evidence in reference under Section 256.\nCIT v. Karam Chand Thaper Bros. (P.) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 535 – Tribunal need not expressly reiterate all facts if evident from the record.\nCIT v. Juggilal Kamlapat (1967) 63 ITR 292 – Genuineness of firm is a pure question of fact.\nPrem Family (P) (Specific) Trust v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 694 – Reference jurisdiction does not allow reassessment of factual findings.\nCIT v. S.M. Bhatia Associates (1997) 226 ITR 675 (Raj) – Tribunal’s findings cannot be challenged in reference unless perverse or unsupported.\nConclusion: The High Court discharged the rule and rejected the petitions, reiterating the limited jurisdiction under Section 256(2). Since the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and Tribunal were supported by evidence and not perverse, the question of law did not arise, and the Revenue's challenge was unsustainable.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 28 to 50 with 57 of 1999, decision dated: 16-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "J. N. BHATT AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Naik with Manish R.Bhatt for Petitioner. K.H. Kaji for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGNAN GANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 31 = 2001 SLD 31 = 2001 PTD 197 = (1999) 238 ITR 1022", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRQ", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Reassessment under Section 147(a) – Time-barred Reopening Based on Judicial Decision\nDetails: This reference was made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Ahmedabad) under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee. The referred question of law pertains to whether the Income-tax Officer (ITO) was justified in reopening completed assessments for assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 under Section 147(a) of the Act.\nThe facts leading to the reference are as follows:\nThe ITO issued notices under Section 148 on October 30, 1975, seeking to reopen the assessments.\nThe reason for reopening, as recorded by the ITO, was the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Navnitlal Sakarlal (1980) 125 ITR 67, which he treated as “information” under Section 147(b) for escapement of income.\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both held that:\nSince the reopening was based on a judicial decision, it amounted to “information” under Section 147(b).\nHowever, Section 147(b) permitted reopening only within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.\nFor A.Y. 1967-68 and 1968-69, the four-year period ended on March 31, 1972 and March 31, 1973, respectively.\nThe reopening in October 1975 was therefore barred by limitation under Section 149.\nThe ITO had attempted to justify reopening under Section 147(a) to circumvent the limitation period. However, the Tribunal found no failure on part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a necessary condition for applying Section 147(a).\nHeld: The Gujarat High Court held:\nThe case clearly fell under Section 147(b), as it was based on “information” received in the form of a court decision and not on any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts.\nSince more than four years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment years, the reopening was time-barred under Section 149.\nThe ITO lacked jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under Section 147(a) as a device to overcome the limitation barrier.\nThus, the reassessment proceedings were invalid, and the Tribunal's conclusion was correct.\nThe Court also noted that the very judicial decision which formed the basis of reopening, Navnitlal Sakarlal, had later been reversed by the Supreme Court in 1992 (193 ITR 16), thus weakening the substantive justification for reopening on merits as well.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Navnitlal Sakarlal (1980) 125 ITR 67 (Guj.)\nNavnitlal Sakarlal v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 16 (SC)\nSections interpreted: 147(a), 147(b), 148, 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nHeld: The Tribunal was right in law to conclude that the reopening under Section 147(a) was impermissible and that the case truly fell under Section 147(b), making the reassessment time-barred.\nThe question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.\nConclusion: Reassessment proceedings initiated after expiry of the statutory limitation based solely on a judicial decision (deemed “information”) cannot be validated under Section 147(a) unless there is proven failure of disclosure by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was legally sound and was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147(a),147(b),148,149 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 193 of 1984; decided on 26-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nBIPIN VADILAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 32 = 2001 SLD 32 = 2001 PTD 201 = (1999) 238 ITR 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRg", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Interest under Section 273A – Voluntary Disclosure and Timely Tax Payment\nDetails:\nThe appellant, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed a writ appeal challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed his writ petition (reported in (1999) 237 ITR 422), thereby upholding the Commissioner’s order rejecting the assessee’s application for waiver of interest under Section 273A.\nKey Facts:\nAssessment Year: 1987-88\nOriginal Return Filed: November 10, 1989 (Income declared: ₹13,220)\nFirst Revised Return: March 16, 1990 (Income: ₹1,26,220)\nSecond Revised Return: April 22, 1990 (Income: ₹2,69,880)\nTax Payable on Final Return: ₹1,09,190\nTax Paid with Second Revised Return: ₹1,02,180\nBalance Tax Due: ₹7,010\nAssessment Order under Section 143(3): March 29, 1990\nBalance Tax Paid: April 13, 1990 (before due date of April 30, 1990)\nDespite these payments, the Assessing Officer levied:\nInterest under Section 139(8): ₹36,821\nInterest under Section 217: ₹47,556\nThe assessee applied for waiver of interest under Section 273A on April 25, 1990. The Commissioner rejected the application, stating that the assessee had not paid the full self-assessed tax with the revised return.\nThe writ petition filed by the assessee was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal.\nLegal Framework and Provisions Involved:\nSection 139(8): Provides for levy of interest for late filing of returns.\nSection 217: Provides for interest on failure to pay advance tax.\nSection 273A(1)(iii)(c): Grants discretionary power to the Commissioner to waive interest under Sections 139 and 217 if:\nThe assessee has voluntarily filed a return before notice under Sections 139(2) or 148.\nThe assessee has paid or made satisfactory arrangements to pay tax and interest in consequence of the assessment.\nThe disclosure is full and true.\nThe assessee cooperated with assessment proceedings.\nArguments:\nAppellant’s Argument:\nHe filed revised returns voluntarily, without notice under Sections 139(2) or 148.\nSelf-assessed tax was paid with the revised return.\nThe shortfall of ₹7,010 was due to a miscalculation, not willful evasion.\nThe balance tax was paid promptly on receipt of demand before the due date.\nHence, both conditions under Section 273A were satisfied.\nRevenue’s Argument:\nThe assessee failed to pay the full advance tax.\nPayment of self-assessed tax was incomplete, hence no waiver can be granted.\nHeld:\nThe Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, overturning both the Commissioner’s and Single Judge’s decisions.\nCourt’s Findings:\nThe assessee filed the revised return voluntarily and paid self-assessed tax.\nThe small shortfall was inadvertent, and the balance was paid promptly on assessment.\nThus, the conditions under Section 273A(1)(iii)(c) were satisfactorily met.\nThe discretion to grant waiver should have been exercised in favour of the assessee.\nThe interest levied under Sections 139 and 217 should be waived.\nHeld:\nThe order of the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge were set aside.\nThe appellant is entitled to full waiver of interest levied under Sections 139(8) and 217.\nWrit appeal allowed.\nCitations:\n(1999) 237 ITR 422 (Writ petition judgment reversed)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139(8),217,273A(1)(iii)(c) ", + "Case #": "Writ Appeal No. 4830 of 1998, decision dated: 16-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "Y. BHASKAR RAO AND A.M. FAROOQ, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ganesha Rao for Appellant. M.V. Seshachala for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "C.G. KRISHNA PRASAD\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 33 = 2001 SLD 33 = 2001 PTD 205 = (1999) 238 ITR 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSw", + "Key Words:": "Agreement: Collaboration agreement dated February 11, 1969, between HSL and United Engineering for technical know-how related to rolling mills and auxiliary equipment.\nDispute: Taxability of annual payments made under Article 111(a) of the agreement (USD 100,000 per year for 10 years) under the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nKey Legal Question:\nWhether the payments under Article III(a) of the collaboration agreement constituted income accruing or arising in India to Wean United under Section 5(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?\nCourt's Analysis & Decision:\n1. Nature of Payments under the Agreement:\nArticle III(a): Fixed annual payment of USD 100,000 for transfer of technical know-how (mostly in the USA).\nArticle III(b): Royalty (4.25% of net sales) for use of know-how in India to manufacture contract articles.\nTribunal's View: Incorrectly clubbed payments under (a) and (b) as part and parcel of the same income. \n2. Key Findings:\nDistinction Between Payments:\nArticle III(a): Compensation for know-how transfer (services rendered outside India).\nArticle III(b): Royalty for use of know-how in India (taxable in India).\nNo Income Accrual in India for Article III(a):\nThe know-how was transferred outside India (training, design assistance in the USA).\nPayment was for acquiring knowledge, not for its use in India.\n3. Precedents Relied Upon:\nCarborandum Co. v. CIT (1977):\nTechnical fees paid for services rendered outside India were not taxable in India.\nNew Consolidated Gold Fields (1983):\nRetainer fee paid in London for advice given from London not taxable in India.\nPerforming Right Society Ltd. (1977) Distinguished:\nApplied to royalties for use of copyright in India, unlike this case (knowledge transfer abroad).\n4. Conclusion:\nPayments under Article III(a) were not income accruing/arising in India.\nAnswer to Reference:\n The Tribunal was not right in holding that the income under Article III(a) accrued/arose in India. \nOutcome: Ruling in favor of MECON (assessee) and against the Revenue (Tax Department).\nFinal Judgment:\nThe High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the USD 100,000 annual payments under Article III(a) were not taxable in India as they did not accrue/arise in India under Section 5(2)(b). No costs were awarded.\nKey Takeaway:\nLocation of Services Rendered Matters: Payments for offshore technical know-how (without exploitation in India) are not taxable in India.\nRoyalties vs. Know-How Fees: Only payments linked to use of IP/know-how in India (e.g., Article III(b)) are taxable.\nThis judgment aligns with principles of territorial taxation and avoids double taxation of cross-border technical collaborations.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=5(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos. 1 to 7 of 1985 (R), decision dated: 16-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "S.N., JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.Moitra and S.K. Dutta for the Assessee AND K.K. Vidyarthi and K.K. Jhunjhunwala for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "METALLURGICAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANT (INDIA) LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 34 = 2001 SLD 34 = 2001 PTD 219 = (1999) 238 ITR 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTA", + "Key Words:": "Allowability of Business Expenditure and Loss from Share Transactions\nDetails:\nThe assessee, an investment company, claimed deductions for:\nRent Payment of ₹36,000 per annum for premises allegedly used for business purposes. The premises were taken on rent from a director-turned-employee, with rent being adjusted against an advance of ₹1,08,000.\nShare Loss of ₹49,210 arising from the purchase and sale of shares transacted through registered stock brokers.\nThe Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed both claims:\nFor the rent, based on an adverse inspector’s report and absence of a company signboard.\nFor the share loss, citing insufficient documentation and the general suspicion of bogus share transactions in Calcutta.\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the AO’s disallowance, suspecting the rent arrangement to be a cover for residential benefit to the director and the share transactions to be artificially arranged to incur loss.\nHowever, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reversed the findings:\nIt held that rent payment was substantiated by a registered agreement and regular adjustments. It emphasized that signboards are not a decisive factor and that the premises were used for business by staff.\nIt also found that the share transactions were genuine, conducted through registered brokers and backed by stock exchange quotations.\nThe High Court, hearing the reference application, addressed the following questions:\nWhether the Tribunal’s finding allowing deduction of rent was based on relevant evidence or was perverse.\nWhether the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the share loss of ₹49,210.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal’s finding regarding the rent payment was not perverse and was based on relevant material evidence. The Tribunal rightly considered the use of premises and found no infirmity in the deduction claim.\nThe Tribunal’s conclusion regarding the genuineness of share loss was justified in law, given the factual support and absence of contrary material evidence.\nCitations:\nMcDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), distinguished in context.\nRelevant statutory provisions: Sections relating to business expenditure (Sec 37) and capital loss under the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nFinal Answer to Reference Questions:\nQuestion 1: Answered in the affirmative (in favour of the assessee) on the question of evidence; in the negative on the question of perversity.\nQuestion 2: Answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.27 of 1993, decision dated: 26-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "YAD RAM MEENA AND BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "DHAWAN INVESTMENT AND\nVs.\nTRADING CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 35 = 2001 SLD 35 = 2001 PTD 222 = (1999) 238 ITR 892", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQw", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction under Section 263, Limitation, and Deductibility of Employee Welfare Expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nDetails: The assessee, a public company, filed a return for AY 1978–79. The ITO proposed additions exceeding ₹1,00,000 and referred the case under Section 144B. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) directed the ITO to allow deductions of ₹50,000 (Labour Welfare Fund contribution) and ₹1,01,485 (gift to employees for strike-free services), which the ITO followed in completing the assessment.\nSubsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) revised the assessment under Section 263, disallowing the deductions, treating them as inadmissible bonus payments under Section 36(1)(ii). The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, challenging the jurisdiction of the CIT, the limitation period, and the disallowance of the amounts.\nHeld:\nJurisdictional Challenge (Q1): The Tribunal rightly held that the CIT had jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise the assessment, as the original order was passed by the ITO, even if it followed directions from the IAC. There was no inherent lack of jurisdiction.\nRevisional Power over ITO Order Based on IAC Directions (Q2): Affirmed that an order passed by the ITO following IAC’s direction under Section 144B remains an order of the ITO and is revisable under Section 263.\nLimitation (Q3): The Tribunal correctly held that the order passed by the CIT was within the limitation period as the relevant date for limitation under Section 263(2)(b) is the date of the ITO's final order (July 3, 1981), and the CIT’s order (June 29, 1983) was within two years.\nDisallowance of ₹50,000 and ₹1,01,485 (Q4): The High Court held the Tribunal was wrong in disallowing these expenditures. Both payments were made for labour welfare and directly connected to the assessee's business needs. Hence, they are allowable under Section 37. The court cited Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 101 (SC) in support.\nCitations:\nSri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT, (1997) 223 ITR 101 (SC)\nCIT v. V.V.A. Shanmugam, (1999) 236 ITR 878", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37,36(1)(ii),143(3),144B,144E,153,263 ", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 773 of 1985 (Reference No.412 of 1985), decision dated: 24-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Meenakshisundaram for T. K. Jayaraman, Philip George and D.C. Jully for the Assessee AND C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "CHERAN ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 36 = 2001 SLD 36 = 2001 PTD 229 = (1999) 238 ITR 489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRA", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Refund of Advance Tax – Effect of Change in Accounting Year\nDetails:\nThe assessee company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of engine valves, initially followed the financial year ending March 31. For Assessment Year (AY) 1979–80, it paid advance tax during FY 1978–79 and filed an estimate under Section 212(3A). However, on June 27, 1979, it applied to change its accounting year to end in June, thereby shifting to a 15-month previous year from April 1, 1978, to June 30, 1979. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) allowed this request, and the assessee's income for the extended period was to be assessed in AY 1980–81.\nDespite this, the assessee filed a return for AY 1979–80 and claimed a refund along with interest under Section 214 on the advance tax paid. The ITO granted this interest, but the Commissioner revised the order under Section 263, holding that no assessment was required for AY 1979–80 due to the change in the previous year, and hence no interest under Section 214 was payable. The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner's revision, reinstating the ITO's order. The Revenue appealed.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Commissioner's revision under Section 263, holding that:\nThere was no obligation on the assessee to pay advance tax for AY 1979–80 due to the approved change in the accounting year.\nConsequently, the payments made lost their character as advance tax under Sections 207–213.\nAs no assessment was made for AY 1979–80, and the advance tax paid did not pertain to the relevant assessment year, Section 214 interest could not be claimed.\nThe Tribunal’s order was unsustainable.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=3(1),4,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,212(3A),263 ", + "Case #": "T.C. No.820 of 1988 (Reference No.607 of 1988) and T.C.P. 410 of 1986, decision dated: 5-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R. JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam, Senior Standing. Counsel for Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner AND S. Ilambharathi for C.V. Mahalingam for the Assesses.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nENGINE VALVES LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 37 = 2001 SLD 37 = 2001 PTD 233 = (1999) 238 ITR 694", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQQ", + "Key Words:": "Validity of reassessment orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 1983-84 to 1987-88.\nKey Issue: Whether the notices under Sections 148 & 139(2) were properly served before passing the reassessment orders?\nKey Findings & Decision:\n1. Modes of Service Attempted by the Department:\nThe Income Tax Department claimed to have served notices via three modes:\nPersonal Service (Refusal Mode):\nAlleged refusal by the appellant on October 1, 1987.\nCourt’s View: Invalid because no details (who refused, date, place) were recorded.\nAffixation at Residence:\nNotices pasted at appellant’s house after failed personal service.\nCourt’s View: Invalid as it did not comply with Order 5, Rule 17 CPC (required for valid affixation).\nRegistered Post:\nNotices sent via registered post but returned with no clear endorsement (only redirect to Labr. ).\nCourt’s View: No proof of service as per Section 282 of IT Act and Madan & Co. v. Wazir-Jaivir Chand (AIR 1989 SC 630).\n2. High Court’s Observations:\nService by Registered Post Not Proven:\nThe registered cover had no endorsement of refusal, non-availability, or return.\nSupreme Court’s ruling in Madan & Co. (deemed service if properly addressed) not applicable because:\nThe IT Act allows alternative modes (unlike the Rent Control Act in Madan & Co.).\nNo evidence that postal authorities attempted delivery.\nDepartment’s Contradictory Stand:\nIn affidavits & orders, the Department never claimed service via registered post was successful.\nInstead, they relied only on affixation, which was invalid.\n3. Legal Precedents Relied Upon:\nITO v. S. Veeriah Reddiar (1967) 64 ITR 70 (SC):\nCourt cannot consider a new plea not raised in affidavits.\nHere, the Department never argued that registered post was valid—only affixation was claimed.\n4. Final Judgment:\nReassessment Orders (Section 147) Invalid:\nNo valid service of notices under Sections 148 & 139(2).\nHence, reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.\nConsequential Quashing of Section 263 Proceedings:\nSince the original reassessment orders were invalid, the Commissioner’s revision under Section 263 also collapsed.\nAppeal Allowed:\nThe Single Judge’s order (directing reconsideration of service) was set aside.\nAll reassessment and penalty proceedings quashed.\nKey Takeaways:\nStrict Compliance Required:\nService of notices under the Income Tax Act must follow prescribed modes (registered post/CPC rules).\nMere sending is not enough—proof of attempt/service is mandatory.\nNo New Pleas at Appellate Stage:\nA party cannot introduce new arguments not raised earlier (as per Veeriah Reddiar case).\nAffixation Must Follow CPC Rules:\nOrder 5, Rule 17 CPC requires due diligence (multiple visits, inquiries) before affixation.\nDeemed Service Not Automatic:\nMadan & Co. ruling (deemed service if registered post returned) does not apply if alternative modes exist under the law.\nFinal Outcome:\nAppeal allowed – Reassessment and penalty proceedings quashed.\nNo valid service = No jurisdiction to assess/reassess.\nThis judgment reinforces that procedural compliance is mandatory in tax proceedings, and invalid notice service vitiates entire proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139(2),142(1),147,148,263,271(1)(b),271(1)(c),273(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No.478 of 1993 and Matter No.506 of 1992, decision dated: 28-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "V. K. GUPTA AND B. BHATTACHARYA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pal for Subrata Das for Appellant AND Prasad for S. Gooptu for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "KESHAB NARAYAN BANJEE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 38 = 2001 SLD 38 = 2001 PTD 245 = (1999) 238 ITR 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQg", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Powers under Section 263 – Effect of Section 144B Procedure on Assessment Orders\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a limited company, had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,36,639 for commission to undisclosed persons in the assessment year 1978–79. In the draft assessment order, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) proposed to disallow the deduction. The matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, who directed the ITO to allow the deduction. The ITO completed the assessment in line with the IAC's directions and allowed the claim.\nHowever, the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) exercised his revisional powers under Section 263 and set aside the ITO’s assessment, instructing the ITO to make a fresh assessment. The CIT believed the deduction had been wrongly allowed and that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), which held that since the deduction was allowed by the ITO in compliance with the IAC’s direction under Section 144B, the CIT could not revise that part of the assessment under Section 263.\nThe Revenue appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the High Court, asking whether the CIT could revise the assessment order passed by the ITO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B.\nHeld:\nThe High Court followed the precedent set in CIT v. M.M. Virwani (1994) 207 ITR 225, which held that an assessment order passed by the ITO under Section 143(3) after following the procedure under Section 144B remains an order of the ITO, not the IAC, and is thus subject to the CIT’s revisional powers under Section 263.\nThe Court answered the question in the negative, favoring the Revenue, and concluded that the CIT could exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 over the part of the assessment order involving the deduction. The Court also rejected the assessee’s argument that the order was not erroneous and did not address the argument as it was outside the scope of the reference.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=143(3),144B,263 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 480 of 1987, decision dated: 5-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND D. G. DESHPANDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner\nJ.D.Mistry and R.Shah & Co. for the assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSIGMA PAINTS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 39 = 2001 SLD 39 = 2001 PTD 248 = (1999) 238 ITR 740", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRw", + "Key Words:": "Whether enhanced rent (agreed upon retrospectively after the financial year) can be taxed as income for the relevant assessment year under Section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?\nKey Facts:\nActual Rent Received (1984-85): ₹49,85,648 (as per books maintained on mercantile system).\nDepartment’s Claim:\nSome tenants (Central Govt. departments) agreed in 1986-87 to pay higher rent retrospectively from 1982.\nAssessing Officer (AO) rejected actual rent and computed fair market rent at ₹8.50/sq. ft. (total income: ₹2,92,41,768 for assessee’s share).\nCIT(A) Ruling:\nUpheld actual rent since West Bengal Rent Control Act restricted unilateral rent hikes.\nTribunal’s Decision:\nDirected AO to recompute income based on enhanced rent (even though agreed post-FY).\nRelied on Hamilton & Co. (1992) 194 ITR 391 (Cal) (arrears taxable as income from house property ).\nHigh Court’s Analysis & Decision:\n1. Legal Question:\nCan retrospective rent enhancement (agreed after FY-end) be taxed in the year it relates to?\n2. Key Arguments:\nAssessee’s Contention:\nNo enforceable right to higher rent in 1984-85 (mere claim ≠ accrued income).\nRelied on E.D. Sassoon (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC): Income accrues only when right to receive crystallizes.\nHamilton & Co. case distinguishable (it dealt with arrears, not retrospective agreements).\nRevenue’s Stand:\nEnhanced rent (even if agreed later) relates to 1984-85 and must be taxed.\nMercantile system mandates accrual-based taxation.\n3. Court’s Findings:\nIncome Accrual Requires Legal Right:\nSassoon’s Principle: Income accrues when there is a debitum in praesenti (present obligation to pay).\nRetrospective Agreement ≠ Accrual in Past Year:\nTenants were not legally bound to pay higher rent in 1984-85.\nRent enhancement was voluntary and agreed later.\nMere Claim ≠ Income:\nBurlop Commercial (1988) 173 ITR 522 (Cal): Demand notices don’t create income unless legally enforceable.\nHamilton & Co. Misapplied:\nThe case dealt with arrears of rent (already due but unpaid), not retrospective enhancements.\nNo Precedent for taxing income not legally receivable in the relevant year.\nPractical Implications:\nRent control laws limit unilateral hikes – tenants could have challenged demands.\nTaxing uncertain claims would lead to reassessment chaos.\n4. Final Ruling:\nQuestion Answered in NEGATIVE (in favor of assessee).\nEnhanced rent (agreed post-FY) cannot be taxed in 1984-85.\nActual rent received (₹49.85 lakhs) is the correct taxable income.\nKey Takeaways:\nIncome Accrual ≠ Mere Demand:\nMust be a legally enforceable right (debt owed) during the FY.\nRetrospective Agreements:\nDo not alter tax liability for past years unless legally binding at that time.\nMercantile System ≠ Taxing Uncertain Claims:\nOnly ascertained & enforceable income is taxable.\nRent Control Laws Matter:\nStatutory restrictions on rent hikes affect taxability of enhanced rent.\nConclusion:\nThe judgment protects taxpayers from arbitrary reassessments based on post-hoc rent agreements. Income is taxed only when the right to receive is legally crystallized, not on speculative claims.\nImpact: Clarity on taxation of retrospective rent revisions – a win for landlords under rent control regimes.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2,5,14,17(1),22,23,23(1),256(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 206 of 1993, decision dated: 7-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "S. B. SINHA AND D.P. SIRCAR I, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Poddar, Senior Advocate, and D. Mitra for the Assessee J. C. Saha and P.K. Bhowmick for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HOPE (INDIA) LTD. (NOW PODDAR UDYOG LTD.)\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 40 = 2001 SLD 40 = 2001 PTD 263 = (1999) 238 ITR 648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISA", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Deposit of TDS – Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer and Scope under Sections 221 and 271C\nDetails:\nThe assessee, an investment company, deducted tax at source (TDS) amounting to ₹9,67,94,972 on interest (other than interest on securities) during the financial year 1996–97 but failed to deposit the amount within the statutory time limits. The delay in deposit ranged from 1 to 12 months. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), exercising powers under Section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposed a penalty of ₹3 crores for the default.\nThe assessee challenged the penalty on multiple grounds, including:\nLack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty under Section 221.\nFinancial hardship due to losses in the share market and lack of cash flow.\nThat imposition of interest under Section 201 precluded penalty under Section 221.\nThat the power to impose such a penalty resided only with the Joint Commissioner under Section 271C, not with the Assistant Commissioner.\nThe Revenue countered that the Assistant Commissioner (TDS) had valid jurisdiction conferred through a notification dated May 23, 1991, issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, under Section 120(2) of the Act. This empowered the Assistant Commissioner to exercise functions under Chapter XVII-B and Section 221, among others.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 221. It ruled as follows:\nThe Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), having been conferred jurisdiction under a valid notification by the Chief Commissioner, had the authority to impose penalty under Section 221.\nThere is a distinction between Sections 221 and 271C:\nSection 221 covers failure to deposit tax after deduction.\nSection 271C applies to failure to deduct tax in the first place. Hence, the argument that only the Joint Commissioner could impose a penalty was rejected.\nThe financial difficulty of the assessee was not a valid excuse, since the assessee is merely a custodian of the deducted TDS and must deposit it irrespective of business losses.\nThe payment of interest under Section 201 does not preclude penalty under Section 221, as both serve different statutory purposes.\nThe Court dismissed the appeal and the application for interim relief. A request for a stay on the order’s operation was also denied.\nNotification by Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta dated May 23, 1991\nDecision in favour of: Revenue\nPenalty Amount: ₹3,00,00,000\nNo stay granted; no interim relief.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2(7A),120(2),201(1),220(2),221,271C ", + "Case #": "G.A. No. 1932 of 1999, A.P. O/T. No.377, A.P.O. No. T. No. 647 and Writ Petition No.966 of 1999, decision dated: 13-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y. R. MEENA AND DEBI PRASAD SIRCAR I, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Pal for Appellant. Agarwala for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "JUBILEE INVESTMENTS AND INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs.\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 41 = 2001 SLD 41 = 2001 PTD 268 = (1999) 238 ITR 736", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRQ", + "Key Words:": "Deduction under Section 80V – Interest on Borrowed Money for Tax Payment\nDetails:\nThe assessee, an individual partner in a firm (M.C. Ghia Co.), claimed deductions under Section 80V of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for interest paid on borrowed funds allegedly used to pay personal income tax. The partner's account with the firm functioned like a current account, where incomes were credited and tax payments, drawings, etc., were debited. Although there was no provision in the partnership deed for interest on debit balances, such interest was nonetheless charged. The assessee sought deductions for A.Y. 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1978-79. The Income Tax Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected most of the claims due to lack of nexus between the borrowings and tax payments, and because Section 80V only applied from April 1, 1976. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim partially, interpreting that the withdrawals from the firm constituted borrowings and the interest was allowable under Section 80V—even for borrowings prior to the section’s enactment.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that to qualify for deduction under Section 80V, there must be a clear, direct nexus between the borrowing and the tax payment, and the borrowings must have occurred after the enactment of the section (April 1, 1976). Since the assessee failed to establish this connection and the borrowings were not shown to be specifically for paying taxes, the Court disallowed the deduction and answered the reference in favour of the Revenue.\nCitations:\nHindustan Cocoa Products Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 140", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80V ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.418 of 1987, decision dated: 5-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND D. G. DESHPANDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nD. M. GHIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 42 = 2001 SLD 42 = 2001 PTD 273 = (1999) 238 ITR 731", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure and Accounting Methods\nConclusion:\n(a) Liability to pay technical fees to a foreign collaborator was deductible in the year the liability accrued, not when paid. Reserve Bank permission did not make the liability contingent.\n(b) An assessee cannot selectively use the cash method for certain transactions while following the mercantile system for the rest.\nReference: Chandnee Widya Vati Madden (Mrs.) v. Dr. C.L. Katial AIR 1964 SC 978.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=145,256(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 124 of 1984, decision dated: 22-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSUPER SCIENTIFIC CLOCK CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 43 = 2001 SLD 43 = 2001 PTD 278 = (1999) 238 ITR 721", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISw", + "Key Words:": "Carry Forward of Loss – Return Filed Under Section 148 and Deemed as under Section 139(4)\nDetails:\nThe assessee failed to file a return under section 139(1) for AY 1983–84. A notice under section 148 was issued and the assessee filed a return showing a business loss within the permissible period under section 139(4). The Assessing Officer determined the loss but denied carry forward on the ground that the return was not filed under section 139. The CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that the return filed in response to section 148, but within the time prescribed under section 139(4), should be deemed to be under section 139(4) and thus eligible for carry forward of loss. The Revenue contended that section 148 did not deem such a return to be filed under section 139, and therefore the carry forward was impermissible.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that a return filed in response to a notice under section 148, if filed within the time permitted under section 139(4), must be deemed as one under section 139(4). Therefore, the loss determined based on such return is eligible to be carried forward for set-off. The court relied on consistent precedents, including the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Kareemsons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT and the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd., affirming the principle that the loss can be carried forward if the return is within the section 139(4) timeline.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC)\nKareemsons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 543 (Kar) (FB)\nCIT v. R. Chandran (1991) 191 ITR 328 (Mad)\nCo-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 143 ITR 99 (MP)\nBurdwan Wholesale Consumers’ Co-op. Society Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 570 (Cal)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=139,139(1),139(2),139(4),147,148,148(1),256(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 18 of 1996, decision dated: 12-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair and S. Vinod Kumar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nJOSEPH RAJAPPAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 44 = 2001 SLD 44 = 2001 PTD 282 = (1999) 238 ITR 717", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITA", + "Key Words:": "(1) Nature of Hundi Transactions under Section 69D; \n(2) Proportionate Deduction under Section 35(1)(iv)\nDetails:\nThe assessee company was subjected to scrutiny for AYs 1981–82 and 1982–83, during which the Assessing Officer noted alleged hundi transactions involving borrowings and repayments. The AO invoked section 69D of the Income Tax Act, which deals with borrowings on hundis otherwise than through an account payee cheque. The assessee argued that the transactions were not hundis but genuine promissory note-based borrowings. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in CIT v. Instrument Techniques (P) Ltd., held the transactions were not hundis and thus section 69D was inapplicable. The High Court upheld this finding, applying established tests for hundis as laid down in CIT v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 576 (AP).\nIn a separate matter, the assessee claimed deduction under section 35(1)(iv) for capital expenditure on machinery used for scientific research. While the AO rejected the claim, the CIT (Appeals) allowed 50% on the basis that the plant was partly used for R & D. The Tribunal upheld this decision. The Revenue contended that partial use disqualified the claim. However, the High Court held that section 35 does not mandate exclusive use for R & D. Hence, partial use suffices for deduction if the use is related to the business.\nHeld:\nTransactions described as hundis were found to lack the essential legal features of hundis (such as being tripartite instruments, negotiable without endorsement, etc.), and thus were not hundi transactions. Section 69D was not applicable.\nEven if identity and genuineness are established, section 69D applies only to valid hundi borrowings, not merely to any unsecured loan.\nDeduction under section 35(1)(iv) read with section 35(2) is allowable even if capital equipment is partially used for scientific research, as the statute does not require exclusive use.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 576 (AP)\nCIT v. Instrument Techniques (P) Ltd., R.A. No. 23/Hyd of 1985 (Tribunal)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=69D,35(1)(iv) ,35(2) ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No 62 of 1990, decision dated: 17-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND R. BAYAPU REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. S. Ravi for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nYAMUNA DIGITAL ELECTRONICS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 45 = 2001 SLD 45 = 2001 PTD 286 = (1999) 238 ITR 899", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interim Orders on Assessment and Auditor Fees\nConclusion:\nThe interim order staying assessment proceedings and reserving the decision on auditor fees for final hearing was valid and balanced, safeguarding the interests of both parties.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 142(2A); Constitution of India, Article 226.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No 62 of 1990, decision dated: 17-08-1998. APOT No. 338, T/465, G.A. No. 1680, W.P. No.501 of 1998, decision dated: 29-04-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "VINOD KUMAR GUPTA AND B. BHATTACHARYA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Pal for Appellants. Mr. Shome for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "I.T.C. LTD. and another\nVs.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 46 = 2001 SLD 46 = 2001 PTD 289 = (1999) 238 ITR 901", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference – Settled Law and Export Market Development Allowance\nConclusion:\n(a) When the law on a matter is well-settled, there is no need for a Tribunal to refer it to the Court for opinion.\n(b) Expenditure on freight, packing, insurance, and customs bonded warehouse charges is not eligible for a weighted deduction under Section 35B as they are not wholly and exclusively for export purposes.\nReference: CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 171 (SC); Gedore Tools (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 233 ITR 712 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 49 of 1997, decision dated: 5-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND, J. B. GOEL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Adarsh B. Dayal with Ms. Sumati Anand for Petitioner AND Sanjeev Khanna with Ajay Jha for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 47 = 2001 SLD 47 = 2001 PTD 293 = (1999) 238 ITR 1026", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Sale of Import Entitlements\nConclusion:\nPremium earned on the sale of import entitlements is taxable as business income under Section 28(iiia), with retrospective effect from April 1, 1962, as per the Finance Act, 1990.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 2(24) and 28(iiia).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.349 of 1985, decision dated: 9-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. R. D. Jolly, Ms. Premlata Bansal, Sanjeev Khanna aid Ajay jha for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "CASHMERE WOOLEN AND SILK MILLS\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 48 = 2001 SLD 48 = 2001 PTD 295 = (1999) 238 ITR 1039", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Lottery – Illegal Encashment\nConclusion:\nThe income from an illegally encashed lottery ticket was assessed as income from other sources. The reference application was dismissed as the questions posed did not merit consideration.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petition No.754 of 1997, decision dated: 25-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "M. S., JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.H. Arvind Pandian for Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "K. PACKIRISAMY NADAR\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 49 = 2001 SLD 49 = 2001 PTD 298 = (1999) 238 ITR 1042", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure on Agricultural Demonstration Farm\nConclusion:\nExpenditure incurred on maintaining a demonstration farm to train salesmen and farmers in using farm equipment was deductible as business expenditure, even though it related to agricultural land.\nReference: CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 452 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.-557 of 1987 (Reference No .337 of 1987), decision dated: 11-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nTRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 50 = 2001 SLD 50 = 2001 PTD 300 = (1999) 238 ITR 1044", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) Income and Section 64(1)\nConclusion:\nIncome from a firm where the Karta of an HUF is a partner represents HUF income, not individual income. Such income cannot be included in the Karta’s individual total income under Section 64(1).\nReference: Sahu Govind Prasad v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 851 (All.); Balaji v. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 393 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "(Civil Appeal No.4234 of 1983 was from the judgment and order, dated October 29, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, B. N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU, S.S.M. QUADRI AND M. B. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor General. Harish N. Salve and P.C. Jain, Senior Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nShri OM PRAKASH and others COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nVIMALBHAI NAGINDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 51 = 2001 SLD 51 = 2001 PTD 310 = (1999) 238 ITR 1054", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure – Plant Installations\nConclusion:\nExpenditure on installing a water treatment plant and a fume extraction plant was classified as revenue expenditure since it improved operational efficiency without increasing production capacity.\nReference: Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 131 of 1996, decision dated: 4-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSTEEL COMPLEX LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 52 = 2001 SLD 52 = 2001 PTD 314 = (1999) 238 ITR 661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Firm Registration and Assessment of Facts\nConclusion:\n(a) A firm’s registration cannot be denied merely because it did not carry on active business during the year. The partnership was genuine and intended for business purposes.\n(b) Findings by appellate authorities confirming the genuineness of the firm will not be disturbed by the Court.\nReference: Sudarshan & Co. v. CIT (1973) 89 ITR 85 (Mys.); CIT v. Kuya and Khas Kuya Colliery Co. (1985) 156 ITR 206 (Pat.).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.21 of 1990, decision dated: 12-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND A.HANUMANTHU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.V. Prasad for the Commissioner AND S. Ravi. Amicus curiae.", + "Party Name:": "TIRUMALAI TRADERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 53 = 2001 SLD 53 = 2001 PTD 319 = (1999) 238 ITR 754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Agricultural Loans and Allowances\nConclusion:\n(a) Interest paid on agricultural loans is deductible under Section 37 only for amounts spent on land used for raising tobacco, not other crops.\n(b) Interest on loans spent for raising tobacco may qualify for deduction under Section 35C but cannot simultaneously be deducted under both Sections 35C and 37.\nReference: CIT v. Navabharat Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 165 ITR 603 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 147 of 1990, decision dated: 20-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. RANGA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. C. Kodandaram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nNAVBHARAT ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 54 = 2001 SLD 54 = 2001 PTD 322 = (1999) 238 ITR 754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Commission to Directors\nConclusion:\nCommission paid to directors, even when termed as commission, is treated as remuneration and is subject to the ceiling limit under Section 40(c).\nReference: Gestetner Duplicators (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC); Rane (Madras) Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 212 ITR 583 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 1136 of 1983 (Reference No. 588 of 1983), decision dated: 7-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. PALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "METAL POWDER CO. LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 55 = 2001 SLD 55 = 2001 PTD 325 = (1999) 238 ITR 407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment and Limitation\nConclusion:\nReassessment after four years is not permissible if all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction in this case.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 9855 of 1993, decision dated: 8-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Soparkar for Petitioner. R. P. Bhatt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "AVANI CORPORATION\nVs.\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 56 = 2001 SLD 56 = 2001 PTD 330 = (1999) 238 ITR 685", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference – Tribunal's Findings Without Evidence\nConclusion:\nA Tribunal's findings must be based on evidence. Where no reasons are provided for a conclusion, the matter should be remanded for proper examination.\nReference: CIT v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 200 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 36 of 1996, decision dated: 19-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J.B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Y. G. K Warriyar and P. Balakrishnan for the Assessee. F. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "G. GANGADHARAN NAIR\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 57 = 2001 SLD 57 = 2001 PTD 334 = (1999) 238 ITR 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Other Sources – Deduction of Expenses\nConclusion:\nInterest on loans taken to acquire controlling interest in a company is not deductible under Section 57(iii), as the expenditure was not for earning income like dividends but for acquiring control.\nReference: Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 464 (Guj.); Chinai & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 616 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 490 of 1987, decision dated: 20-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND D. G. DESHPANDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nAMRITABEN R. SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 58 = 2001 SLD 58 = 2001 PTD 338 = (1999) 238 ITR 781", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Motor Car Repairs and Disallowance\nConclusion:\nConflicting decisions on whether motor car repairs fall under Section 37(3A) necessitated a referral to a Full Bench for clarification.\nReference: CIT v. Navodaya (1997) 225 ITR 399 (Ker.); CIT v. A. V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 29 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 12 of 1996, decision dated: 10-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. Joseph Markos and Thomas Vellpally for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nTRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 59 = 2001 SLD 59 = 2001 PTD 340 = (1999) 238 ITR 783", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Gratuity and Insurance Premium\nConclusion:\nPremium paid to LIC under a group gratuity scheme is not deductible under Section 37, as Section 40A(7) exclusively governs gratuity deductions.\nReference: Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 706 and 707 of 1984 (References Nos.621 and 722 of 1984), decision dated: 29-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": "JANARTHANAM AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subrdmanian for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Venkataraman for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGNANAMMBIGAI MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 60 = 2001 SLD 60 = 2001 PTD 342 = (1999) 238 ITR 799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Best Assessment and Failure to File Returns\nConclusion:\nFailure to file returns or respond to notices under Sections 139(2) and 142(1) justifies a best assessment. Pleas of difficulty due to subsequent search and seizure do not excuse prior non-compliance.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 139(2) and 142(1).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 16276 of 1992, decision on 16-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "A. S. VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Santhosh Kumar for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "HOTEL SHAH & CO\nVs.\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 61 = 2001 SLD 61 = 2001 PTD 344 = (1999) 238 ITR 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment – Limitation and Exclusion Period\nConclusion:\nThe period between the draft order and directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B must be excluded when computing the limitation period for assessment, making the assessment valid.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 144B(1) and 153.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. (R) Nos.945 and 946 of 1985 (References Nos. 476 and 477 of 1985), decision dated: 19-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "K. S. VEERANNAH CHETTIAR and another\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 62 = 2001 SLD 62 = 2001 PTD 347 = (1999) 238 ITR 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Firm Registration – Business Requirement\nConclusion:\nA partnership formed solely to purchase lottery tickets and share prize money does not qualify for registration under Section 185, as gambling is not considered a business under the Income Tax Act.\nReference: State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala AIR 1957 SC 699.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos. 1070 and 1071 of 1987 (References Nos. 655 and 656 of 1987), decision dated: 19-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janathana Raja. Amicus curiae.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nS. MARIAPPAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 63 = 2001 SLD 63 = 2001 PTD 357 = (1999) 238 ITR 855", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: House Property – Deduction for Annual Charges\nConclusion:\n(a) Deductions under Section 24(1)(iv) are not permissible for annual charges voluntarily created through family arrangements.\n(b) Interpretation of statutory provisions must ensure enforceability and not render the law redundant.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 24(1)(iv).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1996, decision dated: 26-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "BRIJESH KUNZAR, C.J. AND D. N. CHOWDHURY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi for the Commissioner. Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwalla for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSATYANARAYANA SIKARIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 64 = 2001 SLD 64 = 2001 PTD 364 = (1999) 238 ITR 861", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Non-resident Taxation – Fees for Technical Services and Grossing Up\nConclusion:\n1.\nFees paid to a non-resident for technical services are taxable under Section 9(1)(vii).\n2.\nAirfare provided to engineers is a perquisite and is taxable under Section 17(2)(iii).\n3.\nPayments free of tax must be grossed up for calculating income tax.\nReference: CIT v. Barium Chemicals Ltd. (1989) 175 ITR 243 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred Nos. 71 and 149 of 1990, decision dated: 16-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. RANGA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee. S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "CLOUTH GUMMIWERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT and another\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 65 = 2001 SLD 65 = 2001 PTD 371 = (1999) 238 ITR 867", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Excessive Payments\nConclusion:\n1.\nPayments to related parties must be evaluated under Section 40A(2) for excessive or unreasonable amounts.\n2.\nThe Commissioner’s revision directing a reassessment was valid when the Income-tax Officer did not evaluate excessiveness.\nReference: Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.547 and 548 of 1987 (References Nos.327 and 328 of 1987), decision dated: 27-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "M. S., JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Vaitheeswaran for Subbaraya Aiyer, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "MOFUSSIL WAREHOUSE AND TRADING CO. LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 66 = 2001 SLD 66 = 2001 PTD 376 = (1999) 238 ITR 872", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains – Retrenchment Compensation\nConclusion:\nRetrenchment compensation paid to employees during business closure is not deductible as it is not directly connected to the sale of property.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 48.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.321 of 1987, decision dated: 26-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND D. G. DESHPANDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner, Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nRADIO TALKIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 67 = 2001 SLD 67 = 2001 PTD 380 = (1999) 238 ITR 887", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference – Firm Registration and Clubbing of Incomes\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Tribunal’s finding of a firm being genuine is a factual finding and raises no legal question.\n2.\nClubbing of incomes depends on the Tribunal’s factual analysis; no question of law arises unless findings are perverse.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos. 282 to 286 of 1998, decision dated: 13-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND D. G. DESHPANDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nD.K. TRADING CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 68 = 2001 SLD 68 = 2001 PTD 385 = (1999) 239 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment Allowance – Certificate Submission\nConclusion:\nFailure to file the prescribed certificate with the return does not disqualify a claim for higher investment allowance if the certificate is submitted before the assessment is completed, with a valid explanation.\nReference: CIT v. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 483 of 1987, decision dated: 6-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF, JUSTICE D. G. DESHPANDE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee\nRespondent(s) by: B.V. Jhavri with J.I. Patel", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nI. A. & I. C. (PVT.). LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 69 = 2001 SLD 69 = 2001 PTD 392 = (1999) 239 ITR 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advertisement and Sales Promotion Expenditure – Banking Business\nConclusion:\nFor banks, gross receipts (total deposits) are considered instead of turnover when determining disallowance limits under Section 37(3A).\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37(3A).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 182 of 1985 (Reference No.90 of 1985), decision dated: 5-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: R. Janakiraman", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nKARUR VYSYA BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 70 = 2001 SLD 70 = 2001 PTD 396 = (1999) 239 ITR 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Agricultural Income and Depreciation – Sugarcane Business\nConclusion:\n1.\nRule 7(2)(a) applies to compute agricultural income from sugarcane grown for manufacturing sugar.\n2.\nDepreciation on farm assets used for agricultural income is not allowed under Section 32.\nReference: Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 432 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=7,7(2)(a),7(b) ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1180 to 1182 of 1985 (References Nos. 687 to 689 of 1985), decision dated: 23rd March, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janathana Raja for Subbaraya Iyer, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "AROORAN SUGARS LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 71 = 2001 SLD 71 = 2001 PTD 399 = (1999) 239 ITR 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment – Cash Credits\nConclusion:\n1.\nReassessment based on information that hundi loans were not genuine is valid.\n2.\nThe burden of proving the genuineness, identity, and capacity of creditors lies with the assessee.\nReference: Kishnichand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 327 and 323 of 1987, decision dated: 29-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA, JUSTICE PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "K.M. SADHUKHAN & SONS (PVT.). LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 72 = 2001 SLD 72 = 2001 PTCL 305 = 2001 PTD 406 = (2001) 83 TAX 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Administration of Justice and Accounts Rejection\nConclusion:\nAccounts should not be rejected without substantial evidence. Adverse orders require the affected party to be given a fair chance to respond.\nReference: Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab (1944) 12 ITR 393.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 1 of 1991, decision dated: 10-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Ahmed Shujah Khan\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS BARRY BROTHERS, LAHORE\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE A, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 73 = 2000 SLD 73 = 2000 PTD 1601 = (1998) 234 ITR 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation – Subsidy and Machinery Classification\nConclusion:\n1.\nGovernment subsidies are not deducted from the cost of assets for depreciation calculation.\n2.\nPaper tubes and cones used in textile machinery are not classified as industrial machinery and are ineligible for initial depreciation.\nReference: CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 698 and 699 of -1983 (References Nos. 399 and 400 of 1983), decision dated: 11th February 1997", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM, JUSTICE S. M. SIDICKK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C. V. Rajan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nINDIAN TEXTILE PAPER TUBE CO. LTD. (NO. 2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 74 = 2001 SLD 74 = 2001 PTD 435 = (1999) 239 ITR 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Breach of Contract\nConclusion:\nCompensation paid for breach of contract is deductible under Section 37 if the liability is created and recorded in the year of settlement, even if paid later.\nReference: CIT v. Shewbux Jahurilal (1962) 46 ITR 688 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference. No.15 of 1993, decision dated: 18-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA, JUSTICE DEBI PRASAD SIRCAR I, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Malik", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nTODI TEA CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 75 = 2001 SLD 75 = 2001 PTD 443 = (2001) 83 TAX 547", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Allowable Expenses – Gratuity and Small Claims\nConclusion:\n1.\nGratuities payable to employees are allowable deductions.\n2.\nVerification by directors does not replace statutory requirements for expense deductions", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 24 of 1989, heard on 2-10-2000, hearing DATE : 2-10-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Sh. Maqbool Ahmed\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS NIDA I MILLAT (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 76 = 2001 SLD 76 = 2001 PTD 445 = (1999) 239 ITR 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment – Audit Party Information\nConclusion:\n1.\nAudit party identifying a failure to apply tax law constitutes valid information for reassessment.\n2.\nTax credit certificates exempt under Chapter III reduce capital base proportionately.\nReference: Indian Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.983 of 1984 (Reference No.879 of 1984), decision dated: 22-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": "M. S., JANARTHANAM, JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: S.V. Subramaniam.\nRespondent(s) by: R. Venkataraman.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nHINDUSTAN TELEPRINTERS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 77 = 2001 SLD 77 = 2001 PTD 455 = (2001) 83 TAX 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Property Income – Classification\nConclusion:\nIncome from business property let out should be assessed under business income if letting is part of business operations.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9,10,66,66(1) ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 14 of 1978, heard on 25-09-2000, hearing DATE : 25-09-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nVS.\nMESSRS NAWA E WAQT PUBLICATIONS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 78 = 2001 SLD 78 = 2001 PTD 457 = (1999) 239 ITR 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Employee Benefits\nConclusion:\nOnly actual expenses for benefits like cars are considered for deductibility under Sections 40(c) and 40A(5); Rule 3 for perquisites is not relevant.\nReference: C.W.S. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 649 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 895 of 1983 (Reference No.460 of 1983), decision dated: 30-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nMADURA COATS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 79 = 2001 SLD 79 = 2001 PTD 467 = (1999) 239 ITR 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax – Interest and Demand Notices\nConclusion:\nInterest under Section 220(2) accrues from the original demand date, even after an appellate order merges with the original assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4796 of 1996, decision dated: 13-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C., J, JUSTICE S. K. KULSHRESTHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: B. L. Nema.\nRespondent(s) by: Abhay Sapre.", + "Party Name:": "PITAMBARDAS DULICHAND AND OTHERS\nVS.\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 80 = 2001 SLD 80 = 2001 PTD 476 = (2001) 83 TAX 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Disallowance of Interest on Borrowed Capital\nConclusion:\nInterest disallowed under the second proviso to Section 10(2)(iii) is valid when no evidence is provided by the assessee to prove the purpose of borrowing.\nReference: Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore v. Sheikh Muhammad Ismail & Co. Lyallpur (1986 SCMR 968).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 26 of 1978, heard on 26-09-2000, hearing DATE : 26-09-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Imtiaz Javed Hashmi\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES, LAHORE\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 81 = 2001 SLD 81 = 2001 PTD 480 = (1999) 239 ITR 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital or Revenue Expenditure – Technical Know-How\nConclusion:\nExpenditure on acquiring technical know-how for betterment in existing processes without enduring benefits is considered revenue expenditure.\nReference: Jonas Woodhead & Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 342 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1583 of 1986 (Reference No. 1055 of 1986), decision dated: 30-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "JAYASINTHA BABU, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nSIMPSON & CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 82 = 2001 SLD 82 = 2001 PTD 487 = (1999) 239 ITR 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Tax – Non-Payment as per Estimate\nConclusion:\nFailure to pay advance tax as per an estimate filed does not attract interest under Section 217(1A) due to the absence of explicit statutory provisions.\nReference: CIT v. Bihar Journals Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 458 (Pat.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.2107 of 1984 (Reference No. 1563 of 1984), decision dated: 19th, February 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nD. ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 83 = 2001 SLD 83 = 2001 PTD 491 = (1999) 239 ITR 510", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable Trust – Application of Income\nConclusion:\nCrediting amounts to an educational institution's account, followed by withdrawals, qualifies as application of income under Section 11, making the trust eligible for exemption.\nReference: CIT v. Thanthi Trust (1999) 239 ITR 502 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 224 to 228 of 1985 (References Nos. 116 to 120 of 1985), decision dated: 18-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: R. Janakiraman", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nTHANTHI TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 84 = 2001 SLD 84 = 2001 PTD 495 = (1999) 239 ITR 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Damages for Contract Cancellation\nConclusion:\nDamages paid for contract cancellation in regular business operations are deductible as revenue expenditure and not speculative transactions.\nReference: CIT v. Kamani Tubes Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 298 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.162 of 1985 (Reference No. 70 of 1985), decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nSRI RAMALINGA CHOODAMBIGAI MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Qw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 85 = 2001 SLD 85 = 2001 PTD 498 = (1999) 239 ITR 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Qw", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nRental Income from Superstructures: Business income when structures are let for limited periods.\n2.\nInterest on Loans: Income from a single loan is income from other sources. \n3.\nFlat Maintenance Costs: Deductible if used for business purposes; ownership disputes affect depreciation claims.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 101 of 1992, decision dated: 29th, April 1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA, JUSTICE PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nSHREE SHEW SHAKTI MILLS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 86 = 2001 SLD 86 = 2001 PTD 502 = (1999) 239 ITR 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RA", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nExempt Salary Components: Salary exempt under Section 10(6)(viia) is excluded from limits under Sections 40(c) and 40A(5).\n2.\nWeighted Deductions: Certification and warranty expenses are ineligible for weighted deductions under Section 35B.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos. 1299 and 1300 of 1987 (References Nos.808 and 809 of 1987), decision dated: 26-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja\nRespondent(s) by: C.V. Rajan", + "Party Name:": "LUCAS TVS LTD\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 87 = 2001 SLD 87 = 2001 PTD 505 = (1999) 239 ITR 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation on Recovery of TDS\nConclusion:\nRecovery proceedings for TDS not deducted within a stipulated timeframe (one year after the fiscal year) are invalid.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 194A, 201, & 231.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14228 of 1991, decision dated: 11-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: R. Janakiraman for Petitioner.\nRespondent(s) by: Mrs. Kala Kamesh for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. B. Krishnaveni for Respondent No. 3.", + "Party Name:": "A & M AGENCIES\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Qg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 88 = 2001 SLD 88 = 2001 PTD 508 = (1999) 239 ITR 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Qg", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nDepreciation – Ownership: Income earners without legal ownership can claim depreciation.\n2.\nCompensation for Competition Avoidance: Payments to restrict competition are capital expenditures.\n3.\nProvision for Urban Land Tax: Non-deductible if no demand or payment occurs in the assessment year.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 912 of 1984 (Reference No.808 of 1984), decision dated: 30-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja\nRespondent(s) by: C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "TAMILNADU DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Rw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 89 = 2001 SLD 89 = 2001 PTD 514 = (1999) 239 ITR 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Rw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Pension to Director's Widow\nConclusion:\nPension payments to a director’s widow are deductible if authorized as a resolution during employment, promoting employee confidence.\nReference: Gordon Woodroffe Leather Mfg. Co. v. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 551 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1795 of 1984 (Reference No. 1291 of 1984), decision dated: 18-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HADI, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nLUCAS INDIAN SERVICE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 90 = 2001 SLD 90 = 2001 PTD 520 = (1999) 239 ITR 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Errors in Additional Tax Orders\nConclusion:\nApproval from higher authorities is unnecessary for rectification under Section 155(7) post-assessment under Section 104.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 898, 899 and 900 of 1984 (Reference Nos.794 to 796 of 1984), decision dated: 30-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: B. Raviraja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nV. RAMAKRISHNA SONS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 91 = 2001 SLD 91 = 2001 PTD 524 = (1999) 239 ITR 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RQ", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nRevised Returns: Claims in revised returns post-draft assessment are invalid.\n2.\nMunicipal Taxes: Deductible only in the year liability arises.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 382 of 1987, decision dated: 29-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF, JUSTICE D. G. DESHPANDE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: D.P. Desai instructed by Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co.\nRespondent(s) by: R.V. Desai with T.C. Kaushik", + "Party Name:": "INDUSTRIAL CONSULTING BUREAU (P.) LTD\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Rg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 92 = 2001 SLD 92 = 2001 PTD 526 = (1999) 239 ITR 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Rg", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nBooks of Accounts: Regular maintenance without defects prevents rejection under Section 145.\n2.\nRaw Material Usage: Reasonable explanations negate additions for excess consumption.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos. 200 to 207 of 1998, decision dated: 27th August. 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. K. ABICHANDANI, JUSTICE A.R. DAVE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: P.G. Desai instructed by Manish R. Bhatt", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nVIKRAM PLASTICS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Sw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 93 = 2001 SLD 93 = 2001 PTD 530 = (1999) 239 ITR 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Sw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation in Shortened Fiscal Year\nConclusion:\nFull depreciation is allowable despite a shortened previous year due to statutory deductions.\nReference: Esthuri Aswathaiah v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 411 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1790 of 1986 (Reference No. 1221 of 1986), decision dated: 24th December; 1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nPREMIER MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 94 = 2001 SLD 94 = 2001 PTD 535 = (1999) 239 ITR 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gratuity Liabilities Post-Nationalization\nConclusion:\nGratuity for the pre-nationalization period is deductible if provisioned in an approved reserve.\nReference: Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 23 of 1996, decision dated: 11-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "B.A. KHAN, JUSTICE N. K., JAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: S.K. Pavnekar\nRespondent(s) by: K.L. Puntambekar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nNATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 95 = 2001 SLD 95 = 2001 PTD 539 = (1999) 239 ITR 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Liability for Loss of Goods\nConclusion:\nStatutory liabilities under the Carriers Act for lost goods are deductible if provisioned in the accounting year.\nReference: Kedamath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 13 of 1996, decision dated: 14-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, JUSTICE J.B. KOSHY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair.\nRespondent(s) by: C. Kochunni Nair, M.A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurian", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nKERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 96 = 2001 SLD 96 = 2001 PTD 545 = (1999) 239 ITR 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Promissory Note Found During Search\nConclusion:\nAdditions made to income during a later assessment year were invalid as the promissory note income was already taxed in an earlier year. Findings based on facts do not raise any question of law.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 101 of 1999, decision dated: 20-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA, JUSTICE A.R. DAVE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nARVIND H. SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 97 = 2001 SLD 97 = 2001 PTD 564 = (1999) 239 ITR 546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Tax – Filing Estimates\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal erred by not considering Section 209A introduced in 1978, which impacts the obligation to file advance tax estimates. The matter was remanded for reevaluation in light of CBDT Circular No. 240.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 209A.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 132 of 1996, decision dated: 26-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, JUSTICE\nJ. B. KOSHY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair\nRespondent(s) by: P. Balachandran", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nENGLISH INDIAN CLAYS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 98 = 2001 SLD 98 = 2001 PTD 548 = (1999) 239 ITR 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Procedure for Assessment – Section 143\nConclusion:\nOnce notice under Section 143(2) is issued for scrutiny, the Assessing Officer cannot revert to Section 143(1)(a). Doing so would violate principles of natural justice.\nReference: Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 220 ITR 248 (Delhi) dissented from.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1996, decision dated: 26-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "A.K. MATHUR, JUSTICE B.A. KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: S.K. Pawnekar\nRespondent(s) by: H.C. Sarda with S.K. Jain", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nREGIONAL SOYABEAN PRODUCTS COOPERATIVE UNION LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 99 = 2001 SLD 99 = 2001 PTD 556 = (1999) 239 ITR 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction for Income from Fees for Work Done Outside India\nConclusion:\nUnder Section 80-O, only income determined as per the Act is deductible, not gross receipts. Business losses and unabsorbed depreciation must be adjusted before claiming deductions.\nReference: Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 243 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 617 of 1984 (Reference No.543 of 1984), decision dated: 11-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan \nRespondent(s) by: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nM.K. RAJU CONSULTANTS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 100 = 2001 SLD 100 = 2001 PTD 560 = (1999) 239 ITR 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital or Revenue Expenditure – Membership Fee\nConclusion:\nMembership fees for accessing technical information, renewed annually, are revenue expenditures as no enduring benefit is acquired.\nReference: Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 130 and 131 of 1978, decision dated: 29th July 1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR, JUSTIC D. K., JAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: R.C. Pandey with Ajay Jha.\nRespondent(s) by: Ms. Anjali Verma", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nENGINEERS INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 101 = 2001 SLD 101 = 2001 PTD 566 = (1999) 239 ITR 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gratuity Fund Contribution\nConclusion:\nGratuity contributions for employees’ past services with a holding company are deductible if continuity of service is established.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 36(1)(v).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1519 of 1986 (Reference No.998 of 1986), decision dated: 24-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nSUDARSAN CHIT (INDIA) LTD. (NO. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 102 = 2001 SLD 102 = 2001 PTCL 454 = 2001 PTD 570 = (2001) 83 TAX 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRg", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nFailure to Deduct Tax at Source: A payer is not treated as an assessee in default if the payee/deductee has already paid their taxes in full.\n2.\nInterpretation of Tax Statutes: Taxing provisions must be applied strictly as written, without assumptions.\n3.\nAdvance Tax Deduction: Conditions and exemptions under Sections 50(4) and 80C must comply with Circular No. 19 of 1991.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8,50,50(4),50(4)(a),52,53,80,80C(4),86 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-707 of 1999, decision dated: 30-03-2000, hearing DATE : 15-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE ATA UR REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Naseem for Petitioner.\nRespondent(s) by: Shaikh Hyder for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "M/S. CONTINENTAL CHEMICAL CO. (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nPAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 103 = 2001 SLD 103 = 2001 PTD 609 = (2001) 83 TAX 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSw", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nAppeal to High Court: Questions of law arise if conclusions drawn from facts are contested.\n2.\nExpenditure Not Incidental to Business: Deductions under Section 23 require clear evidence of business relevance; failure results in disallowance.\nReference: S.M. Ilyas & Sons v. CIT, Lahore PLD 1982 SC 259.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(i)(xviii),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. Nos. 49 to 52 of 1990, decision dated: 24-07-1998, hearing DATE : 8-07-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE RAJA QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Rehan Hassan Naqvi\nRespondent(s) by: Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS KARACHI HOSPITAL LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A (NOW COMPANIES(III), KCY." + }, + { + "Case No.": "309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 104 = 2001 SLD 104 = 2001 PTD 548 = (1999) 239 ITR 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment Notices under Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(2)\nConclusion:\nA notice under Section 143(2) supersedes any earlier action under Section 143(1)(a), ensuring adherence to procedural fairness.\nReference: Gujarat Poly-AVX Electronics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (1996) 222 ITR 140 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No.15177 of 1988 and W.M.P. No.22728 of 1988, decision dated: 9-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "K. SAMPATH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. Devanathan for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan, Ramamani and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Petitioner. S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "AURO FOOD LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 105 = 2001 SLD 105 = 2001 PTD 623 = (2001) 83 TAX 348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQw", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nRevised Return: A return filed to correct capital gains omissions under Section 57 does not alter its treatment under the self-assessment scheme.\n2.\nPenalty for Omissions: Punitive actions must adhere to procedural fairness; a revised return under Section 57 does not warrant additional penalties.\nReference: Rashid Ahmad v. The State PLD 1972 SC 271.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,57 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 347 of 1990, decision dated: 23rd July, 1990.hearing DATE : 9-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE RAJA QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Nasarullah Awan\nRespondent(s) by: Khalifa Salah-ud-Din Ahmed", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nKAMRUDDIN FAKHRUDDIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 106 = 2001 SLD 106 = 2001 PTD 628 = (1999) 239 ITR 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Accrual of Income\nConclusion:\nIncome under a collaboration agreement was not assessable when not realized during the year, as per the assessee's Board resolution to account for income on a cash basis.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I. P. No. 144 of 1996, decision dated: 22-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, JUSTICE B.M. MITRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Bimal Chatterjee and P. Bhowmick\nRespondent(s) by: Debi Pal and Monisha Seal", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nBENGAL WATERPROOF LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 107 = 2001 SLD 107 = 2001 PTCL 250 = 2001 PTD 633 = (2001) 83 TAX 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Re-opening of Assessment under Definite Information\nConclusions:\n1.\nA change of opinion without new facts does not justify reopening.\n2.\n Definite information requires specific, substantial new evidence.\nReference: Messrs Central Insurance Co. v. CBR, PLD 1990 SCMR 1232.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(1), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199, ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1813 of 1998, decision dated: 31st December, 1999, hearing DATE : 24-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Sirajul Haq Memon\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Farid", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS NATIONAL BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD.\nVS.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 108 = 2001 SLD 108 = 2001 PTD 650 = (1999) 239 ITR 269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment Based on Subsequent Year Information\nConclusion:\nReassessment was valid as information from subsequent years revealed excessive claims of wastage and improper accounting of income.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147(b).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.297 and 298 of 1984 (References Nos.246 and 247 of 1984), decision dated: 20-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": "JANARTHANAM, JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: . R. Venkataraman\nRespondent(s) by: S. V. Subramaniam", + "Party Name:": "CHENNAI MURASU (P.) LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 109 = 2000 SLD 109 = 2000 PTD 1603 = (1998) 234 ITR 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdiction of High Court\nConclusion:\nDelhi High Court lacked jurisdiction as the orders arose entirely in Haryana. Cause of action must be within the territorial jurisdiction.\nReference: Constitution of India, Article 226.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 2167 of 1998 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 3538 of 1998, decision dated: 15th May 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI, JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: in person.", + "Party Name:": "RAJ JUMAR MANGLA\nVS.\nCHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 110 = 2001 SLD 110 = 2001 PTCL 383 = 2001 PTD 668 = (2001) 83 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Retrospective Application of Penalty Provisions\nConclusion:\nProvisions of Section 111(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, were not retrospective. Penalty for concealment before enactment was invalid.\nReference: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Olympia, 1987 PTD 739.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),111(2),111 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=12, ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 121 of 1991, heard on 18-10-2000, hearing DATE : 18-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Shafqat Mehmood Chohan\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, LAHORE\nVS.\nMUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 111 = 2001 SLD 111 = 2001 PTCL 364 = 2001 PTD 672 = (2001) 83 TAX 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rental Income Classification\nConclusion:\nIncome from renting properties used in manufacturing was classified as rental income since no effort was made to restart manufacturing.\nReference: C.I.T. (Appeals) v. Muhammad Allah Bux, 1977 PTD 13.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.Cs. Nos. 27 and 30 of 1993, decision dated: 23rd July, 1998, hearing DATE : 9-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE RAJA QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Nasarullah Awan\nRespondent(s) by: Khalifa Salah-ud-Din", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nVALIKA ART FABRICS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 112 = 2001 SLD 112 = 2001 PTD 678 = (2001) 83 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Natural Justice in Penalty Imposition\nConclusion:\nPenalty imposed without a show-cause notice violated natural justice. Penalty orders were rightly set aside.\nReference: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fazlur Rehman, PLD 1964 SC 410.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=46,46(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 4 of 1974, heard on 25-10-2000, hearing DATE : 25-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Shafqat Mahmood Chouhan\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nMISS AASIA FILM ARTIST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 113 = 2001 SLD 113 = 2001 PTD 690 = (1999) 239 ITR 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment and Excessive Wastage Claims\nConclusion:\nReassessment proceedings were upheld as valid, relying on evidence from a sister concern's practices to uncover inflated wastage claims.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147(b).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos. 299 and 300 of 1984 (References Nos.248 and 249 of 1984), decided or. 20-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": "JANARTHANAM, JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: R. Venkataraman\nRespondent(s) by: S.V. Subramaniam", + "Party Name:": "THANJAI MURASU (P.) LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 114 = 2001 SLD 114 = 2001 PTD 693 = (1999) 239 ITR 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Disclosure of Material Facts for Assessment\nConclusion:\nFailure to disclose expenses for a director's property justified reassessment under Section 40A(5).\nReference: C.W.S. (India) Ltd. v. CIT, 1994.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1149 and 1150 of 1988 (References Nos. 893 and 894 of 1988), decision dated: 2-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: P. P. S. Janarthana Raja\nRespondent(s) by: C.V. Rajan", + "Party Name:": "SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION AGENCIES (P.) LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 115 = 2001 SLD 115 = 2001 PTD 700 = (1999) 239 ITR 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Royalty\nConclusion:\nRoyalty liability accrued only after Government of India approval. Deduction was disallowed for the assessment year 1980-81.\nReference: CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd., 1998.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 455 of 1987, decision dated: 31st March, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF, JUSTICE D. G. DESHPANDE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: R.V., Desai with B.M. Chatterjee and L.S. Shetty\nRespondent(s) by: Ashok Kotangale instructed by Kotangale & Co.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nJOHN FOWLER (INDIA) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 116 = 2001 SLD 116 = 2001 PTD 708 = (1999) 239 ITR 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tribunal's Power to Remand\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s decision to admit new grounds and remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration was valid.\nReference: CIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd., 1995.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.738 of 1982 (Reference No.475 of 1982), decision dated: 25-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. THANIKKACHALAM, JUSTICE S.M. ABDUL WAHAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: S.V. Subramaniam\nRespondent(s) by: R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nINDIAN OVERSEAS BANK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 117 = 2001 SLD 117 = 2001 PTD 711 = (1999) 239 ITR 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Provisional Attachment of Property\nConclusion:\nProvisional attachment of bank accounts and FDRs was invalid when immovable properties sufficiently secured anticipated tax liabilities.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 281B.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1454 of 1999, decision dated: 7-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF, JUSTICE MRS. RANJANA DESAI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.B. Andhyrajina instructed by Desai and Diwanji for Petitioner. R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "GANDHI TRADING\nVS.\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 118 = 2001 SLD 118 = 2001 PTD 717 = (1999) 239 ITR 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQg", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nInterest on Securities: Taxable on due basis, not on receipt basis.\n2.\nDepreciation and Development Rebate: Claim inadmissible due to lack of details.\nReference: CIT v. Canara Bank, 1992.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 114 of 1982, decision dated: 5-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR, JUSTICE D. K., JAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: R.D. Jolly\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nPUNJAB AND SINDH BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 119 = 2000 SLD 119 = 2000 PTD 3555 = (1999) 238 ITR 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: LIC Incentive Bonus Classification\nConclusion:\nIncentive bonus for LIC Development Officers is salary income, with no additional deductions allowed beyond standard salary deductions.\nReference: B.M. Parmar v. CIT, 1999.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.417 and 418 of 1995, decision dated: 28th October 1998", + "Judge Name:": "G. C. GARG, JUSTICE NK. AGRAWAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Bansal.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nS.L. SINGHAL, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 120 = 2001 SLD 120 = 2001 PTD 725 = (1999) 239 ITR 362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains from Share Transactions\nConclusion:\nDepreciation in parent company shares’ value due to rights in a subsidiary must be accounted for in capital gains computation.\nReference: Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT, 1967.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 420 of 1983, decision dated: 21st September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. K. ABICHANDANI, JUSTICE A.R. DAVE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: B.B. Naik and Manish R. Bhatt\nRespondent(s) by: J.P. Shah", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nSUHASHBHAI VADILAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 121 = 2001 SLD 121 = 2001 PTD 735 = (1999) 239 ITR 386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Waiver of Penalty Conditions\nConclusion:\nDisclosure of concealed income was not voluntary or in good faith if motivated by legal compulsion, disqualifying waiver requests.\nReference: Hakam Singh v. CIT, 1980.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1008 of 1992, decision dated: 19-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "TIRATH S. THAKUR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Ramabadran and Sarangan\nRespondent(s) by: M.V. Seshachala", + "Party Name:": "K. L. SWAMY\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 122 = 2001 SLD 122 = 2001 PTD 749 = (1999) 239 ITR 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Borrowed Funds for Tax Payment\nConclusion:\nInterest on funds borrowed to pay income tax is not deductible as business expenditure.\nReference: East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT, 1997.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 428 of 1987, decision dated: 24-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J, JUSTICE S. K. KULSHRESTHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: H. S. Shrivastava\nRespondent(s) by: Abhay Sapre", + "Party Name:": "H. H. MAHARAJA MARTAND SINGH JUDEO\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 123 = 2001 SLD 123 = 2001 PTD 750 = (1999) 239 ITR 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Accrual of Income in Sugar Industry\nConclusion:\nExcess amounts collected under a High Court order did not accrue as income due to pending disputes.\nReference: CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., 1986.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.93 of 1987, decision dated: 15-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF, JUSTICE SMT. RANJANA DESAI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: P. S. Jetley with R. V. Desai\nRespondent(s) by: Ms. V. B. Patel", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nSHARDA SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 124 = 2001 SLD 124 = 2001 PTD 755 = (2001) 83 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Tax at Source\nConclusion:\nSection 52 amendments regarding withholding agents have procedural retroactive effect but require explicit jurisdiction at the time of orders.\nReference: 1993 SCMR 338.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4)(ii),8,52,50(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4605/LB and 4606/LB of 1999, decision dated: 28-10-2000, hearing DATE : 18-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Shahbaz Butt, Advocate/A.R\nRespondent(s) by: Javaid Iqbal Rana, D.R. alongwith Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 125 = 2001 SLD 125 = 2001 PTD 772 = (2001) 83 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Double Taxation in Undistributed Dividends\nConclusion:\nUndistributed profits taxed under Section 23A are not subject to double taxation; computation was upheld.\nReference: Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23A,23D,23(2),23(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 31 of 1973, heard on 25th September; 2000, hearing DATE : 25-09-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Syed Ibrar Hussain Naqvi\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS NASEER MUGHIS LTD., LAHORE\nVS.\nC.I.T., LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 126 = 2001 SLD 126 = 2001 PTCL 156 = 2001 PTD 778 = (2001) 83 TAX 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Income Tax Exemption in Tribal Areas\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether raw materials imported for manufacturing in Tribal Areas, where the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, does not apply, are exempt from advance income tax under S.R.O. 593(1)/91, dated 30-6-1991.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,.50(5),56,63,247,593(1)/91,185(3) ", + "Case #": "No. 918 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1511 of on 30-11-2000. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 4-1-2000 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 1278 of 1999).hearing DATE : 30-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (absent)\nRespondent(s) by: Mansoor Ahmed, Deputy Attorney-General, Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record (absent)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, PESHAWAR\nVS.\nMESSRS GUL COOKING OIL AND VEGETABLE GHEE (PVT.) LTD, AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 127 = 2001 SLD 127 = 2001 PTD 785 = (2001) 83 TAX 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Banking Company - Capital Asset or Income\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's failure to examine whether money from Federal Investment Bonds represented capital gain or income necessitated remand for proper adjudication.\nReference: Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, Section 13.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.D 141 of 1998, decision dated: 3rd February, 2000, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Iqbal Naeem Pasha.\nRespondent(s) by: Jawaid Farooqui.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS HABIB CREDIT & EXCHANGE BANK LIMITED\nVS.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 128 = 2001 SLD 128 = 2001 PTD 793 = (2001) 83 TAX 498", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Penal Interest\nConclusion:\nPenal interest, being in the nature of a fine, is not an allowable deduction.\nReference: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Premier Bank Limited, 1999 SCMR 1213.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 44 of 1993, decision dated: 11-02-2000, hearing DATE : 11-02-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Nasrullah Awan\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nMESSRS KARIM SILK MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 129 = 2001 SLD 129 = 2001 PTD 795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Retrospective Tax Imposition\nConclusion:\nImposing tax retrospectively under an amendment without explicit legal authority is invalid. Favorable interpretations are preferred in case of ambiguity.\nReference: Finance Act, 1996.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,19 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.120 of 1995 and 129 of 1998 with Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 116, 147 and 139 of 1998, decision dated: 10-05-2000, hearing DATE : 10-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUR RAUF KHAN LUGHMANI, JUSTICE SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Haji Saleem Jan Khan\nRespondent(s) by: Eid Muhammad Khan Khattak", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD HANIF AND 21 OTHERS\nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 130 = 2001 SLD 130 = 2001 PTD 798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure\nConclusion:\nExpenditure on protective works to avoid future damage, not tied to immediate threats or business continuation, was capital in nature and not deductible as revenue expenditure.\nReference: CIT v. Messrs Madras Auto Service (Pvt.) Ltd., 1986.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 38 of 1988 (T.R.29 of 1988), heard on 28-09-2000, hearing DATE : 28-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Aftab Ahmad Khan and Azhar Maqbool Shah.\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED, AVARI PLAZA, HILTON HOTEL, SHAHRAHEQUAIDEAZAM, LAHORE\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 13 = 2000 SLD 13 = 2000 PTD 1606 = (1998) 234 ITR 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Travel Expenses of Directors’ Wives\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s finding that travel expenses of directors’ wives were business-related and deductible was upheld, as the factual basis was not challenged.\nReference: CIT v. George Williamson (Assam). Ltd., 1997.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1996, decision dated: 11-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. C., JAIN, ACTG. C.J., JUSTICE P. G. AGARWAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 131 = 2001 SLD 131 = 2001 PTD 811 = (2001) 83 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme for New Taxpayers\nConclusion:\nNew taxpayers were entitled to benefits under the Self-Assessment Scheme; exclusion based on erroneous interpretation of rules was invalid.\nReference: C.B.R. Circulars 4 & 16 of 1996.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1620/LB of 2000, decision dated: 22-11-2000, hearing DATE : 22-11-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Syed Iftikhar Arshad, I.T.P.\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Asif, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 132 = 2001 SLD 132 = 2001 PTD 812 = (2001) 83 TAX 500", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Advance Tax\nConclusion:\nRecovery notices based on assessments already set aside were invalid. The High Court quashed the notices.\nReference: Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,53(1)(b),199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2476 of 2000, decision dated: 3rd March, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Sardar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera\nRespondent(s) by: Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Legal Advisor.", + "Party Name:": "F.M.C. UNITED (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nVS.\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 133 = 2001 SLD 133 = 2001 PTD 814 = (2001) 83 TAX 258 = (2001) 84 TAX 500", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reserves and Provisions in Insurance Business\nConclusion:\nAssessing Officer could not interfere with provisions or reserves disclosed by insurance businesses before the 1980 amendment to the Income Tax Ordinance.\nReference: Finance Ordinance, 1980.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,.2(7),10(2),(7) ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 360 of 1991, decision dated: 11-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan\nRespondent(s) by: Latif Ahmed Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nVS.\nNATIONAL SECURITY INSURANCE CO. LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 134 = 2000 SLD 134 = 2000 PTD 1609 = (1998) 234 ITR 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Short-term vs. Long-term Capital Gains\nConclusion:\nRegistration of a property sale deed relates back to the agreement date, making gains on subsequent sale long-term if held for over 36 months.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 45.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.27 of 1990, decision dated: 29-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI, JUSTICE T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kodanda Ram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "M. SYAMALA RAO\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 135 = 2000 SLD 135 = 2000 PTD 1612 = (1998) 234 ITR 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Undisclosed Sources\nConclusion:\nPronotes found during a search were determined not to belong to the assessee. Therefore, interest from those pronotes was not taxable as assessee’s income.\nReference: CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, 1973.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax case No. 208 of 1982 (Reference No. 120 of 1982), decision dated: 21st February 1997", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM, JUSTICE S. M. SIDICKK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Devanathan for K. C. Rajappa for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "D. RAMASWAMY REDDIAR\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 136 = 2001 SLD 136 = 2001 PTD 833 = (2000) 242 ITR 124 = (2000) 82 TAX 549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQQ", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 342\nTopic: Firm’s Business Expenditure\nConclusion:\nExplanation 2 to Section 40(b), introduced in 1985, is declaratory and governs interest disallowance for firms. Earlier observations treating it otherwise were obiter dicta.\nReference: Suwalal Anandilal Jain v. CIT, 1997.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 9777 of 1995, decision dated: 25th January; 2000. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated September 8, 1988 of the Bombay High Court in I. T. A. No. 112 of 1988).", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, A. P. MISRA, JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish Chandra, K.N. Shukla, B. Sen. Amicus curiae, Senior Adv. for Appl. S. Rajappa, Ms. Sushma Suri, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.V.Rangam, B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. Renu George, B. Gupta, Ms. Bina Gupta, Mrs. Rakhi Raym, Mrs. T. Sudha, Ganpathi Iyer, Gopalkrishnan,Raghavendra Gopal Krishnan and M.B. RAO", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nKANJI SHIVJI & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 14 = 2000 SLD 14 = 2000 PTD 1617 = (1998) 234 ITR 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revenue Expenditure - Resurfacing Roads\nConclusion:\nExpenditure on resurfacing factory roads, which restored them to efficient condition without creating a new asset, was revenue in nature.\nReference: L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 1980.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 146 of 1981, decision dated: 24-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, JUSTICE R. K. GULATI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS.\nHIMALAYA DRUG CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 15 = 2000 SLD 15 = 2000 PTD 1620 = (1998) 234 ITR 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Expenditure from Capital Gains\nConclusion:\nExpenses related to tenant eviction were deductible as they facilitated the sale. Embezzled funds unrelated to the transaction were not deductible.\nReference: Mrs. G. Y. Chenoy v. CIT, 1998.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Reference No. 39 of 1990, decision dated: 22-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI, JUSTICE T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Y. Ratnakar\nRespondent(s) by: J. V. Prasad", + "Party Name:": "NAOZAR CHENOY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 16 = 2000 SLD 16 = 2000 PTD 1623 = (1998) 234 ITR 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISA", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment under Income Tax Act, 1961 – Conditions for reopening assessments\nDetails:\nThe case pertains to the reassessment notices issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Sections 147/148 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, against an assessee engaged in manufacturing photosensitive films. The manufacture of such films was deemed ineligible for deduction under Section 80-I as the product fell under the Eleventh Schedule of the Act. The ITO reopened assessments claiming the deductions earlier granted were incorrect. However, no new material, change in law, or new information emerged between the original assessments and the reassessment notices. The reassessment was based solely on a fresh application of mind by the ITO to the same facts, constituting a change of opinion.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that the reassessment notices were invalid because they were based merely on a change of opinion by the ITO without any new material or development to justify the belief that income had escaped assessment. The court reiterated that reassessment powers are not intended to provide assessing authorities with unrestricted power of review.\n1.\nA mere change of opinion does not constitute a valid reason to believe under Section 147.\n2.\nReopening assessments without jurisdictional foundations under Section 147 renders such notices and subsequent proceedings invalid and liable to be quashed.\nCitations:\n1.\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)\n2.\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)\n3.\nCIT v. Bhanji Lavji (1971) 79 ITR 582 (SC)\n4.\nCIT v. Rao Thakur Narayati Singh (1965) 56 ITR 234 (SC)\n5.\nCWT v. Manilal C. Desai (1973) 91 ITR 135 (MP)\n6.\nGopal Films v. ITO (1983) 139 ITR 566 (Kar.)\n7.\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC)\n8.\nITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)\n9.\nKalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC)\n10.\nPhool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC)\n11.\nSatpal Automobile Co. v. ITO (1983) 141 ITR 450 (All.)\n12.\nSiesta Steel Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. v. K. K. Shikare (1985) 154 ITR 547 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. W. P. Nos. 2901, 2902 and 3528 of 1997, decision dated: 28th May 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI, JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: G. C. Sharma, Anoop Sharma and R. K. Raghwan.\nRespondent(s) by: R. D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Bansal.", + "Party Name:": "JINDAL PHOTO FILMS LTD\nVS.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 17 = 2000 SLD 17 = 2000 PTD 1633 = (1998) 234 ITR 854", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gifts Received by Astrologer\nConclusion:\nGifts received by an astrologer from well-wishers abroad, not tied to professional services, were not considered professional receipts. This was a factual determination, not a legal question.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 18 of 1995, decision dated: 20-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI, JUSTICE J. K. MEHRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS.\nPROF. P. G. A. NATH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 18 = 2000 SLD 18 = 2000 PTD 1639 = (1998) 234 ITR 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment and Writ Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nReassessment was validly initiated based on credible material connecting income to benami names and appraisal reports. Courts cannot evaluate the sufficiency of material under writ jurisdiction.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 147 & 148.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. W. No. 1088 of 1996, decision dated: 28-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": "Y. K. SABHARWAL, JUSTICE C. K. MAHAJAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "RATTAN GUPTA\nVS\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 19 = 2000 SLD 19 = 2000 PTD 1645 = (1998) 234 ITR 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Levy and Waiver of Interest\nConclusion:\nAssessment pursuant to a return filed under Section 148 is considered a regular assessment. Interest levied under Sections 139 and 217 was valid; no grounds for waiver existed.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 10263 of 1992, decision dated: 12-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": "G. SIVARAJAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: P.C. Chacko.\nRespondent(s) by: P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair.", + "Party Name:": "SANTHOSH ELECTRICALS\nVS\nIncome Tax OFFICER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 137 = 2001 SLD 137 = 2001 PTD 860 = (2001) 83 TAX 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening Assessment under Self-Assessment Scheme\nConclusion:\nReassessment under Section 65 allows the reassessment of other income sources not initially identified in the reopening notice.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 65.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,.65,59(1) & 13(1)(b),65(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 296 of 1991, decision dated: 6-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Malik Muhammad Nawaz.\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI\nVS.\nMESSRS AMANAT ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 138 = 2001 SLD 138 = 2001 PTD 865 = (2001) 83 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption under Economic Reforms Act\nConclusion:\nExemptions under Section 6 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, are limited to those explicitly mentioned in its schedule. They cannot be expanded to include other laws' exemptions.\nReference: Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,6,80,(126D) & S.66A,80D Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=6,(126)D,14, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2285/LB of 2000, decision dated: 16-11-2000, hearing DATE : 22-06-2000", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Shahbaz Butt\nRespondent(s) by: Mrs. Talat Altaf, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 139 = 2001 SLD 139 = 2001 PTD 874 = (2001) 83 TAX 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation on Reopening Assessments\nConclusion:\nThe extended limitation period under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, does not apply to assessments already barred under the previous Income Tax Act, 1922.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,65 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 78 of 1991, heard on 18-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Shafqat Mehmood Chauhan for Appellant.\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nVS.\nMESSRS CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 140 = 2001 SLD 140 = 2001 PTD 876 = (2001) 83 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Meaning of Securities and Finance Certificates\nConclusion:\nFinance certificates, being fixed-income securities, are not treated as securities under Section 50(2). Tax was correctly withheld under Section 50(7-D).\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5383/LB of 1999, decision dated: 18-10-2000, hearing DATE : 25-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Iqbal Khawaja\nRespondent(s) by: Mian Manawar Ghafoor, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 141 = 2001 SLD 141 = 2001 PTD 884 = (2001) 83 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Best Assessment Principles\nConclusion:\nBest assessments should be honest, reasonable, and not arbitrary. Penal assessments for non-compliance are invalid.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,63,12(18), ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2086/KB to 2088/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 4-12-2000, hearing DATE : 25-11-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Rehan Hassan Naqvi\nRespondent(s) by: Jawed Iqbal Rana, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 142 = 2001 SLD 142 = 2001 PTD 888 = (2001) 83 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Residency Status of Branch Office\nConclusion:\nA U.S.-registered company's Pakistan branch office was not a resident under the Ordinance, as control and management were outside Pakistan. Fees for technical services were taxed at a flat rate under Section 80-AA.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,2(16)(c),2(30) & 2(40)(c),12(5)(a, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 530/IB to 533/IB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 27-11-2000, hearing DATE : 22-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Abdul.Jalil, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Aamir Ahmed, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 143 = 2001 SLD 143 = 2001 PTD 895 = (2001) 83 TAX 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Eligibility\nConclusion:\nThe eligibility for self-assessment is determined by the status of returns at the filing time. Revised returns under scrutiny orders do not qualify for self-assessment.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1)(4),59A,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.635/IB of 1998-99, decision dated: 12-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 144 = 2001 SLD 144 = 2001 PTD 900 = (2001) 83 TAX 505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference to High Court\nConclusion:\nReferences are reserved for questions of general interest, not isolated issues relevant to individual assessments in a specific year.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 136.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 20 of 1991, decision dated: 14-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan.\nRespondent(s) by: Ahmed Shuja Khan.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER oF Income Tax, LAHORE\nVS.\nMESSRS IMMION INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 20 = 2000 SLD 20 = 2000 PTD 3557 = (1999) 238 ITR 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision Notices and Writs\nConclusion:\nA writ petition is maintainable against revision notices issued without jurisdiction or mala fide. Notices issued for legitimate inquiries, such as nexus between loans and interest-free advances, are valid.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 263.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. P. No. 184 of 1999, decision dated: 2-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "AJOY NATH RAY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Dr. Pal\nRespondent(s) by: Agarwal", + "Party Name:": "J.C.T. LIMITED AND ANOTHER\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 21 = 2000 SLD 21 = 2000 PTD 3562 = (1982) 138 ITR 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision Powers of CIT\nConclusion:\nThe Commissioner can consider valuation reports obtained post-assessment as part of the record. The amendment to Section 263 clarifying this power is declaratory.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1965 of 1984 (Reference No.1430 of 1984), decision dated: 18-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS\nM. N. SULAIMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 145 = 2001 SLD 145 = 2001 PTD 915 = (2000) 242 ITR 706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest Income Classification\nConclusion:\nClassification of interest on fixed deposits, loans, and arrears as business or other income is a legal question.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. Nos 6131 and 6132 of 1995, decision dated: 22-02-2000. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated March 12, 1987 of the Bombay High Court in I.T.A. No.28 of 1986)", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. WADHWA, JUSTICE MB. SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, S.R. Sharma and Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate (Rustom B. Hathikhanwala, Advocate with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nHARIBHAI ESTATE (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 146 = 2001 SLD 146 = 2001 PTD 857 = (2000) 242 ITR 676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Trustee’s Tax and Wealth Liability\nConclusion:\nA trustee's tax liability is limited to income from the specific property granted under the trust deed. Similarly, wealth tax applies only to the trustee's defined interest.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, and Wealth Tax Act, 1957.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 740 to 756 of 1994 (References Nos.358, to 374 of 1994), decision dated: 23rd September, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: C.V. Rajan.\nRespondent(s) by: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXIWEALTH TAX\nVS.\nV. RANGNATHAM CHETTY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 147 = 2001 SLD 147 = 2001 PTD 918 = (2000) 242 ITR 659 = (2000) 82 TAX 583", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Expenditure on Technical Know-How\nConclusion:\nThe amount attributed to technical know-how contributed by a foreign company in exchange for equity shares in a new entity was not considered expenditure, let alone revenue expenditure, under Section 37(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37(1).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 4058 and 4059 of 1994, decision dated: 25-02-2000. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated January 17, 1983 of the Madras High Court in T.C. Nos. 1224 and 1225 of 1977).", + "Judge Name:": "D.P. WADHWA, JUSTICE SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Uttam Reddy, A. V. Rangam B.A. Ranganadhan and G.1 Gopalkrishnan, Advocates for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja and K.N. Shukla, SeniorAdvocates (K.C. Kaushik, Ms Neera Gupta, Ms. Sushma Suri, Arvind Kumar Sharma, MRs. Anil Katiyar V.K. Verma and C. Ramesh, Advocates with them) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "EIMCO K.C.P. LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 148 = 2001 SLD 148 = 2001 PTD 925 = (2000) 242 ITR 450 = (2000) 82 TAX 565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductions Across Income Heads\nConclusion:\nDeductions for business expenses can only be allowed if ventures constitute one indivisible business. Apportionment applies if ventures are not integrally related. Income exempt under specific heads does not preclude deductions for allowable expenses.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 4049 of 1994, decision dated: 23rd February, 2000. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated November 9, 1993 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.I.T.R. No. 86 of 1987).", + "Judge Name:": "D.P. WADHWA, JUSTICE SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 22 = 2000 SLD 22 = 2000 PTD 2034 = (1999) 235 ITR 461", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Genuineness of Cash Credits\nConclusion:\nCash credits in the names of two minor girls were genuine as they arose from customary gifts. Identity and creditworthiness were proven, and the transaction was genuine.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 68.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 12 of 1995, decision dated: 20-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. C., JAIN, ACTG. C., JUSTICE P. G. AGARWAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: R.K. Joshi and Mrs. U. Chakrawarthy\nRespondent(s) by: U. Bhuyan.", + "Party Name:": "ROOPCHAND MANOJ KUMAR\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 149 = 2001 SLD 149 = 2001 PTD 933 = (2000) 242 ITR 381 = (2000) 82 TAX 555", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment During Pending Assessment\nConclusion:\nA return filed with an application for a refund constitutes a valid return. Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated while assessment proceedings remain incomplete.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 143, 147, and 237.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 5395 of 1993, decision dated: 16-02-2000. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated October 7, 1983 of th Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R. No. 58 of 1978)", + "Judge Name:": "D.P. WADWA, JUSTICE S. S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "TRUSTEES OF H.E.H. THE NIZAMS SUPPLEMENTAL FAMILY TRUST\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 23 = 2000 SLD 23 = 2000 PTD 1649 = (2000) 81 TAX 209 = 2001 PTCL 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Mens Rea in Tax Penalty\nConclusion:\nPenalty for concealment of income is a civil liability under tax law and does not require proof of mens rea. Penalty under Section 111 is valid if concealment is established during assessment.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Chapters IX and XI.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),13(1)(d)(e),85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,108,109,110,111,111(1),111(2),111(2A),112,113,114,115,116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.7592/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 25-01-2000, hearing DATE : 21st August, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Syed Riaz-ud-Din, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: S. A. Samad Khan", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 150 = 2001 SLD 150 = 2001 PTD 946 = (1998) 234 ITR 383 = (2002) 85 TAX 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest-Free Loans to Directors\nConclusion:\nInterest-free loans to employee-directors do not constitute a perquisite in the absence of specific legal provisions. Amendments and subsequent repeals clarified the treatment under Sections 17(2) and 40A(5).\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 17(2) and 40A(5).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 657 of 1994 with 4012 13 of 1998, decision dated: 10-04-2000. (Civil, Appeal No. 657 of 1994 was by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 7, 1992, of the Karnatka High Court in I.T.R.C. No. 20 of 1989).", + "Judge Name:": "D.P. WADHWA, JUSTICE S. S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Saramajan, Mukul Mudgal, Ms. Shoba, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Ranbir Chandra, K.C. Kaushik, Ms. Sushma Suri and S.K. Dwivedi Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "V.M. SALGOCAR & BROS. (PVT.) LTD AND OTHERS\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 151 = 2001 SLD 151 = 2001 PTD 968 = (1998) 234 ITR 855 = (2001) 84 TAX 452", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdiction of High Court on Tribunal Findings\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final authority on facts. High Courts cannot overturn Tribunal findings by reassessing evidence. Matters of penalty follow the Tribunal's conclusions on quantum.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 256 and 271.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 6138 and 6139 of 1990, decision dated: 12-01-1999. (Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated May 29, 1985 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.R. Nos. 217 and 218 of 1975).", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, C.V.S. Rao,. B.K. Prasad and Balram Das, Advocates for Appellant. Harish Salve, Senior Advocate (Vijaylaxmi Menon and Anuradha Dutt, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nD.L.F. UNITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 23 = 2000 SLD 23 = 2000 PTD 1709 = (1998) 234 ITR 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Protective Assessment\nConclusion:\nProtective assessments are permissible during uncertainty over liability between parties. However, once income is substantively assessed in one entity's hands, protective assessments cannot persist.\nReference: Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 260 of 1979, decision dated: 29-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, JUSTICE R. K. GULATI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS\nSINT, DURGAWATI SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 24 = 2000 SLD 24 = 2000 PTD 1712 = (1998) 234 ITR 296 = (1999) 79 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Audit Opinion as Information for Reassessment\nConclusion:\nAudit opinions on legal interpretation cannot constitute valid information for reassessment under Section 147(b). Such reassessments are invalid.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147(b).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 941 and 942 of 1984 (References Nos. 837 and 838 of 1984), decision dated: 16-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: C. V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: P. P. S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS\nLUCAS T. V. S. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 25 = 2000 SLD 25 = 2000 PTD 1717 = (1998) 234 ITR 308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable Trust and Mutuality Principle\nConclusion:\nA trust benefiting employees of a public-sector company does not qualify as a charitable trust. Interest income from investments does not fall under the principle of mutuality and is taxable.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 2(15) and 11.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. C. Nos.34, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of 1995, decision dated: 24-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN, JUSTICE S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: E.R. Indra Kumar\nRespondent(s) by: K.R. Prasad", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS\nI.T.I. EMPLOYEES DEATH AND SUPERANNUATION RELIEF FUND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 152 = 2001 SLD 152 = 2001 PTD 980 = (2000) 241 ITR 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation for Textile Manufacturers\nConclusion:\nHigher initial depreciation is allowed for manufacturers of yarn as it falls within the expanded definition of textiles under Entry 21 of the Ninth Schedule.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 32.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 1997, decision dated: 15-12-1999. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated February 29, 1996 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 665 of 1983)", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. WADHWA, JUSTICE A. P. MISRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Ranbir Chandra (S.D. Sharma), Advocate for S.K.\nRespondent(s) by: Dwivedi, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nSUNDARAM SPINNING MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 153 = 2001 SLD 153 = 2001 PTD 985 = (2000) 241 ITR 312 = (2000) 82 TAX 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Foreign Technicians\nConclusion:\nSalaries paid abroad for services rendered in India by foreign technicians prior to the retrospective amendment of Section 9(1)(ii) (effective April 1, 1979) are not taxable in India.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 9.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 4153 of 1996, decision dated: 15-04-1999. (Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated July 18, 1989, of the Gauhati High Court in Income tax Reference No. 4 of 1984).", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, JUSTICE R. C. LAHOTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Ranbir Chandra, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Neera Gupta, Advocates\nRespondent(s) by: Kailash Vasdev, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nGOSLINO MARIO AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 154 = 2001 SLD 154 = 2001 PTD 987 = (2001) 83 TAX 510", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Findings of Fact and Law in Appeals\nConclusion:\nAssessment proceedings are independent for each year. High Courts can only scrutinize findings if they result from misreading evidence or involve mixed questions of law and fact.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 136.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Part1,cl.(86),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 10 and 38 to 42 of 1999, decision dated: 2-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C., JUSTICE ZAHID QURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: M. Mazhar ul Hassan\nRespondent(s) by: Javaid Farooqi", + "Party Name:": "MEHRAN GIRLS COLLEGE\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 155 = 2001 SLD 155 = 2001 PTD 994 = (2001) 83 TAX 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Trading Accounts and Gross Profit\nConclusion:\nAdjustments in trading accounts, including foreign exchange losses, were examined and rejected. The Appellate Tribunal directed the acceptance of declared sales figures in specific cases.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 970/LB, 971/LB, 943/LB and 944/LB of 2000, decision dated: 18-11-2000, hearing DATE : 10-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 970/LB and 971/LB of 2000). Sajjad Ali, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 970/LB and 971/LB of 2000). Sajjad Ali, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 943/LB and 944/LB of 2000). Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 943/LB and 944/LB of 2000).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1 = 2008 SLD 1 = 2008 PTD 19 = (2007) 96 TAX 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Trading Accounts and Gross Profit\nConclusion:\nAdjustments in trading accounts, including foreign exchange losses, were examined and rejected. The Appellate Tribunal directed the acceptance of declared sales figures in specific cases.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2133/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS AND SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS SYED AQEEL ZAFARUL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Gh. Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Mumtaz Hussain Khokhar", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 3 = 2008 SLD 3 = 2008 PTCL 206 = 2008 PTD 130 = (2008) 97 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Show-Cause Notice and Penalty Imposition\nConclusion: The issuance of a show-cause notice under S.190 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for penalty imposition under S.183, was valid as the assessee failed to apply for a stay of recovery before the Appellate Tribunal under S.131(5). The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,131(5),183,190 ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-854 and C.M.A. No.2770 of 2007, decision dated: 14-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, C., JUSTICE SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Muhammad Arshad along with Manager\nRespondent(s) by: Javed Farooq for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS TELECARD LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nTAXATION OFFICER (E&C-09) ENFORCEMENT AND COLLECTION DIVISION LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 4 = 2008 SLD 4 = 2008 PTCL 211 = 2008 PTD 82 = (2008) 97 TAX 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Adventure in the Nature of Trade\nConclusion: Revenue failed to establish intent for revenue gains at the time of plot purchase; the transaction was not an adventure in trade but capital gain, exempt under S.27(2).\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Relevant Case Laws.\n(b) Topic: Liability of Legal Representatives\nConclusion: Legal representatives are liable for the deceased's tax under S.74, subject to timely inclusion in proceedings.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(11),22,27(2),74 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R.A. No. 561 of 2006, decision dated: 28-09-2007.hearing DATE : 19-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE ARSHAD SIRAJ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nMAHMOOD ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 5 = 2008 SLD 5 = 2008 PTD 69 = (2008) 97 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Advance Tax for Contractors and Importers\nConclusion: Customs duty and sales tax must be included in advance tax calculations under S.80-C(2)(a)(ii).\nReference: Relevant Case Laws and Writ Petitions.\n(b-e) Topic: Presumptive Tax Regime and Deductions\nConclusion: The presumptive tax regime disallows computation of total income, expenses, or losses. Specific claims were invalid under the regime's framework.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,.30,23,61,62,50(5),25,80C(2)(a)(ii),143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1311/LB of 2005, decision dated: 30-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Soli Parekh, C.A.\nRespondent(s) by: Rehmatullah Khan Wazir, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 6 = 2008 SLD 6 = 2008 PTD 47 = (2008) 97 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTA", + "Key Words:": "(a-e) Topic: Revisional Powers and Erroneous Orders\nConclusion: Assessment orders made with due diligence cannot be revised under S.66-A. Procedural errors or disagreements with the assessing officer do not justify revision unless material errors affecting revenue are identified.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Relevant Case Laws.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,62,13(1)(a),(aa),13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5714/LB of 1996, 2249/LB and 2282/LB of 2000, decision dated: 2-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Zakaria for Appellants (in I.T.As. Nos.5714/LB of 1996 and 2249/LB of 2000). Abdul Rasheed Ch., D.R. for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos.5714/LB of 1996 and 2249/LB of 2000). Abdul Rasheed Ch., D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2282/LB of 2000). Javed Zakaria for Respondents (in I.T.A. No. 2282/LB of 2000).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 7 = 2008 SLD 7 = 2008 PTD 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Invalid Tax Returns and Amendments\nConclusion: A return without a computation chart is invalid under S.120(3). Proceedings under S.122(5A) based on such returns are void.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),120(3),114 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1123/LB of 2006, decision dated: 29-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Muhammad Ajmal Khan\nRespondent(s) by: M. Muzaffar Khan Lashari, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 26 = 2000 SLD 26 = 2000 PTD 1729 = (1998) 234 ITR 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Loss Set-Off for Association of Persons (AOPs)\nConclusion: Losses of an AOP cannot be set off against profits of its members due to the distinct legal identity of an AOP.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961; Relevant Case Laws.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 111 of 1987, decision dated: 9-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF, JUSTICE A. Y. SAKHARE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: R. V. Desai with B. M. Chatterjee\nRespondent(s) by: J. D. Mistry instructed by Purohit and Purohit", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS\nSMT. LALITA M. BHAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 8 = 2008 SLD 8 = 2008 PTD 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund and Jurisdiction Issues\nConclusion: The Enforcement Wing lacked jurisdiction to assess the carriage contractor’s presumptive income status. The Appellate Authority validly annulled the proceedings and directed refund issuance.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,120,153 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 382/IB and 383/IB of 2007, decision dated: 18-10-2007.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Sardar Taj Muhammad, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Ch. Inayat Ali Cheema", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 9 = 2008 SLD 9 = 2008 PTD 319 = (2008) 97 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Presumptive Tax Regime Applicability\nConclusion: Income from services rendered, such as throughput charges, is assessable under normal law, not under presumptive tax.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Relevant Case Laws.\n(b) Topic: Trading Liabilities Written-Back\nConclusion: Claims for written-back trading liabilities require substantiated proof; otherwise, they are disallowed.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,143B,50(4),62,SecondSched.,Part-IV,Cl.(9C),25(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 256/KB and 300/KB of 2006, decision dated: 8-06-2007.", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Farrukh Ansari, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 300/KB of 2006). Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 300/KB of 2006) Petition(s) by: Muhammad Farogh Naseeni\nRespondent(s) by: Dr. Farrukh Ansari; D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 27 = 2000 SLD 27 = 2000 PTD 1737 = (1998) 234 ITR 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRw", + "Key Words:": "(a-b) Topic: Estate Accounting and Deduction of Expenses\nConclusion: Administrator-General follows cash accounting. Expenditure for recovering estate assets is deductible.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961; Relevant Case Laws.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.110 of 1981 (Reference No. 46 of 1981), decision dated: 18-01-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM, JUSTICE N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: C. V. Rajan\nRespondent(s) by: P. P. S. Janarthana Raja", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS\nADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL OF MADRAS FOR THE ESTATE OF MRS. IDA L. CHAMBERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 10 = 2008 SLD 10 = 2008 PTD 296 = (2008) 97 TAX 213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSA", + "Key Words:": "(a-d) Topic: Amalgamation and Tax Liabilities\nConclusion: Post-merger, tax liabilities of a defunct company are borne by the surviving entity. Jurisdiction errors render orders void.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and 2001; Relevant Case Laws.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,66A,239,12(9A),62 & FirstSched.Paragraph(F) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2515/LB of 2005, decision dated: 4-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: M. Jawed Zakaria\nRespondent(s) by: Ghanzanfar Hussain, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 11 = 2008 SLD 11 = 2008 PTD 278 = (2008) 97 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRQ", + "Key Words:": "(a-b) Topic: Amendments and Procedural Validity\nConclusion: Amendments or corrigenda issued without legal backing are void. S.122(5A) cannot retroactively apply to periods where S.80C was inapplicable.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; Relevant Case Laws.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),66A,122(1),80C(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 893/LB of 2006, decision dated: 11-07-2007.", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Muhammad Asif D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Asim Zulfiqar Ali, A.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 12 = 2008 SLD 12 = 2008 PTCL 305 = 2008 PTD 270 = (2008) 97 TAX 208 = (2008) 97 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Lease Income Treatment\nConclusion: Lease payments are business income, not capital gains. Lump-sum receipts must be spread over the lease period.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(16),22,27(2)(a)(ii),4 ", + "Case #": "S.A.O. No. 33 of 2000, decision dated: 12-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE SHAH, JAHAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Eid Muhammad Khattak\nRespondent(s) by: Imtiaz Ali", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T./W.T. COMPANIES ZONE, PESHAWAR\nVS\nSARHAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 28 = 2000 SLD 28 = 2000 PTD 1744 = (1998) 234 ITR 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Tax and Penalty\nConclusion: Penalty for underestimating advance tax was invalid as there was no mala fide intent.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 17 of 1994; decided on 30th April 1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI, JUSTICE T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: S. R. Ashok\nRespondent(s) by: Y. Ratnakar", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS\nTRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 13 = 2008 SLD 13 = 2008 PTD 253 = (2008) 97 TAX 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTA", + "Key Words:": "(a-b) Topic: Mistakes on Record and Revision\nConclusion: Apparent mistakes can only be rectified under S.156; substantive errors require S.66-A. Rectifications cannot revise material facts or decisions.\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,156(1),66A ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 503-K of 2006, decision dated: 22-08-2007. (On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, dated 18-8-2006 passed in I.T.R. No.D-425 of 1999)hearing DATE : 22-08-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nVS\nMESSRS SHADMAN COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI THROUGH DIRECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Qw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 29 = 2000 SLD 29 = 2000 PTD 1746 = (1998) 234 ITR 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Qw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tribunal’s Jurisdiction on Past Assessments\nConclusion: The Tribunal cannot reopen final assessments from prior years.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 20 of 1995, decision dated: 6th September 1996", + "Judge Name:": "D. N. BARUAH, JUSTICE S. B. ROY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: G.K. Joshi\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS\nRAFIULLA TEA AND INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 14 = 2008 SLD 14 = 2008 PTD 226 = (2008) 97 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RA", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Capital Gain and Adventure in Trade\n•\nConclusion: The transaction involving the sale of agricultural land was not an adventure in the nature of trade. The land was purchased as a capital asset, with no intention of sale for profit at the time of acquisition. All actions taken by the assessee, including attempts to establish an industrial unit, support the conclusion that the land was an investment and not a trading stock.\n•\nReference: (1991) 187 ITR 316; 1992 PTD 1051; 1990 PTD (Trib.) 671; 1989 PTD 460; 1996 PTD (Trib.) 771.\nTopic (b): Adventure in the Nature of Trade\n•\nConclusion: The onus lies on the department to prove that a transaction qualifies as an adventure in the nature of trade.\n•\nReference: 61 Tax 105 SC rel.\nTopic (c): Add Backs and Deductions\n•\nConclusion: Departmental appeal was dismissed due to vague grounds. Expenses were fully verifiable and incurred wholly for business purposes, and the First Appellate Authority’s deletion of add backs in the Profit and Loss account was upheld.\n•\nReference: 1991 PTD (Trib.) 53; PTCL 1992 CL 383.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,27(2)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2252/LB, 2253/LB and 2283/LB of 2000, decision dated: 2-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Jawed Zakaria for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2252/LB and 2253/LB of 2000). bdul Rasheed Ch. D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.2252/LB and 2253/LB of 2000). Abdul Rasheed Ch. D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2283/LB of 2000). M. Jawed Zakaria for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2283/LB of 2000).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 15 = 2008 SLD 15 = 2008 PTD 216 = (2007) 96 TAX 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Amendment of Assessment (Power of Additional Commissioner)\n•\nConclusion: The Additional Commissioner’s power to amend assessments under S.122(5A) was restricted to orders passed by the Assessing Officer before 1-7-2003. An attempt to revise an order finalized before this date was invalid.\n•\nReference: 2005 PTD 1316 rel.\nTopic (b): Time Limitation and Doctrine of Merger\n•\nConclusion: The doctrine of merger clarified that the limitation applies to the original order unless superseded by subsequent orders addressing specific issues. Time limitations are governed by the original date.\n•\nReference: 2005 PTD 1316 and 2005 PTD 1679 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2163/LB of 2006, decision dated: 29-08-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Javed Iqbal, I.A.C. for Appellant.\nAsim Zulfiqar, A.C.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Qg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 16 = 2008 SLD 16 = 2008 PTCL 74 = 2008 PTD 182 = (2008) 97 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Qg", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nConclusion: Statutory interpretation that leads to absurd results must be avoided.\n•\nReference: Various judicial precedents.\nTopic (b): Income Tax Rebate and Exemptions\n•\nConclusion: Assessees were entitled to rebate as the firm qualified under the specified conditions. The judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was upheld as correct.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 728; 2003 PTD 589; A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala AIR 1957 SC 657.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9,10,62,66A,FirstSched.;Part-Ipara.A(f),Part-IIpara.C & Part-IVpara.2B ", + "Case #": "I. T. R. As. Nos. 343 to 397 of 2006, decision dated: 19-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi\nRespondent(s) by: Dr. Farough Naseem along with Irfan Saadat", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ZONED)\nVS\nABDUL MATEEN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Rw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 17 = 2008 SLD 17 = 2008 PTD 179 = (2007) 96 TAX 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Rw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Presumptive Tax Regime Amendment\n•\nConclusion: The revision by the Commissioner under S.122(5A) was invalid as it lacked legal justification. The income had been processed under the normal tax regime with conscious application of mind. The First Appellate Authority’s annulment of the revision was upheld.\n•\nReference: 2005 PTD rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6924/LB of 2005, 1807/LB and 1808/LB of 2006, decision dated: 17-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 19 = 2008 SLD 19 = 2008 PTCL 221 = 2008 PTD 169 = (2008) 97 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SA", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Review Jurisdiction of Supreme Court\n•\nConclusion: Errors of law or fact on the record, if they materially affect the outcome, justify the invocation of review jurisdiction by the Supreme Court.\n•\nReference: Art. 188 Constitution; Supreme Court Rules, 1980.\nTopic (b): Tribal Areas and Tax Exemption\n•\nConclusion: Exemption from income tax for businesses in tribal areas requires evidence that taxable income was derived only from non-taxable areas. Immunity cannot be presumed solely based on location.\n•\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5),56,61,63,2(21)(24) ", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petition No. 63 of 2003, decision dated: 5-03-2007. (On review of the judgment of this Court, dated 25-4-2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1578 of 2000).hearing DATE : 5-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PESHAWAR\nVS\nMESSRS GUL COOKING OIL AND VEGETABLE GHEE (PVT.) LTD. AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 20 = 2008 SLD 20 = 2008 PTD 154 = (2007) 96 TAX 330 = 2007 TAXFORUM 33 = (2008) 97 TAX 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Additions and Wealth Statements\n•\nConclusion: Additions were deleted as the assessee’s documentation, including gifts and gold sales, was verifiable. Technicalities could not invalidate genuine claims.\n•\nReference: 2003 PTD 2109; 2004 PTD (Trib.) 1523 rel.\nTopic (b): Condonation of Delay\n•\nConclusion: Delay in filing appeals should be sympathetically considered in revenue matters if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 549.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),(d),(e),130(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1266/LB of 2006, decision dated: 6-07-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Mumtaz Hussain Khokhar and Mrs. Afreen Maqsood.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Rg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 156 = 2001 SLD 156 = 2001 PTD 999 = (2001) 83 TAX 518", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Rg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal Procedures and Evidence in Tax Matters\nConclusion:\n•\nNew or fresh evidence/material is not permissible at the Second Appeal stage before the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nFindings of fact by the Appellate Tribunal, based on proper evidence, cannot be interfered with by the High Court under S.136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nReference: Memoona Ahmed v. The A.C.I.T. 1998 PTD 2969; C.I.T. v. Abdul Karim Transport Co. Ltd. 1993 PTD 508.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=131,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 443 of 1990, decision dated: 1st February, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE ZAHID QURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Jawed Farooqi\nRespondent(s) by: Mazhar Jafri", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nSHIRAZI INVESTMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Sw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 157 = 2001 SLD 157 = 2001 PTD 1002 = (2001) 83 TAX 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Sw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Mandatory Procedure and Quasi-Judicial Nature of Tax Proceedings\nConclusion:\n•\nProvisions of S.131, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are mandatory, and comments from the Assessing Officer must be sought before relying on affidavits challenging consent assessment orders.\n•\nTax proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are quasi-judicial and inquisitorial, not adversarial.\n•\nReliance on unshared affidavits or ignoring procedural requirements renders appellate decisions invalid.\nReference: Various principles derived from Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Income Tax Ordinance provisions, and case laws including AIR 1952 Cal. 255 and 1981 SCMR 364.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=131,148,158 ", + "Case #": "LT.A. No. 244 of 1997, decision dated: 1st February, 2001, hearing DATE : 6-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Nasrullah Awan for Appellant.\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nMESSRS DURATHENE MANUFACTURERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 158 = 2001 SLD 158 = 2001 PTD 1017 = (2001) 83 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes in Tax Assessments\nConclusion:\n•\nS.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, allows rectification of mistakes that are apparent on the record, not requiring further evidence or investigation.\n•\nInterest income categorized under Income from Other Sources cannot offset business losses unless the source of income is the same.\nReference: Snam Progetti S.P.A. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi; Produce Exchange Corporation v. CIT; 2000 PTD 363.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,35,30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 693/IB and 694/113 of 1999-2000, decision dated: 20-11-2000, hearing DATE : 14-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Respondent(s) by: Zahid Hussain, A.C.M.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 159 = 2001 SLD 159 = 2001 PTD 1030 = (2001) 83 TAX 535", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax on Exporters and Withholding Tax\nConclusion:\n•\nAn exporter cannot be charged under S.80CC of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, if the exported consignment has already been subjected to withholding tax.\nReference: 75 Tax 223 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80CC,50(SA) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeal No. 245 of 1998, decision dated: 4-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Nasrullah Awan.\nRespondent(s) by: Siraj Haq Memon.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nNATIONAL REFINERY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 160 = 2001 SLD 160 = 2001 PTD 1040 = (2001) 83 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation and Delay in Filing Tax Appeals\nConclusion:\n•\nThe plea of rush of work is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing appeals.\nReference: Chamber’s Dictionary; Oxford Dictionary; Black’s Law Dictionary; 1990 CLC 206.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 809(IB) of 1997-98, decision dated: 16-10-2000, hearing DATE : 26-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Abdul Shakoor, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 160 = 2001 SLD 160 = 2001 PTD 1043 = (2001) 83 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Adjustment vs. Addition in Tax Assessments\nConclusion:\n•\nAdjustments under S.59-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are limited to reasonable modifications and cannot include additions for undisclosed income without initiating proper proceedings.\nReference: Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 4th Ed.; 1986 PTD (Trib.) 380.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A(2) & 59(3),59A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3(IB) of 1997-98, decision dated: 18-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Raza Munawar, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Mansoor-ul-Haq, I.T.P.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 161 = 2001 SLD 161 = 2001 PTD 1047 = (2001) 83 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Casual Income and Loan Waivers\nConclusion:\n•\nWaiver of loans by an employer is categorized as casual income and is taxable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nCasual income is unexpected, non-recurring, and not directly related to the taxpayer’s business activities.\nReference: 1985 PTD 500; 106 ITR 758.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2697/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 31st October, 2000, hearing DATE : 27-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Irfan Saadat\nRespondent(s) by: Jawed Iqbal Rana, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 162 = 2001 SLD 162 = 2001 PTD 1052 = (2000) 82 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Corporate Assets Tax on Fixed Assets\nConclusion:\n•\n Work in Progress is included in the definition of Fixed Assets under the Finance Act, 1991, and is subject to Corporate Assets Tax.\nReference: Black’s Law Dictionary; Dictionary of Accounting Terms.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1991=12,I2(12)(d),12(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 897/LB of 1998 and. 2893/LB of 1997, decision dated: 30-11-1999.hearing DATE : 2-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER. MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: Shafqat Mahmood Choban and Shahid Bashir, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Ahmad Mushir Ali Qadri, F.C.A.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 29 = 2000 SLD 29 = 2000 PTD 1748", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reasonableness of Business Expenditures\nConclusion:\n•\nDisallowance of expenditures like guarantee commissions paid to directors depends on the assessment of reasonableness and the business needs of the company.\n•\nHigh Court will not interfere with Tribunal findings unless factual errors are evident.\nReference: CIT v. Anusuya Devi (Sint.); Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 19 and 222 of 1980, decision dated: 5-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI, JUSTICE J. K. MEHRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Respondent(s) by: Santosh K. Aggarwal.", + "Party Name:": "TRIVENI ENGINEERING WORKS LTD\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 163 = 2001 SLD 163 = 2001 PTD 1066 = (2000) 243 ITR 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains on Agricultural Land Transfers\nConclusion:\n•\nAmendment of S.2(1A) by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1970, overrules earlier case law regarding exclusion of capital gains from agricultural land transfers.\n•\nThe High Court is required to refer questions related to capital gains arising from such transfers for adjudication.\nReference: Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom.); J. Raghottama Reddy v. ITO (1988) 169 ITR 174 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 596 of 1997, decision dated: 31st January, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "J.S. VERMA, JUSTICE S.P. KURDUKAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition(s) by: B.S. Ahuja and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates\nRespondent(s) by: A.V. Rangam and A. Ranganadhan, Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nL. BUSAPPA KUMAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 164 = 2001 SLD 164 = 2001 PTD 1068 = (2000) 243 ITR 56 = (2001) 84 TAX 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation Claims and Procedural Compliance\nConclusion:\n•\nDepreciation cannot be granted if the assessee does not claim it or fails to provide prescribed particulars as required under S.32 and S.34 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\n Actually allowed does not equate to notionally allowed. Depreciation must be claimed explicitly to be considered.\nReference: Ascharajlal Ram Parkash v. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 477 (All.); CIT v. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation (1976) 104 ITR 1 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 5394 of 1994, 7030 of 1995 and 4356 of 1997, decision dated: 15-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": "D.P. WADHWA AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "CIVIL APPEAL N0.5394 OF 1994 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\n vs\n MAHENDRA MILLS and 2 others CIVIL APPEAL N0.4356 OF 1997 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nARUN TEXTILE C and another CIVIL APPEAL N0.7030 OF 1995 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nHUMPHREYS AND GLASGOW CONSULTANTS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 165 = 2001 SLD 165 = 2001 PTD 1094 = (2000) 243 ITR 158 = (2001) 84 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital vs. Revenue Receipts—Forfeiture of Advances and Earnest Money\nConclusion:\n•\nForfeited amounts from abortive sale transactions of capital assets are considered capital receipts, not revenue income.\n•\nThe specific provisions of S.51 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, fortify this interpretation.\nReference: C.I.T. v. Travancore Rubbers and Tea Co. Ltd. (1996) 221 ITR 585; London and Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd. v. Attwooll (Inspector of Taxes) (1968) 70 ITR 460 (CA).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 385 and 386 of 1999, decision dated: 14-03-2000. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated April 9, 1996 of the Kerala High Court in I.T.Rs. Nos. 37 and 38 of 1992)", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. WADHWA, JUSTICE MRS. RUMA PAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jospeh Vellapally, Senior Advocate (M.P. Vinod and Tantn Gulati, Advocates with him) for Appellant. M. L. Verma, Senior Advocate (S.W.A. Qadri, Ms. Sushma Suri and S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA CO. LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 166 = 2001 SLD 166 = 2001 PTD 1103 = (2000) 243 ITR 418 = (2001) 84 TAX 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Development Rebate for Textile Machinery\nConclusion:\n•\nMachinery used for processing textiles at any stage is eligible for higher development rebate under S.33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even if the raw material was purchased externally.\nReference: C.I.T. v. Veena Textiles (P.) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 794.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 931 of 1991 and 1775 of 1992, decision dated: 12-01-1999. (Civil Appeal No. 1775 of 1992 was by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated January 4, 1984 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 146 of 1979)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, JUSTICE N. SANROSH HEGDE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Vineet Kumar\nRespondent(s) by: Tripurari, Advocates for Appellants", + "Party Name:": "S.S.M. BROTHERS (P.) LTD. AND OTHERS\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX." + }, + { + "Case No.": "410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 167 = 2001 SLD 167 = 2001 PTD 1106 = (2000) 243 ITR 83 = (2001) 83 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQw", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Revision Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — Taxability of Compensation for Extension of Payment Schedule\nDetails:\nThe appellant, a public limited company, entered into an agreement on July 18, 1982, to sell a rubber estate for ₹210 lakhs to Supriya Enterprises. Due to delays in payment, the purchaser paid ₹3,66,649 as compensation for extension of the payment schedule, which the appellant treated as compensation for loss of agricultural income.\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) accepted this explanation and passed a nil assessment order for Assessment Year (AY) 1983–84.\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), invoking Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, revised the ITO's order, holding that the compensation was taxable under Income from Other Sources. \nThe Tribunal upheld the CIT's revision, and the High Court, on reference, affirmed the Tribunal’s order, answering the two referred questions in favour of the Revenue.\nThe appellant's key contentions before the Supreme Court were:\nThe Commissioner wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263(1).\nThe amount received was agricultural income and not taxable.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:\nFor invoking Section 263(1), two conditions must exist: the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue’s interest.\nThe ITO's order was erroneous due to lack of application of mind and reliance solely on the assessee’s statement without proper inquiry.\nLoss of legitimate tax revenue amounts to prejudice to the Revenue.\nThe ₹3,66,649 received was not agricultural income because the appellant had ceased agricultural operations by November 1982, and the payment was made for modification of contract terms, not as compensation for loss of agricultural income.\nThe amount was rightly taxed as Income from Other Sources. \nThus, both questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC)\nRampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)\nSmt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)\nDawjee Dadabhoy Co. v. S.P. Jain (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.)\nCIT v. T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kar.)\nCIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)\nCIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh (1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj.)\nVenkatakrishna Rice Company v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad.) (distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),263,263(1) ", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 3646 of 1993, decision dated: 10th February 2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 22, 1991 of the Kerala High Court in C.M.P. No. 4215 in I.T.R. No. 15 of 1990)", + "Judge Name:": "D.P. WADHWA, JUSTICE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Sudhir Gopi, Roy Abraham, M.M. Kashap and Dilip Pillai, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Anoop G. Choudhry, Senior Advocate (A.V. Rangam, B.A. Ranganathan and Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 168 = 2001 SLD 168 = 2001 PTD 1113 = (2000) 243 ITR 89 = (2001) 84 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Mutual Concerns and Taxation\nConclusion:\n•\nIncome of mutual concerns is not taxable as there is no profit generated from dealings among members.\n•\nThe doctrine of mutuality excludes mutual concerns from taxation under S.22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference: CIT v. Chelmsford Club Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 493 (Delhi); CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. Nos. 5364 and 5365 of 1995, decision dated: 2-03-2000. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated November 11, 1992 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.R. Nos. 200 and 201 of 1982)", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. WADHWA, JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, B.K. Prasad, A.K. Sharma, S.K. Dwivedi, Arun K.,Sinha, Rajiv Nanda and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "CHELMSFORD CLUB\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 21 = 2008 SLD 21 = 2008 PTD 1119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment and Under-Statement in Valuation\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty for concealment under S.111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, requires actual tax evasion, not notional or deemed tax.\n•\nAdditions based on differences in stock valuation require independent evidence, not merely bank-declared values.\nReference: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,3(1)(c),13,205,80D, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3509/LB and 1658/LB of 2005, decision dated: 5-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for Appellant (in I.T.A. 3509/LB of 2005)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 22 = 2008 SLD 22 = 2008 PTD 1125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration in Tax Assessments\nConclusion:\n•\nMaladministration includes incompetence, neglect, or deviation from established practices in assessment proceedings.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman has jurisdiction over such cases even if appeal remedies exist.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,55,61,62,80C,143B Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2),2(3)(ii),9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 27-K of 2003, decision dated: 23rd April, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS TRANS GLOBAL LOGISTICS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE/DIRECTOR\nVS.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 23 = 2008 SLD 23 = 2008 PTCL 473 = 2008 PTD 1136 = (2008) 98 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Application of S.122 for Amendments in Legacy Assessments\nConclusion:\n•\nS.122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, does not apply to assessments finalized under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nBook entries shown as gifts or transfers cannot be recharacterized arbitrarily by the Revenue Department.\nReference: Messrs Micropak (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (2001 PTD 1180).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12.122,12(18),59(A) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 205 of 2007, decision dated: 1st April, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khadim Hussain Zahid for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nDR. KHALID JAVED CHAUDHARY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 24 = 2008 SLD 24 = 2008 PTD 1139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Maladministration\nConclusion:\n•\nGross irregularities in assessment proceedings, such as tampering and lack of proper documentation, constitute maladministration.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman can recommend corrective actions in such cases.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A,58(1),59,61,62,63,129 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.124-K of 2004, decision dated: 24-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: S. Asghar Abbas, Consultant. Nemo for the Complainant.\nRespondent(s) by: Hajjan, DCIT, Circle VI, Hyderabad for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "LEEMOONMAL\nVS.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 25 = 2008 SLD 25 = 2008 PTD 1146 = (2008) 97 TAX 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation for Rectification of Assessment\nConclusion:\n•\nEnlarged limitation under S.221(1-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, cannot apply to pending assessments governed by the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nFor assessment year 1998-99, the limitation of four years under S.156 of the 1979 Ordinance had expired before the rectification order was passed.\nReference: Messrs Shah Jewana Textile Mills Limited v. I.T.A.T. 2003 PTD 2023.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=156,156/87,221(1A), ", + "Case #": "M.A. (R) No.14/IB of 2008, decision dated: 8-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER MUHAMMAD FAIYAZ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Mazhar Iqbal, Legal Officer/D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 26 = 2008 SLD 26 = 2008 PTD 1150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Time-Barred Show-Cause Notices and Refunds\nConclusion:\n•\nShow-cause notices issued beyond the statutory time limit under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are void.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended withdrawal of such notices and issuance of due refunds with compensation.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=96,102,66A,221,2(3)(i)(a),(b),62,59(1),59(4),59A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.978 of 2003, decision dated: 2-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar Consultant, (Dealing Officer) Naik Muhammad Malik for the Complainant.", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MASOOD & COMPANY, MIANWALI\nVS.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 168 = 2001 SLD 168 = 2001 PTD 1124 = (2000) 243 ITR 81 = (2001) 84 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation on Nursing Home Building\nConclusion:\n•\nA building specially designed and equipped to function as a nursing home qualifies as plant under S.32 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, and is eligible for higher depreciation.\nReference: CIT v. Venkata Rao (Dr.) (B.) (1993) 202 ITR 303.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 4886 of 1994, decision dated: 24-02-1999, (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated June 3, 1991, of the Karnataka High Court in I. T. R. C. No. 196 of 1987)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nDR. B. VENKATA RAO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 169 = 2001 SLD 169 = 2001 PTD 1127 = (2000) 243 ITR 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Difference in Revision Powers under Ss.263 and 264\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Commissioner has no revision power under S.264 for orders appealed to the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nCirculars cannot override judicial precedents set by the High Court or Supreme Court.\nReference: CWT v. Mrs. Kasturbai Walchand (1989) 177 ITR 188 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 9104 of 1995, decision dated: 11th May; 2000. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated July 24, 1985 of the Karnataka High Court in W. A. No. 721 of 1981)", + "Judge Name:": "S. RAJENDRA BABU, JUSTICE Y.K. SABHARWAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Arvind Minocha. Advocate\nRespondent(s) by: Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with) him.", + "Party Name:": "HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 170 = 2001 SLD 170 = 2001 PTD 1131 = (2000) 243 ITR 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Retrospective Capital Gains Tax on Agricultural Lands\nConclusion:\n•\nThe amendment to S.2(1A) with retrospective effect from April 1, 1970, requires reconsideration of capital gains tax on agricultural land transfers.\nReference: Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 596 of 1997, decision dated: 31st January, 1997. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated January 17, 1989 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Income tax Case No. 74 of 1989)", + "Judge Name:": "J. S. VERMA, JUSTICE S. P. KURDUKAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: B. S. Ahuja and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.\nRespondent(s) by: A. V. Rangam and A. Ranganadhan, Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nL. BUSAPPA KUMAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 171 = 2001 SLD 171 = 2001 PTD 1150 = (2001) 83 TAX 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revisional Jurisdiction under S.138\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, does not restrict revisional jurisdiction even in appealable cases.\nReference: Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138,115,138, ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6954 of 2000, heard on 29-01-2001, hearing DATE : 29-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Shahbaz Butt and Mr. Naveed\nRespondent(s) by: Shafqat Mahmood Chauhan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS METAL FORMING (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH MAULOOD AHMAD SHAHID\nVS.\nTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX CIRCLE 10, COMPANIES ZONE 1, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 172 = 2001 SLD 172 = 2001 PTD 1153 = (2001) 83 TAX 437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: High Court's Role in Tax References\nConclusion:\n•\nA reference to the High Court under S.136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, involves advisory jurisdiction and cannot extend to deciding factual disputes.\nReference: Messrs Hunza Ashian Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=139,136(1),136,137(1),109(c) ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1065 of 2000 in C.T.R. No. 30 of 1991, decision dated: 10-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Latif Ahmad Qureshi", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS SHAFSAL ENTERPRISES, LAHORE\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 173 = 2001 SLD 173 = 2001 PTD 1162 = (2001) 84 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Oral Gift of Shares\nConclusion:\n•\nOral gifts of shares without proper documentation and a transfer application lack legal validity.\n•\nThe Revenue rightly assesses such income as belonging to the original owner until transfer formalities are complete.\nReference: L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 1370.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=83,83(3) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. Nos. 50 to 53 of 1988, heard on 5-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Nauman Akram Raja\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF MONNOO\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 174 = 2001 SLD 174 = 2001 PTD 1174 = (2001) 84 TAX 190 = (2006) 93 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemptions under Protection of Economic Reforms Act\nConclusion:\n•\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether S.6 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, extends exemptions to S.80-CC and S.80-D under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nReference: Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,42,32(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 73 and 74 of 2000, decision dated: 30-01-2001, hearing DATE : 22-01-2001. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 24-2-2000 in Income Tax Appeal No. 8 of 1998 and Income Tax Appeal No. 9 of 1997)", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J. MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate for Appellant.\nRespondent(s) by: Ch. Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "CH. KARAMAT HUSSAIN\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR COUNCIL, MUZAFFARABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 175 = 2001 SLD 175 = 2001 PTD 1180 = (2001) 83 TAX 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Share Deposit Money vs. Loan\nConclusion:\n•\nShare deposit money cannot be treated as a loan for tax purposes.\n•\nThe 1998 amendment to S.12(18) was not retrospective and thus does not apply to earlier assessments.\nReference: CIT v. Nathimal Gayalal (1973) 89 ITR 190.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 491, 492 and 321 of 2000, 677 and 678 of 1999, decision dated: 6-02-2001, hearing DATE : 5-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi\nRespondent(s) by: M. Iqbal Hashmi", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MICROPAK (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVS\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 176 = 2001 SLD 176 = 2001 PTCL 161 = 2001 PTD 1203 = (2001) 83 TAX 542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Share Deposit Money vs. Loan\nConclusion:\n•\nShare deposit money cannot be treated as a loan for tax purposes.\n•\nThe 1998 amendment to S.12(18) was not retrospective and thus does not apply to earlier assessments.\nReference: CIT v. Nathimal Gayalal (1973) 89 ITR 190.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80CC,80D,6, ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1791 of 1999, decision dated: 5-12-2000. (On Appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar, dated 29 4 1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 1404 of 1999)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners.", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Finance Division, Islamabad and 3 others\nVs.\nMessrs ZAMAN COTTON MILLS LIMITED through General Manager" + }, + { + "Case No.": "427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 177 = 2001 SLD 177 = 2001 PTD 1206 = (2001) 84 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Managing Agency Commission\nConclusion:\n•\nSurrender of commission post-accrual is taxable as income.\n•\nIncome accrues when credited to accounts, irrespective of subsequent forfeiture.\nReference: Messrs Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (Central) AIR 1971 SC 2396.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 362 of 1991, decision dated: 20-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA\nVs.\nMUHAMMAD HANIF FAISALA JAREER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 1 = 1990 SLD 1 = 1990 PTD 868 = (1990) 62 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Deposits for Plant Setup\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest on deposits for machinery purchases is capital in nature and reduces the cost of assets.\nReference: Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 233 ITR 531.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,12A,4 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 39 and 40 of 1972, heard on 24-04-1990hearing DATE : 24-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, ACTG. C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A F. Najafi and Mohammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 168 = 2001 SLD 168 = 2001 PTD 1236 = (1966) 62 ITR 2 = (2001) 83 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Treatment of Interest Earned on Deposits for Letter of Credit—Income vs. Capital Receipt\nDetails:\nThe assessee deposited money to open a letter of credit for purchasing machinery required for setting up its plant. Interest was earned on this deposit. The issue was whether such interest should be considered income or a capital receipt. The court distinguished this from cases where surplus capital was merely parked in a bank to earn interest. Here, the deposit was directly linked to asset acquisition.\nHeld:\nInterest earned on the deposit for opening a letter of credit was incidental to the acquisition of assets for setting up the plant.\nThe interest was a capital receipt and would reduce the cost of the asset rather than being treated as taxable income.\nCitations:\nKarnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 233 ITR 531 (affirmed)\nCIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) (applied)\nTuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) (referred but distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 2438 and 2439 of 1999, decision dated: 23rd April, 1999, \n(Appeals by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated July 31, 1997 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.R. Nos. 73 and 74 of 1982)", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JUSTICE AND R. P. SETHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General. (Rajiv Nanda, S.D. Sharma and S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Sunil K. Mukhi, P.C. Jain. and M. S. Dahiya, Advocates for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nKARNAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1 = 2002 SLD 1 = 2002 PTD 350 = (2001) 84 TAX 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income Despite Settlement with the Income Tax Settlement Commission\nDetails:\nThe assessee's income was increased through an addition under Section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which was later reduced by the Income Tax Settlement Commission with the assessee’s consent. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment under Section 111. The assessee contended that since a settlement had been reached with the department, the department’s right to impose a penalty was waived.\nHeld:\nPenalty was rightly imposed on the admitted amount of deemed income under Section 13(1)(aa), as reduced by the Settlement Commission.\nThe Settlement Commission's order did not mention any agreement regarding waiver of penalty under Section 111.\nAssessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent; the settlement on deemed income did not preclude penalty proceedings.\nNo agreement existed between the Income Tax Department and the assessee regarding the final quantum of deemed income, and penalty had to be considered separately under Section 111.\nThe settlement at the Settlement Commission level does not equate to an agreement with the Income Tax Department under Section 138E.\nCitations:\n(1998) 42 Tax 87 (Trib.) (distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,13(1)(aa),138E ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 79/IB of 1998-99, decision dated: 18-08-2001, hearing date: 18-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Anwar ul Haq for Appellant. Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 169 = 2001 SLD 169 = 2001 PTD 348 = (2002) 85 TAX 507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Precondition for Filing Appeals – Deposit of Tax\nConclusion:\nAmendment to S.129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, introduced through the Finance Ordinance, 2000, required appellants to deposit 15% of the assessed tax before filing an appeal. The Central Board of Revenue (CBR) clarified in Circular No. 3 of 2001 that this amendment was prospective and did not apply to previous assessment years, such as 1998-99 in this case. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) entertained the petitioner’s appeal without the deposit, owing to an interim High Court order. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the constitutional petition, noting that the petitioner’s grievance had been resolved.\nReference: CBR Circular No. 3 of 2001, dated 23-5-2001.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7452 of 2001, decision dated: 28-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwarul Haq for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TAXNET (PVT.) LIMITED\nVs.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Minister of Finance, Revenue Division, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 2 = 2002 SLD 2 = 2002 PTD 337 = (2001) 84 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification and Scope of Statements under S.143-B\nConclusions:\n1.\nStatement vs. Order: Statements under S.143-B are not “orders” and cannot be rectified under S.156.\n2.\nMandatory Notice: Non-issuance of notice under S.156(2) renders rectification invalid.\n3.\nPresumptive Tax (S.80C): Income covered under S.80C excludes the applicability of other provisions, including normal assessments under S.22(c).\n4.\nTax Deduction Under S.50(4): Tax deducted at source under this provision suffices without requiring additional adjustments under other sections.\n5.\nPhilosophy of Tax on Tax : Applying S.22(c) for grossing up of income would lead to unnecessary complications in deductions and allocations.\nReference: 2000 PTD 2872; 1999 PTD 1655.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,66A,134B,156,SOC,22(c),80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 457/KB to 460/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 29-09-2001, hearing DATE : 22-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vishno Raja Qavi, D.R. for Appellant. Hassan Naeem, I.T.P. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 3 = 2002 SLD 3 = 2002 PTD 333 = (2001) 84 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Repeated Reassessment and Head Office Expenses\nConclusions:\n1.\nReassessment: Setting aside assessments repeatedly due to non-cooperation by the assessee is unjustified. Adequate opportunities must suffice.\n2.\nHead Office Expenses: These were rightly disallowed as the relationship between the branch and the Head Office was not substantiated.\n3.\nExchange Gain: Treated as part of gross receipts for applying the gross profit (G.P.) rate.\n4.\nTax Deduction (S.52): Assessment orders invoking S.52 must specify the payments and recipients. Stereotypical application is invalid.\nPrinciple: Substantial evidence and clear identification of liabilities are mandatory for reassessment and deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 771/KB to 774/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 4-10-2001, hearing DATE : 22-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Ahmed Barakzai, D.R. for Appellant. Abid Sherazi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 4 = 2002 SLD 4 = 2002 PTD 327 = (2002) 86 TAX 163 = (2002) 86 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeals to High Court and Legal Questions\nConclusions:\n1.\nLegal vs. Factual Questions: Appeals under S.136 are limited to questions of law arising from Tribunal orders. Findings of fact by the Tribunal cannot be reassessed unless they involve a legal error.\n2.\nRole of High Court: High Courts consider the facts as found by the Tribunal while answering questions of law. They do not substitute their findings on facts.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 134 to 136 of 1998, decision dated: 13-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE III, LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs MARGALA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 5 = 2002 SLD 5 = 2002 PTD 324 = (2002) 86 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitutional Jurisdiction and Corporate Assets Tax\nConclusions:\n1.\nScope of Constitutional Jurisdiction: High Courts cannot act as appellate forums for contentious issues when the law explicitly concludes proceedings after the Tribunal's decision.\n2.\nCorporate Assets Tax: Work-in-progress must be treated as an asset for tax purposes and included in the company’s balance sheet. This aligns with the Fifth Schedule of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nReference: PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1991=12,234 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 20763 of 2000, heard on 28-09-2001, hearing DATE : 28-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed A. Andrabi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MEHTAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED, SAHIWAL through Chief Executive\nVs.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE 16, COMPANIES ZONE I, LAHORE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 6 = 2002 SLD 6 = 2002 PTD 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Sale Proceeds and Fair Market Value\nConclusion:\nThe addition of income based on market value estimates was unjustified as the Assessing Officer failed to establish the basis of such valuation or conduct any physical inquiries. The First Appellate Authority and Tribunal deleted the addition due to lack of evidence.\nReference: 1983 PTD 429; 1998 PTD 2989.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=R.8(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1882/KB and 1881/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 5-09-2001, hearing DATE : 5-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R. for Appellant (in. I.T.A. No. 1882 of 1994 95)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 30 = 2000 SLD 30 = 2000 PTCL 213 = 2002 PTD 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interpretation of Any and Financial Charges\nConclusions:\n1.\nDefinition of Any : The term has broad applicability and includes all types of instruments. Loan agreements qualify as instruments of any kind under S.50(7D).\n2.\nFinancial Charges: Assessee’s failure to deduct tax on financial charges rendered them inadmissible as expenses.\n3.\nLegal Principle: Legislative language must be interpreted in context, reflecting its intended scope.\nReference: 1992 SCMR 563; PLD 1995 SC 281.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(b),50(7D) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 432/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 19-04-2001, hearing DATE : 15-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SYED KABIRUL HASAN AND, JUNAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalik Waggan, A.C.A. and Irfan Saadat for Appellant Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 7 = 2002 SLD 7 = 2002 PTD 283 = (2001) 84 TAX 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Supervisory Jurisdiction and Erroneous Orders\nConclusions:\n1.\nScope of S.66-A: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner has the authority to revise erroneous orders of Assessing Officers, provided the revision is based on the same records available to the original officer.\n2.\nAudit Reports: While audit observations can highlight errors, they do not automatically render an order erroneous.\n3.\nMerger Doctrine: Where a higher authority takes supervisory action, rectification under S.156 for the same issue becomes inapplicable.\nReference: CIT v. Bagla Brothers (1972).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=116,66A,156,34,36,37,27,9,2(12)(24)(44) & SecondSched.,PartI,CI.(116),59(1)(3), ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1486/KB to 1488/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 21st August, 2001, hearing DATE : 16-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nasim for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 31 = 2000 SLD 31 = 2000 PTD 3566 = (1999) 238 ITR 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment Allowance on Foreign Exchange Fluctuations\nConclusion:\nInvestment allowance under S.32A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to cost increases due to exchange rate fluctuations. Unlike the development rebate under S.33, there is no exclusion for investment allowances under S.43A.\nReference: CIT v. Arvid Mills Ltd. (1992).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 3 of 1998 (R), decision dated: 23rd April, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Jain, Binod Poddar, Biren Poddar and Ms. Anubha Raut Choudhary for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "USHA BELTRON LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 8 = 2002 SLD 8 = 2002 PTD 278 = (2001) 83 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Hastily Made Assessments\nConclusion:\nOrders passed without proper examination of facts were rightfully revised by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under S.66-A. The Tribunal upheld the revisions to ensure compliance with tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A, ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 3902/LB and 3903/LB of 1999, decision dated: 9-09-1999, hearing DATE : 28-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Shaukat and Muhammad Azhar Siddique for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 9 = 2002 SLD 9 = 2002 PTD 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gross Profit and Deductions\nConclusions:\n1.\nRe-casting Accounts: The application of the gross profit rate must align with the revised trading accounts and business activity.\n2.\nCommission/Discounts: Disallowed where payments were not made in cash or substantiated with records.\n3.\nTribunal’s Authority: Tribunals can reassess decisions following significant changes in the presented evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1),14,24(c) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 127 of 2000, heard on 9-07-2001, hearing DATE : 9-07-2001.hearing DATE : 9-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Abrar Majal for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "NYLEX (PRIVATE) LTD.\nVs.\nD.C., INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 10 = 2002 SLD 10 = 2002 PTD 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeals and Limitation\nConclusions:\n1.\nLimitation Rules: Delays in appeals require specific applications for condonation. The absence of such applications justifies rejection of appeals.\n2.\nTribunal's Role: Tribunals are not obligated to pre-inform appellants of automatic legal consequences of their defaults.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130,130(3) ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 23 of 1989, heard on 2-10-2000, hearing DATE : 2-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NIDAI MILLAT LTD\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 11 = 2002 SLD 11 = 2002 PTD 267 = (2001) 84 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment and Declared Income\nConclusion:\n Last declared or assessed income refers to the most recent finalized income relevant to the assessment year in question. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner wrongly applied income from 1996-97 instead of 1998-99 as the base.\nReference: Dictionary interpretation of last and self-assessment principles.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,66A,59,59(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 2477/LB of 2001, decision dated: 7-07-2001, hearing DATE : 16-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muhammad Ashiq for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 12 = 2002 SLD 12 = 2002 PTD 260 = (2001) 84 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Turnover and Tax on Travel Agents\nConclusions:\n1.\nTravel Agent’s Turnover: Includes only commission income and excludes principal sales or asset proceeds for S.80D purposes.\n2.\nMerged Orders: Subsequent rectification of original orders under S.156 is invalid once they merge with revisions under S.66-A.\nReference: 1994 PTD (Trib.) 758; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1120.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,80D,156,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 880/LB, 881/LB, 890/LB of 1996 and 4423/LB to 4425/LB of 1998, decision dated: 24-08-2000, hearing DATE : 6-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Ali, I.T.P. for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 13 = 2002 SLD 13 = 2002 PTD 257 = (2001) 83 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenses for Market Competition\nConclusion:\nExpenses incurred to secure market advantage (e.g., eliminating competition) are deductible as business expenses and not considered capital expenses. There is no provision for amortization in such cases under the income tax law.\nReference: CIT, Bombay v. C.I.B.A. of India Limited 69 ITR 692 (SC India).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 795/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 15-12-2000, hearing DATE : 9-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asif Ali Khan, A.C.M.A. and Muhammad Irshad, I.T.P. for Appellant. Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 14 = 2002 SLD 14 = 2002 PTD 255 = (2002) 86 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Question of Fact – Appeal to High Court\nConclusion:\nDetermining whether an expense was incurred during a specific assessment year is a factual issue. It cannot be converted into a legal question by merely alleging that legal provisions were ignored. With two consistent findings from lower forums declaring the addition unjustified, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine.\nReference: C.I.T. v. Paracha Textile Mills, Karachi 1973 PTD 238.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 152 of 1997, decision dated: 30-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Saeed for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nMessrs FIRDOUS TEXTILE MILLS, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 15 = 2002 SLD 15 = 2002 PTD 250 = (2001) 83 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest Income on Borrowed Capital\nConclusion:\nThe interest earned on temporarily deposited borrowed funds was taxable under S.30, and no deduction could be allowed for interest payable on borrowed capital. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer’s decision, rejecting the assessee’s claims.\nReference: I.T.As. Nos. 2863/KB of 1991-92; 114/KB of 1991-92; 1301 & 1302/KB of 1997-98; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 708.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(vii),30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1373/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 18-12-2000, hearing DATE : 9-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R. for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 16 = 2002 SLD 16 = 2002 PTD 244 = (2001) 83 TAX 44 = (2002) 85 TAX 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISw", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n(a) Lease Income and Industrial Undertakings\nLease income does not qualify as profits derived from an industrial undertaking under Cl. (118A) of the Second Schedule. It is assessable under S.30, not S.22.\n(b) Machinery Repairs Add-Back\nDeletion upheld due to the expense's necessity for maintaining the assessee's property.\n(c) Additional Tax and Show-Cause Notice\nTribunal reinstated additional tax as a show-cause notice and a speaking order were unnecessary.\n(d) Penalty for Non-Compliance (S.110)\nPenalty cancellation was upheld as the notice reply was provided on time.\nReferences: PLD 1990 SC 68; 1993 PTD 69.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=110,30,22,24,88 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.753/LB to 755/1-13, 1395/1-13 and 1401/LB to 1406/LB of 1999, decision dated: 6-07-2000, hearing DATE : 21st March, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Waheed Baig for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 17 = 2002 SLD 17 = 2002 PTD 242 = (2001) 83 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rate of Tax on Cotton Yarn Exports\nConclusion:\nThe tax rate of 1% was reduced to 0.75% by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, asserting that C.B.R. clarifications are not binding and cannot alter judicial interpretation.\nReference: Writ Petition No. 12504 of 1999.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80CC & FirstSched.,C1.CCCC(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1502/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 18-12-2000, hearing DATE : 9-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R. for Appellant. Syed Ashraf and Ali for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 18 = 2002 SLD 18 = 2002 PTD 239 = (2001) 83 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exempt Income and Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF)\nConclusion:\nIncome exempt under Cl. (118E) of the Second Schedule is not subject to WWF under S.4 of the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance. The Tribunal deleted the WWF levy.\nReferences: 1989 PTD (Trib.) 1004; 1989 PTD (Trib.) 617.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,14 & SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(118E),4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3834/L13 and 3835/1-13 of 1998, decision dated: 9-09-1999, hearing DATE : 8-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 19 = 2002 SLD 19 = 2002 PTD 231 = (2001) 84 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERA", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n(a) Revised Returns (S.61): Revised returns filed suo motu negate the necessity of invoking S.65 for reassessment.\n(b) Gold as Personal Effects: Gold bullion does not qualify as personal effects under baggage rules.\n(c) Exemption Clause (130A): Applicable only to assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, not 1995-96.\n(d) Purchase Outside Pakistan: The purchase of gold abroad does not exempt it from assessment under Pakistan’s tax laws.\n(e) Deemed Income and Economic Reforms Act: Whether gold was imported or brought into Pakistan is immaterial; its acquisition requires a valid explanation under tax laws.\n(f) World Income: Taxpayers must declare global income, with credits available for taxes paid abroad.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65,61,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "Member 1. T. A. No.4279/LB of 2000, decision dated: 24-01-2001, hearing DATE : 19-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 32 = 2000 SLD 32 = 2000 PTD 1754 = (1998) 234 ITR 461", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Best Judgment Assessment\nConclusion:\nTribunal’s annulment of an ex-parte best judgment assessment was improper. The matter should have been remanded to the Income Tax Officer for reconsideration.\nReference: CIT v. Segu Buchiah Setty (1970).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Reference No.2 of 1994, decision dated: 4-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. K.K. USHA AND K.A. MOHAMED SHAFI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 21 = 2002 SLD 21 = 2002 PTD 228 = (2001) 84 TAX 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Stevedore and Labour Service Income\nConclusion:\nIncome from services taxed under S.59A cannot be equated with deemed orders under S.80-C(7). Proper assessment under normal law requires summoning a return under S.56. The Tribunal annulled the Assessing Officer’s order for lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,80C,143B,59A & 50(4) ", + "Case #": "1. T. A. No. 1883/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 14-06-2001, hearing DATE : 14-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Wakeel Ahmed, I.T.P. for Appellant. Zaki Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 22 = 2002 SLD 22 = 2002 PTD 226 = (2002) 86 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Share of Super Tax\nConclusion:\nPartners’ share of super tax must align with their income share from the firm, as per S.69(4). Share proportions cannot be artificial or purposive.\nReference: Commissioner of Income-tax West Zone, Karachi v. Anweraly Haji Noor Muhammad 1992 PTD 347.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=69,69(4) ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1993, heard on 27-06-2001, hearing DATE : 27-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGULZAR UL HAQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 33 = 2000 SLD 33 = 2000 PTD 1757 = (1998) 234 ITR 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Audit Sanction (S.142(2A))\nConclusion:\nThe order directing the petitioner to get accounts audited lacked proper approval from the Commissioner, violating S.142(2A). The High Court stayed proceedings until proper compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.751 of 1998, decision dated: 16-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "K., J. SENGUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. D. Pal and P.K. Pal, Senior Advocates with Ms. M. Seal for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 34 = 2002 SLD 34 = 2002 PTD 214 = (2001) 84 TAX 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Loss Set-Off Against Interest Income\nConclusion:\nWithout a notice of business discontinuation (S.72), the First Appellate Authority rightly allowed business expense deductions against other income. The Tribunal upheld this order.\nReferences: Kirk & Randle Limited v. Dunn; (1969) 72 ITR 114.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,22,72 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1933/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 2-06-2001, hearing DATE : 26-05-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaki Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 35 = 2002 SLD 35 = 2002 PTD 212 = (2002) 85 TAX 485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Question of Fact – High Court Appeals\nConclusion:\nWhether the assessee purchased an open plot or construction is a factual matter, unsuitable for High Court appeals under S.136.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 390 of 1998, decision dated: 11-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Iqbal Hashmi for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs H.I. (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nVs.\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 36 = 2002 SLD 36 = 2002 PTD 208 = (2002) 86 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESw", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n(a) Reopening Assessment – Second Show-Cause Notice: Assessments reopened due to new material or issues unrelated to initial show-cause notices are valid.\n(b) Scope of Constitutional Petitions: High Court jurisdiction is not to bypass statutory remedies unless illegality or jurisdictional defects are evident.\nReferences: Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer PLD 1990 SC 399.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11801 of 2001, decision dated: 26-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BE BE JAN PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nVs.\nTHE I.A.C. Or Income Tax OF COMPANIES RANGE VI, FAISALABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 37 = 2001 SLD 37 = 2002 PTD 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment on Definite Information\nConclusion:\nIf assessments are not finalized consciously or new information arises, reopening under S.65 is valid. The absence of jurisdictional errors invalidates constitutional petitions.\nReferences: Messrs Central Insurance Co. v. CBR (1992); Al-Ahram Builder (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(1)(a)(b) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1813 of 1998, decision dated: 31st December, 1999, hearing DATE : 24-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq Memon for Petitioner. Muhammad Farid for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL BEVERAGES. (PVT.) LTD.\nVs.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 38 = 2002 SLD 38 = 2002 PTD 187 = (2002) 86 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQw", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n(a) Final Tax for Importers: Importers paying advance tax under S.50(5) are not required to file returns.\n(b) Exemption Certificates: Importers can claim exemption certificates without filing irrevocable declarations if their case falls under S.50(5).\n(c) Presumptive Tax Regime: Filing declarations is only relevant for S.50(4) cases, not S.50(5).\nConclusion: High Court remanded the case for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5),50(4) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No-10493 of 2001, heard on 27-09-2001, hearing DATE : 27-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hashim Sabir Raja for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "IMPORIENT CHEMICAL (PVT.) LTD through Chief Executive\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE II, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 39 = 2002 SLD 39 = 2002 PTD 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRA", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nDefinite Information (S.65):\nInformation about discounts received post-assessment qualifies as definite information for additional assessment.\n2.\nGross Profit Rate Adjustment:\nGross profit rate for the glass business was reduced from 4% (assessed) to 3.5% (by Tribunal), against the declared 2.38%.\n3.\nRectification of Orders (Ss. 156 & 132):\nArgument about rectification of the original order under S.132 being upheld due to remand to the First Appellate Authority is invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132,65,156, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 685/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 31st May, 2001, hearing DATE : 13-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. Mahfooz ur Rehman Pasha, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 40 = 2002 SLD 40 = 2002 PTD 166 = (2001) 84 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Adjustment and Refund\nConclusion:\nLiability under S.52 for failing to deduct or pay tax can be adjusted against refunds due to the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,52,86,2(6)(43) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 444/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 27-07-2001, hearing DATE : 24-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vishno Raja Qavi, D.R. for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 41 = 2002 SLD 41 = 2002 PTD 159 = (2001) 84 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQg", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nRights and Liabilities in Repealed Laws:\nRights and liabilities accrued under a repealed fiscal statute remain applicable for the assessment year it governs.\n2.\nDeemed Income (S.12(18A)):\nA loan not repaid within five years by 30-06-1994 was validly assessed as deemed income for 1995-96, despite S.12(18A) being repealed later.\nReferences:\n1992 PTD 1367; 2000 PTD (Trib.) 466; PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18A),12(18A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 676/IB of 1997-98, decision dated: 20-06-2001, hearing DATE : 20-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmed for Appellant. Abdul Jalil, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 42 = 2002 SLD 42 = 2002 PTD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRw", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nFailure to Deduct Tax (S.52):\nPayers failing to deduct tax are deemed assessees in default. \n2.\nConcurrent Jurisdiction (S.5):\nJurisdiction for withholding tax monitoring may extend to officers outside the registered assessment location.\n3.\nChallenging Notices via Constitutional Petition:\nMonitoring notices by jurisdictional officers are valid and not grounds for constitutional challenges.\nReferences:\n1993 PTD 508.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,52,50(1)(4)(4A),52,5(a)(b) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 255 of 1995, heard on 10-10-2001, hearing DATE : 10-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Shahzad Farooq Rana for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "MONTGOMERY FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 43 = 2002 SLD 43 = 2002 PTD 150 = (2002) 86 TAX 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSA", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nConstitutional Petition for Tax Orders (S.53):\nPetitions against non-appealable orders under S.53 are maintainable.\n2.\nAdvance Tax Ratio Adjustment:\nRatio reduced during appeals (from 4.22% to 0.57%) applies to advance tax computation.\nReferences:\n2000 PTD 3748; 1992 PTD 932.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-79 of 2001, decision dated: 27-06-2001, hearing DATE : 20-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM NABI SOOMRO AND ATA UR REHMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Khurram for Petitioner. Aqeel Abbasi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY\nVs.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 44 = 2002 SLD 44 = 2002 PTD 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme (S.59(1))\nConclusion:\nReturns under the Self-Assessment Scheme must declare income equal to or greater than prior years to qualify. Income declared for 1990-91 (Rs. 48,000) was less than 1988-89 (Rs. 79,000), disqualifying the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10670 of 1992, heard on 28-09-2001, hearing DATE : 28-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "SHAHEEN ICE FACTOR\nVs.\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE 18, ZONE A, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 45 = 2002 SLD 45 = 2002 PTD 141 = (2001) 84 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRg", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nRevising Deputy Commissioner’s Orders (S.66A):\nInspecting Additional Commissioner (IAC) cannot invoke S.66A for advances unless conditions (loan receipt and claim by assessee) are met.\n2.\nInterpretation of Fiscal Statutes:\nWhen ambiguities arise, interpretations favoring the taxpayer prevail.\nReferences:\n2001 PTD 1180; Prime Commercial Bank v. Assistant Commissioner 1997 PTD 605.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),66A,59A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1465/IB to 1467/113 of 1999-2000, decision dated: 29-05-2001, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAMEEL AHMAD BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Hussain for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 46 = 2002 SLD 46 = 2002 PTD 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tribunal Order Precedence\nConclusion:\nConflicting decisions between Division Bench and Larger Bench on property valuation default to the Larger Bench's ruling.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos. 421/LB and 356/LB of 2001, decision dated: 17-09-2001, hearing DATE : 11-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moin ud Din and Kh. Riaz Hussain for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 47 = 2002 SLD 47 = 2002 PTD 117 = (2002) 86 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTA", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nAdvertising Expenses in Drug Companies (S.23):\nRule 33 of the Drugs Rules, 1976 cannot disallow legitimate advertising and promotional expenses.\n2.\nTribunal’s Ruling on Medical Representative Salaries:\nDeletion of add-backs for salaries and allowances was upheld.\nReferences:\nBeecham Pakistan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1995 PTD 577.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,23,136(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 158 of 1993, decision dated: 5-09-2001, hearing DATE : 5-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID QURBAN ALAVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. G. Hassan for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nMessrs ZAFA PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 48 = 2002 SLD 48 = 2002 PTD 107 = (2001) 83 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQw", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nInterest Income (Ss.23(1) & 30):\nInterest income is not business income, and no deductions are allowable.\n2.\nMinimum Turnover Tax (S.80-D):\nExemption under Cl.118-D of the Second Schedule overrides S.80-D turnover tax.\nReferences:\nElahi Cotton Mills Ltd. 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1379.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1),30,80D,SecondSched.,Cl.(118D) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 240/LB and 304/LB of 1999, decision dated: 23rd December, 2000, hearing DATE : 14-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant/Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 49 = 2002 SLD 49 = 2002 PTD 99 = (2001) 84 TAX 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revising Settled Issues (S.66A(1A))\nConclusion:\nIssues already adjudicated by appellate forums cannot be revised under S.66A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A(IA),62,135 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2220/LB to 2222/LB of 2001, decision dated: 31st August, 2001, hearing DATE : 22-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Haider Rizvi for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 38 = 2000 SLD 38 = 2000 PTD 1759 = (1998) 234 ITR 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Failure to File Advance Tax Estimates\nConclusion:\nBona fide belief about non-liability negates penalties for non-filing of estimates under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReferences:\nHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 151 of 1987, decision dated: 17-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Milind Sathe with S.A. Diwan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSULPHUR REFINERY (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 50 = 2002 SLD 50 = 2002 PTD 86 = (2002) 85 TAX 505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Retrospective Amendment to Appeals (S.134)\nConclusion:\nThe amendment to S.134 (Finance Act, 1994) applied retrospectively. Tribunal’s dismissal of the appeal was set aside for merit-based adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6834 of 1992, heard on 19-09-2001, hearing DATE : 19-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "RAVI FLOUR MILLS through Managing Partner\nVs.\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 51 = 2002 SLD 51 = 2002 PTCL 146 = 2002 PTD 63 = (2002) 85 TAX 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRw", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nC.B.R. Circulars:\nCirculars under S.12(18-A) were not ultra vires and did not override statutory provisions.\n2.\nLoan Receipts (S.12(18A)):\nLoan proceeds through proper banking channels were not taxable.\nReferences:\nPLD 1996 SC 324; Messrs Central Insurance Co. v. CBR 1993 SCMR 1232.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18)A ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 33, 24 and First Appeal from Orders Nos. 26 and 27 of 1997, decision dated: 26-07-2001, hearing DATE : 28-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rauf Bahader for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "UTMAN GHEE INDUSTRIES\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 52 = 2002 SLD 52 = 2002 PTD 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSA", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nDouble Taxation Agreement (Permanent Establishment):\nVisits of expatriates do not establish permanent establishments. \n2.\nConsultancy Fees (Taxability):\nConsultancy fees fall under industrial and commercial profits, taxable in Pakistan.\nReferences:\nCIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust (1983) 144 ITR 146; Burewala Textile Mills Ltd. v. Punjab Government 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=163 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 412 to 415 of 1997, decision dated: 15-11-1999, hearing DATE : 1st June, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD AND MUSHIR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Farooqi for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nMessrs UNILEVER P.L.C. U.K." + }, + { + "Case No.": "476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 55 = 2002 SLD 55 = 2002 PTD 14 = (2002) 86 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRQ", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) Jurisdiction and Levy\no\nConclusion:\n\nWWF levy is part of the assessment process under S.55 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n\nAppeals against WWF levy are maintainable under S.129 and S.134.\n\nWWF cannot be charged on income exempt under Schedule II.\n\nSet-off of previous years' losses is permitted.\n\nRectification under S.156 does not apply to WWF omissions.\no\nReference: Muhammad Hanif and others v. Muhammad and others PLD 1990 SC 859 and Jameel Ahmed v. Late Saifuddin through Legal Representatives 1997 SCMR 260 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,35,55,80C,80CC,129,134,156 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4,4(1),4(4),Sched.II ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 10, 12, 13, 59, 93, 110 to 115, 120 to 123, 125 to 138, 136, 137, 191, 197 to 395, 396, 398 to 404, 442, 443, 811 to 815, 932 of 2000 and I. T. C. No. 131 of 1992, decided, on 28-08-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J. AND ZAHID QURBAN ALAVI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs.\nMessrs KAMRAN MODEL FACTORY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 56 = 2002 SLD 56 = 2002 PTD 1 = 2002 PLD 353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRg", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deduction of Tax at Source and Default\no\nConclusion: Taxpayers failing to deduct tax under S.50(4A) are treated as assessees in default. Tax statutes are interpreted strictly to prevent evasion and ensure compliance.\no\nReference: Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in all Cases) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4A),52,86 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 2789-L to 2791-L of 2001, decision dated: 25-09-2001, (On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 23-4-2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in I. T. As. Nos. 18 to 20 of 2000).hearing DATE : 25-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court\nM.A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record for Appellant (in all Cases).", + "Party Name:": "M/s BILZ (PVT.) LTD.\nvs.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MULTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 28 = 2008 SLD 28 = 2008 PTD 1589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSw", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Discontinued Business and Ex Parte Assessment\no\nConclusion: Assessments based on unverified reports after notice of closure are invalid. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended reassessment under S.122-A.\no\nReference: 2005 PTD 1390 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=1,2A,122A,.72(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-665-L of 2005, decision dated: 20-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Malik Tabasam Maqsood Khan for the Complainant. Jafar Nawaz Natt (DCIT) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MICRON LAB through Ex Proprietor\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 29 = 2008 SLD 29 = 2008 PTD 1598", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTA", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Best Judgment Assessment\no\nConclusion: Undated, delayed, and non-speaking orders are invalid. Federal Tax Ombudsman directed reassessment following procedural fairness.\no\nReference: Messrs Crescent Sugar Mills Ltd. v. C.B.R. and others NLR 1982 Tax 1 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,2(3),63,122(5A) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 962-L of 2005, decision dated: 12-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor (Dealing Officer).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AL NOOR DEVELOPER & PLANNERS through Khalid Mehmood\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 30 = 2008 SLD 30 = 2008 PTD 1603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQw", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Amendment of Assessments\no\nConclusion: Show-cause notices regarding rental property are valid if based on confirmed ownership and due process. No maladministration found.\no\nReference: 1973 PTD 283 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,170(4) & 15(2),2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 93-L of 2005, decision dated: 3rd May, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer).", + "Party Name:": "SHAUKAT HAYAT BALOCH\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 31 = 2008 SLD 31 = 2008 PTD 1618", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRA", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Retrospective Amendments\no\nConclusion: S.122(5A) amendments post-1 July 2003 cannot reopen finalized cases. Any contrary actions are illegal and void.\no\nReference: ITAT in ITA No.833/LB of 1982-83 and Writ Petition No.7788 of 2003 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),50(2A),80B(5),143B,59A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-470-L of 2005, decision dated: 28-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor (Dealing Officer).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GREEN GRO (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 29 = 2008 SLD 29 = 2008 PTD 1623", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQQ", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Refund Delays\no\nConclusion: Delays in refund processing due to negligence are maladministration. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended immediate resolution.\no\nReference: 2001 PTD 781 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(3),96 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-534-L of 2005, decision dated: 1st June, 2005.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor (Dealing Officer).", + "Party Name:": "SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 30 = 2008 SLD 30 = 2008 PTD 1625 = (2008) 98 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQg", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Time-Barred Assessments\no\nConclusion: Assessments issued beyond statutory deadlines or without proper service of notice are void.\no\nReference: 2007 PTD (Trib.) 1763 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(4),121,139,115(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1312/LB of 2007, decision dated: 2-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. None for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 31 = 2008 SLD 31 = 2008 PTD 1630 = (2008) 97 TAX 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRw", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification and Limitation\no\nConclusion: Late rectifications beyond statutory deadlines are invalid. Appeals remain valid regardless of delay caused by void rectification orders.\no\nReference: 2001 SCMR 1822 and PLD 1996 Lah. 99 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=132,156(3),62/132/221,38, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2311/LB to 2313/LB of 2006, decision dated: 7-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Sardar Masood Qazilbash, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 32 = 2008 SLD 32 = 2008 PTD 1641 = (2008) 98 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSA", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Unexplained Income and Ex Parte Assessments\no\nConclusion: Assessments without valid evidence and proper notice are invalid. Taxpayer explanations supported by documentation must be accepted.\no\nReference: C.I.T. v. Messrs Akram Brothers Rahim Yar Khan ITA No.5884/B/2004 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(b),122,120(1)(a),114(1) & 1stSched.,Part-II ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 165/LB of 2007, decision dated: 2-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 33 = 2008 SLD 33 = 2008 PTD 1646", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRQ", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Federal Tax Ombudsman Jurisdiction\no\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction over judicial tribunals, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\no\nReference: Messrs Crescent Sugar Mills Ltd. v. C.B.R. and others NLR 1982 Tax 1 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,.27,28,29,62,9 & 2(3),284,287(1)(a)(d),288 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1076 of 2005, decision dated: 25-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barrister Ibrahim Shahid for the Complainant. Basharat A. Qureshi Additional for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "RECKIT BENCKISER PLC UK\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 34 = 2008 SLD 34 = 2008 PTD 1652 = (2008) 98 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRg", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Double Assessments\no\nConclusion: Assessments under S.121 without notices or confirmation of taxpayer status are void. Proper statutory compliance is mandatory.\no\nReference: ITA No. 2714/LB/2002; 1967 PTD 189; 1987 PTD (Trib.) 335 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121,120 & 176,121(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1356/LB of 2007, decision dated: 2-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Munawar for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 35 = 2008 SLD 35 = 2008 PTD 1662 = (2008) 98 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSw", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\no\nConclusion: Delays in penalty imposition and lack of deliberate concealment evidence invalidate penalties. Proof standard aligns with criminal proceedings.\no\nReference: 2007 PTD (Trib.) 932 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,184, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1195/LB of 2007, decision dated: 2-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 36 = 2008 SLD 36 = 2008 PTD 1683 = (2008) 98 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTA", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Assessee in Default\no\nConclusion: Actions under S.161 and S.205 treating taxpayers in default require proper timelines and compliance. Invalid actions are dismissed.\no\nReference: 1999 PTD 4028 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,161,166,120(1)(b),122,153,155,205,122(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1194/LB of 2007, decision dated: 2-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Dawood Iqbal, ITP for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Qw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 37 = 2008 SLD 37 = 2008 PTD 1703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Qw", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Erroneous Amendments\no\nConclusion: Amendments under S.122(5A) must prove that prior orders were erroneous and prejudicial. Unsupported amendments are annulled.\no\nReference: 2008 PTD (Trib.) 1959 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,122(5A),111(1)(a),120,122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 269/LB of 2008, decision dated: 1st July, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Mutee Babri, ITP for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 38 = 2008 SLD 38 = 2008 PTD 1706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax and Service of Notice\nConclusion:\n(a) Taxation Officer's order regarding short deduction was reinstated by the Appellate Tribunal due to valid issuance of notice. The withholding tax rate was upheld as 1.25% for dry dates per Part-III of the Seventh Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n(b) Invoking S.162(1) for short deduction was deemed correct, as S.162(2) pertains to additional tax. The contention about lack of jurisdiction was rejected as the section is independent and applicable.\nReference: 2006 (94) Tax 317 (SC Pak.) ref.; 1993 SCC 1049 and 2006 PTD 1542 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,162,162(2),169(3),122(1),122(5),162(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 21/KB, 22/KB, 51/KB and 52/KB of 2007, decision dated: 11-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 21/KB and 22/KB of 2007).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 39 = 2008 SLD 39 = 2008 PTD 1712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund and Sub Judice Matters\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found no maladministration as the refund issue was sub-judice before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The complainant was advised to await the Tribunal's decision.\nReference: Complaint No.882 of 2005 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,.96,59A,50(4),50(4A),80C,143B,122(5A),2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-987-L of 2005, decision dated: 24-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Sh. Zafar ul Islam and Tanveer Ahmed for the Complainant). Ahmad Shuja Khan (DCIT) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "AKHTAR HASSAN, MEMBER OF AOP\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Qg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 40 = 2008 SLD 40 = 2008 PTD 1722 = (2008) 98 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Qg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessment for Life Insurance Companies\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer’s actions, exceeding the Appellate Tribunal's specific directions, were declared improper. Income of life insurance companies must be treated as single-unit income. No notice under S.65 was issued, a necessary legal requirement. The First Appellate Authority’s decision was upheld.\nReference: 2000 PTD (Trib) 3776 and 1997 PTD 1693 (SC Pak.) rel.; 2006 PTD (Trib.) 1979 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,80d, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 545/KB to 549/KB of 2003, decision dated: 28-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Ansari, D.R. for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Rw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 41 = 2008 SLD 41 = 2008 PTD 1731 = (2008) 98 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Rw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Levy of Tax under S.80-C for Raw Sugar Sales\nConclusion: Taxation Officer's levy under S.80-C for raw sugar not used for own consumption was upheld. The First Appellate Authority’s decision to accept trading results based on history was also confirmed.\nReference: Not explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 614/KB and 617/KB of 2004, decision dated: 30-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Ansari, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 614/KB of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 42 = 2008 SLD 42 = 2008 PTD 1734", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Tax and Maladministration\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended inquiry into antedated penalty orders. The demand for additional tax was deleted due to lapses in assessment procedure, indicating maladministration.\nReference: Not explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,89,63/66A, ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 78-L of 2004, decision dated: 19-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.A. Zuberi, Advisor (Dealing Officer).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW HAJI WARIS & CO\nVs.\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 43 = 2008 SLD 43 = 2008 PTD 1737 = (2008) 98 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductions for Life Insurance Companies\nConclusion: Excessive perquisites taxed under S.21K of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were upheld due to significant changes in rules from the 1979 Ordinance. The First Appellate Authority’s decision was modified.\nReference: I.T.A. Nos.1171–1175/KB of 2000-2001 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,.21(k) & FourthSched.Rr.2 & 3 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A No. 1666/KB of 2005, decision dated: 6-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Ansari, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Farid for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Rg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 44 = 2008 SLD 44 = 2008 PTD 1751 = (2008) 98 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Rg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund under Presumptive Tax Regime\nConclusion: The matter of whether the assessee was a franchisee or commission agent was remanded for re-adjudication. The Appellate Tribunal emphasized examining the original scheme and return completeness under the Universal Self-Assessment Scheme.\nReference: Black's Dictionary ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=233,170(4),169,120,120(6),115(4),114 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1200 and 1201/KB of 2007, decision dated: 30-04-2004, hearing DATE : 26-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahab-ud-Din Ousto, D.R. for Appellant. Ameer-ud-Din Shaikh for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Sw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 45 = 2008 SLD 45 = 2008 PTCL 568 = 2008 PTD 1781 = (2008) 98 TAX 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Sw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interim Relief Powers of Commissioner (Appeals)\nConclusion: Commissioner (Appeals) has unequivocal inherent power to grant interim relief depending on case circumstances.\nReference: Umer Farooq Syed v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax 1991 PTD 8727 fol.; Mst. Inayat Begum v. CIT 1985 PTD 375 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.8804 of 2008, decision dated: 5-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwaar ul Haq for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD. through Tax Manager\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 46 = 2008 SLD 46 = 2008 PTD 1802 = (2008) 98 TAX 292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment under S.122 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\nConclusion: Notices for reassessment were withdrawn, and the High Court directed fair opportunities for the petitioner. The constitutional petition was disposed of as the grievance was redressed.\nReference: Not explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1)(5),199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.6845, 6605, 6731 and 6732 of 2008, decision dated: 24-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAZAL DIN & SONS (PVT.) LTD. through share holder and Chief Executive\nVs.\nTAXATION OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 47 = 2008 SLD 47 = 2008 PTD 1804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration in Assessment under Self Assessment Scheme\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman found the Taxation Officer guilty of inefficiency for duplicate and delayed assessments. While the grievance was redressed by the First Appellate Authority, the officer was warned to ensure future compliance.\nReference: Not explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,59(1),61,62,143B,2(3),143B ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1038-L of 2005, decision dated: 23rd November, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Ali Khan (Advisor) Dealing Officer. M. Shahid Baig for the Complainant.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JOTAANA ENTERPRISES through M. Shahid Baig (Advocate)\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 48 = 2008 SLD 48 = 2008 PTD 1825", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRA", + "Key Words:": "Facts:\nThe complainant filed his Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2002-2003 under the Self-Assessment Scheme in Circle 21, Nankana. The return was transferred to Circle 20, Muridke. Despite the return being deemed as an accepted assessment, the Taxation Officer issued a notice dated 23-10-2002. Subsequent communications for rectification were ignored. Later, the Taxation Officer (transferred to Circle 8, Zone-C, Lahore) issued a combined notice for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 under section 56 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The complainant challenged the notice, claiming it was without jurisdiction and amounted to maladministration.\nReply by Respondent:\nThe Regional Commissioner Inland Revenue (Eastern Region, Lahore) acknowledged that the return had been filed timely under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The ex parte assessment for 2002-2003 occurred due to non-availability of filing evidence at the time, resulting in a case of double assessment. The concerned Commissioner of Income Tax was advised to cancel the impugned order under section 122-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nOutcome:\nAt the hearing, the D.C.I.T. confirmed that the impugned order would be set aside, addressing the complainant’s grievance. The complainant requested withdrawal of the complaint as the issue was being resolved. The complaint investigation was closed, and the file was consigned to record.\nLegal Principle:\nIssuance of an assessment order when a return has already been filed and deemed accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme constitutes double assessment; rectification under section 122-A of the Income Tax Ordinance is appropriate.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,59(1),56,63,2(3),122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1264-L of 2005, decision dated: 18-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sirjees Nagi (Advisor) Dealing Officer.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ARIF HUSSAIN & SONS (TRIDEWALY)\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 49 = 2008 SLD 49 = 2008 PTD 1838", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQQ", + "Key Words:": "Facts:\nThe complainant filed an appeal under section 62 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for assessment year 2002-2003. CIT(A) allowed partial relief on 20-09-2004. The Assessing Officer issued an appeal effect order on 30-11-2004 determining a refund of Rs. 1,46,96,081. However, no refund voucher was issued, delaying payment. Subsequent applications and reminders for refund were ignored, causing alleged maladministration.\nRespondent’s Position:\nRCIT, Eastern Region, Lahore contended that the final tax liability was under appeal before ITAT, and the refund should be dealt with under section 170 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which requires decision within 45 days. They also questioned FTO’s jurisdiction and denied compensation.\nComplainant’s Rejoinder:\nThe complainant argued that refunds under CIT(A) orders are not contingent on final outcome of appeal/litigation. Appeal effects were already given under the repealed Ordinance; the refund application dates were misrepresented, and delayed payment attracts compensation under the law.\nHearing Outcome:\nParties agreed that the refund would be issued upon submission of original challans. The FTO held that since refund and appeal effects arise under the repealed Ordinance, compensation for delayed refund is payable under section 239(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nDirections:\nRespondents to issue the refund voucher upon challan verification.\nCompensation for delayed refund to be paid as per law.\nCompliance report to be submitted within 30 days.\nLegal Principle:\nRefunds and compensation arising from appeal effects under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 must be honored, and delayed refunds attract compensation under applicable law.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=100,132,170,239(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1067-L of 2005, decision dated: 25-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervez Jami for Complainant\nKhawaja Muhammad Irshad (DCIT) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M/s UNITED INDUSTRIES LIMITED through Executive Director\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 50 = 2008 SLD 50 = 2008 PTD 1861 = 2009 PTCL 51 = (2008) 98 TAX 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQg", + "Key Words:": "Facts:\nThe appellant filed a direct appeal under section 42 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, challenging the dismissal of a reference application (Reference Application No.130-A of 2004) by a Single Judge of the High Court on 6-4-2005. The reference application had been filed under section 133(10) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nContentions:\nAppellant: Counsel argued that under section 133(10), a reference to the High Court must be heard by a Bench of at least two Judges, making the Single Judge incompetent to dismiss the application.\nRespondent: Counsel contended that the direct appeal was not maintainable to the Supreme Court and suggested restoration of the reference application as the proper remedy.\nDecision:\nThe Supreme Court held that:\nA reference under section 133(10) of the Income Tax Ordinance must be heard by a Division Bench; a Single Judge is not competent to hear or dispose of such reference applications.\nThe case was remanded to the High Court to be heard by a Division Bench and decided on merits.\nSuperior courts have inherent powers to ensure justice, and technical defects should not preclude adjudication on merits.\nOrder:\nAppeal accepted; case remanded to the High Court for hearing and disposal by a Division Bench on merits.\nLegal Principle:\nReference applications under section 133(10) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 must be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court; Single Judges lack jurisdiction to dismiss such applications.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133,42 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2006, decision dated: 25-11-2006. (On appeal from the order of the High Court, dated 6-4-2005, in Reference Application No.130-A of 2004)", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHRY, C.J. AND KHAWAJA SHAHAD AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bostan Chaudhry for Appellant. \nAzad Khan Tareen for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nAZAD KASHMIR LOGGING & SAW MILLS CORP." + }, + { + "Case No.": "504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 171 = 2001 SLD 171 = 2001 PTD 2145 = (1999) 239 ITR 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRw", + "Key Words:": "Facts:\nThe State Bank of Patiala challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in adjusting refundable tax amounts for assessment years 1996-97, 1993-94, and 1994-95 against outstanding tax demands for prior years. The petitioner contended that the set-off violated section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires prior written intimation of the proposed set-off to the assessee. Refunds were either under the Income-tax Act or the Interest-tax Act.\nContentions:\nPetitioner: No prior intimation was given before adjusting the refund; the adjustment was arbitrary and unlawful. Refundable amounts under one Act cannot be set off against tax demands under another Act.\nRespondent: Intimations were sent simultaneously; no prejudice caused; set-off was lawful to safeguard revenue interests.\nFindings:\nSection 245 of the Income-tax Act requires three conditions for set-off:\nRefund is due under the Act.\nRefundable amount is set-off against payable amount under the same Act.\nPrior written intimation is given before set-off.\nIn both cases, the third condition of prior intimation was not met.\nFor the Interest-tax Act, set-off under Income-tax Act provisions applies mutatis mutandis, meaning refund under one Act cannot be set off against tax demand under another Act.\nRelevant High Court and Supreme Court precedents support the requirement of prior intimation and Act-specific set-off.\nDecision:\nBoth writ petitions allowed.\nSet-off of refundable amounts by the Assessing Officer held unsustainable in law.\nCommunications dated 26-03-1997 and 05/06-05-1997 are quashed.\nRespondents directed to pay refundable amounts along with interest.\nCosts assessed at Rs.10,000 in each petition, payable by respondents to the petitioner.\nLegal Principles:\nRefundable tax under the Income-tax Act or Interest-tax Act can only be set off against tax payable under the same Act.\nPrior written intimation of proposed set-off is mandatory under section 245 of the Income-tax Act.\nSimultaneous or post facto intimation does not satisfy statutory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 7193 and 10273 of 1997, decision dated: 5-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Mittal for Petitioner. S. R. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "STATE BANK OF PATIALA\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 172 = 2001 SLD 172 = 2001 PTD 2141 = (2001) 84 TAX 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSA", + "Key Words:": "Facts:\nThe assessee, a private limited company engaged in milk packing, filed its income tax return for the assessment year 1994-95 declaring income of Rs.797,263. The Assessing Officer rejected the declared accounts citing lack of quantitative details for decline in sales and added Rs.19,06,124 in trading adjustments and Rs.11,90,114 contract packing receipts to gross profit. The first appellate authority partially reduced some adjustments but maintained others. The Tribunal further reduced estimated sales and allowed partial relief on profit & loss disallowances; Revenue’s cross-appeal was dismissed.\nContentions:\nAssessee: Tribunal incorrectly fixed sales, treated contract packing receipts as outright income ignoring associated expenses, applied an excessive GP rate to contract receipts, and confirmed disallowances without specific instances of unverifiable expenses. Reliance was placed on several precedent cases supporting acceptance of verifiable accounts and correct treatment of contract receipts.\nRevenue: Issues raised were factual and related to estimation of sales, GP application, treatment of items, and disallowances; these could not constitute questions of law. Rejection of accounts was not contested before the Tribunal.\nFindings:\nNone of the issues now raised by the assessee were contested before the Tribunal.\nContract packing receipts were correctly included in gross profit, as expenses were already deducted by the company.\nNo evidence was brought to rebut the Assessing Officer’s findings.\nQuestions framed by the assessee do not arise as questions of law because they were not ruled upon by the Tribunal.\nDecision:\nThe further appeal is not maintainable on grounds of law.\nNone of the assessee’s claims constitute questions of law arising from the Tribunal’s order.\nLegal Principle:\nA question of law arises only if the issue was raised before and ruled upon by the Tribunal.\nFactual disputes regarding estimation, GP rate, or treatment of receipts, not challenged at the appellate stage, cannot be converted into questions of law for further appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.339 of 1998, heard on 13-02-2001, hearing DATE 13-02-2001.hearing DATE 13-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "MILKO (PVT.) LTD.\nVs.\nTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16, COMPANIES ZONE I, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 173 = 2001 SLD 173 = 2001 PTD 2139 = (1999) 239 ITR 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRQ", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Business Expenditure (Salary and Perquisites):\n•\nIssue (a): Medical expenses reimbursed and house rent allowance paid to the managing director were considered part of his salary for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nResolution: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal correctly held that these reimbursements should be treated as salary and subject to disallowance limits under Section 40(c)(ii).\n•\nIssue (b): The same principle applies to house rent allowance (HRA) paid to employees, which is treated as salary for determining the ceiling under Section 40A(5).\n•\nIssue (c): Surtax paid by a company is not allowed as a deduction when calculating business income under Section 37.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1154 of 1985 (Reference No.661 of 1985), decision dated: 2-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 174 = 2001 SLD 174 = 2001 PTD 2137 = (2001) 84 TAX 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYRg", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court—Obligation to Decide:\n•\nIssue: The High Court’s obligation to decide questions of law referred to it depends on the hearing of the case. If the referring party is absent, the Court is not bound to rule.\n•\nResolution: The High Court declined to answer the questions referred because the referring party did not attend the hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 73 of 1993, decision dated: 12-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "Mst. FARIDA BIBI\nVs.\nI.T.O., CIRCLE 14, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 175 = 2001 SLD 175 = 2001 PTD 2134 = (1999) 239 ITR 418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYSw", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Machinery:\n•\nIssue: An assessee carrying out dyeing, printing, and bleaching of artificial silk cloth was not entitled to higher depreciation rates on machinery because it was not involved in the manufacturing process.\n•\nResolution: The Tribunal correctly ruled that the assessee was only processing pre-manufactured silk cloth and not involved in its actual manufacture. As such, the machinery did not qualify for higher depreciation.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 343 of 1987, decision dated: 29-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND SMT. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with P. S. Jetley for the Commissioner. S. M. Lala with V. H. Patil for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nJAYPEE DYEING HOUSE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 176 = 2001 SLD 176 = 2001 PTD 2133 = (2001) 84 TAX 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYTA", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court—Scope of Questions:\n•\nIssue: The Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact regarding a partner being a professional lawyer, and this was not contested. The High Court declined to rule on the issue, as it was a factual finding.\n•\nResolution: Since the Tribunal had established the fact and it was not challenged by the parties, the High Court refrained from answering the reference.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.21 of 1994, heard on 6-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs HAKAM QURESHI, LAW ASSOCIATES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 177 = 2001 SLD 177 = 2001 PTD 2121 = (1999) 239 ITR 405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQw", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Ceiling on Director’s Expenditures:\n•\nIssue (a): The company must prove that assets, like motor cars, were not used for the personal purposes of directors to avoid disallowance under Section 40(c).\n•\nResolution: The Tribunal held that the cars were used at least partially for personal purposes, and thus the company’s expenditures, including depreciation and maintenance costs, were subject to disallowance.\n•\nIssue (b): Reimbursed medical expenses also count towards the ceiling for director's benefits under Section 40(c).\n•\nIssue (c): Capital expenditure due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates is not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 388 to 392 of 1984, decision dated: 26-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 178 = 2001 SLD 178 = 2001 PTD 2119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Provisions of Explanation 8, Section 4, Income-tax Act, 1922.\nConclusion: The Tribunal erred in holding that Explanation 8 was inapplicable to a loan granted in 1971. Loans, irrespective of when granted, are subject to deemed accrual of interest post-1976 amendments.\nCitation: Not explicitly mentioned; based on Income-tax Act, 1922.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=SA(1),Expln.8,4(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.334 of 1991, decision dated: 14-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "C. I. T., CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs ITTEFAQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 179 = 2001 SLD 179 = 2001 PTD 2069 = (2001) 84 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Rectification of mistake in Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion: Tribunal's order cannot be revised on new facts not produced at the appeal stage.\nCitation: PLD 1996 Kar. 68; 1998 PTD 3478 ref.\n(b) Topic: Multiple assessments and rectification under S.156.\nConclusion: Genuineness of an order under S.59(1) was not challenged initially; thus, no rectification on this ground is permissible.\nCitation: PLD 1996 Kar. 68; 1998 PTD 3478 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),62,156 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application / (RECT) No. 221/KB of 2000-2001 in re: I.T.A. No.534/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 20-03-2001, hearing DATE : 16-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN,", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amjad Jamshaid, I.A.C. and Vishno Raja Qavi, D.R. for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 180 = 2001 SLD 180 = 2001 PTD 2065 = (2001) 84 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUQg", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 513\n(a) Topic: Tribunal's jurisdiction on questions of fact versus law.\nConclusion: Determination of whether a firm and its partners are distinct entities is a question of fact and not referable to the High Court.\nCitation: PLD 1985 Tsar. 83; 1980 CLC 1300; PLD 1956 SC (Ind.) 873; PLD 1979 SC 815 rel.\n(b) Topic: Loan from a foreign-resident spouse of a partner.\nConclusion: Tribunal correctly rejected the Department's appeal; the provisions of S.12(18-A) did not apply retroactively.\nCitation: PLD 1985 Tsar. 83; 1980 CLC 1300 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18A),12(18A),136 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 6/LB of 2000, decision dated: 24-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Aziz, D.R. for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 181 = 2001 SLD 181 = 2001 PTD 2061 = (1999) 239 ITR 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ownership under Section 69A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion: Tribunal was incorrect; ownership of sums must be established with evidence beyond mere signature on drafts. Matter remanded for further inquiry.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.69A.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 867 of 1988 (Reference No. 654 of 1988), decision dated: 11-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "R. THIAGARAJAN\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 182 = 2001 SLD 182 = 2001 PTD 2043 = (1999) 239 ITR 570", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Clubbing of spouse’s income under S.64(1)(ii).\nConclusion: Income earned by a spouse lacking requisite qualifications must be clubbed with the individual's income.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.64(l)(ii).\n(b) Topic: Income from property owned by spouse.\nConclusion: Property transferred at book value to spouse qualifies as independent ownership, and income therefrom is assessable in her hands.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.27(i).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947=11 ", + "Case #": "Income tax References Sos. 8 and 9 of 1996, 2 and 7 of 1997, decision dated: 14-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. C., JAIN AND P. G. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "CIT v. Sorabji Dorabji (1987) 168 ITR 598 (Ker.) and ITR 375 Mokashi (J.M.) (Dr.) v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 252 (Bom.) ref. U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. R. Gogoi,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSmt. PRATIMA SARA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 183 = 2001 SLD 183 = 2001 PTD 2037 = (1999) 239 ITR 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Deductibility of initial superannuation contributions.\nConclusion: Initial contributions to superannuation funds are deductible.\nCitation: CIT v. Sirpur-Paper Mills (1999) 237 ITR 41 (SC) ref.\n(b) Topic: Export market development allowance.\nConclusion: Expenses on loading and unloading do not qualify for weighted deductions under S.35B.\nCitation: Daryani (M.H.) v. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 731 (Born.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.464 of 1987, decision dated: 15-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND SMT RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nDR. BECK & CO. (IND.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 184 = 2001 SLD 184 = 2001 PTD 2031 = (1999) 239 ITR 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVURg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Bonus payments exceeding statutory requirements.\nConclusion: Payments as part of a labor dispute settlement qualify as deductible business expenditure under S.36.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.36.\n(b) Topic: Customary bonus.\nConclusion: Customary bonus payments under labor agreements are deductible under S.37.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1894 of 1984 (Reference No. 1377 of 1984), decision dated: 19-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMETTUR CHEMICALS AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 185 = 2001 SLD 185 = 2001 PTD 2028", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Delay in filing rectification applications under Ss.119(2)(b) & 154.\nConclusion: CBDT has discretion to condone delays; no jurisdictional error found in denying condonation based on reports.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.119(2)(b) & 154.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.A. No. 847 of 1994 A, decision dated: 21st August, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Nagendran and Premjith Nagendran for Appellants.", + "Party Name:": "A.P. SIVARAMAN and others\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 186 = 2001 SLD 186 = 2001 PTD 2024", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVUTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Registration of charitable trusts under S.12A.\nConclusion: Commissioner must base rejection of applications on specific findings rather than presumptions. Registration and exemption inquiries are distinct.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.12A.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 8345 of 1989, decision dated: 2-11-,1998", + "Judge Name:": "RAJESH BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.R. Shah for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "SHANTAGAURI RAMNIKLAL TRUST and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 187 = 2001 SLD 187 = 2001 PTD 2021", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital gains exemption under S.54.\nConclusion: Exemption denied as property was not used as a residence by the assessee for two years prior to sale.\nCitation: Hameed Jaffery v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 724 (Bom.) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.676 of 1987, decision dated: 14-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND SNIT. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with P. S. Jetley for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGOPALDAS H. HANSRAJANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 188 = 2001 SLD 188 = 2001 PTD 1998 = (2001) 84 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Interpretation of statutes—Ordinary and natural meaning.\nConclusion: Words in a statute should be given their ordinary and natural meaning unless such interpretation leads to inconsistency or impracticality. Alternate meanings should only be used when necessary.\nCitation: CIT v. Administrator, Karachi PLD 1963 SC 137 ref.\n(b) Topic: Procedural provisions of Ss.56 & 65, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion: Sections 56 and 65 are procedural, enabling the assessment mechanism under Chapter VII of the Ordinance to function effectively. These provisions cannot be narrowly interpreted.\nCitation: A and B Food Industries v. CIT 1992 SCMR 663 ref.\n(c) Topic: Clear statutory language.\nConclusion: Courts must enforce statutory provisions as written when the language is clear and unambiguous. External factors must not influence interpretation.\nCitation: A and B Food Industries v. CIT 1992 SCMR 663 ref.\n(d) Topic: Scope and retrospective application of Ss.55 & 56.\nConclusion:\n1.\nAssessing Officers have authority to request returns for both current and prior years under Section 56.\n2.\nExplanation added to Section 56 clarifies its retrospective applicability.\n3.\nSection 55 enables voluntary filing for earlier years, broadening its scope beyond current assessments.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(e) Topic: Additional assessments—S.65.\nConclusion:\n1.\n Definite information implies contradictory evidence discovered after prior disclosures.\n2.\n Escape refers to taxable income omitted from assessments.\n3.\nProtections for completed assessments do not extend to non-assessees.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.65.\n(f) Topic: High Court’s role in references under S.136.\nConclusion: The High Court, under S.136, cannot adjudicate on constitutional issues and is limited to interpreting framed questions of law.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.136.\n(g) Topic: Duty to pay taxes.\nConclusion: Taxpayers must meet obligations promptly. However, systemic protections should prevent abuse of reopening powers against compliant taxpayers.\nCitation: General principles of taxation.\n(h) Topic: Applicability of notices under S.65.\nConclusion: Notices can be issued for current and prior years after the Ordinance's enforcement date (1-7-1979), but not for pre-enforcement periods.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.65.\n(i-m) Topics: Principles of statutory interpretation.\nConclusions:\n1.\nMultiple powers can coexist in a single provision.\n2.\nPreconceived notions must not distort interpretation.\n3.\nLegislative intent prioritizes public welfare, even if inconvenient for some.\n4.\nMarginal headings and declaratory explanations aid statutory interpretation and may apply retrospectively.\nCitation: General principles of statutory interpretation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,56,56(1),56(2),62,63,64(1),64(2),64(3),65,65(1)(a),65(1)(a)(b),72,72(3),81,136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.Rs. Nos.345, 3, 4, 50, 95, 380, 182, 363, ,115., 116, 378, 3.79, 381, 1995, 134 of 1998, I.T.As. Nos.22 of 1994, 162, 163; 164, 545 to 441 of 2000. Decided on 14-03-2001 dates of hearing; 23rd, 27th, 28th and 29-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid and Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant and Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 189 = 2001 SLD 189 = 2001 PTD 1988 = (2001) 83 TAX 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Deductions and recoveries—S.25 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion: Waived amounts credited to the profit and loss account under a restructuring formula cannot be treated as income unless specific conditions under S.25 are met. Case remanded for reconsideration.\nCitation: CIT v. Stewart and Lloyds 165 ITR 416; Mehboob Productions (Pvt) Ltd v. CIT, Bombay 106 ITR 758 ref.\n(b) Topic: Conditions for invoking S.25.\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer must establish the nature of recoveries (e.g., bad debts, liabilities) and demonstrate their relevance to past deductions under S.23.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(c) Topic: Specificity of S.25.\nConclusion: Section 25 requires additions to income only when recoveries pertain to previously allowed deductions under S.23.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,25(a),25(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1973/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 22-02-2001, hearing DATE : 1st February, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Hassan Alam for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 190 = 2001 SLD 190 = 2001 PTD 1974 = (2000) 246 ITR 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Retrospective amendments to S.80-P.\nConclusion: The High Court’s order granting cooperative society deductions under S.80-P was set aside due to retrospective amendment by the Income-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1998. The validity of the amendment required fresh consideration alongside the writ petition.\nCitation: CIT v. National Agricultural Corporation Marketing Federation Ltd (2000) 246 ITR 488 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 2135 of 2000, decision dated: 15-03-2000.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 1, 1999, of the Delhi High Court in I.T.R. No. 227 of 1978)", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHARUCHA, S.S.M. QUADRI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve, Solicitor General (S. Rajappa, B.V.B. Das and S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 191 = 2001 SLD 191 = 2001 PTD 1416 = (2000) 245 ITR 8 = (2002) 85 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation for poultry sheds—Building or plant?\nConclusion: Whether poultry sheds qualify as plant for higher depreciation rates is a question of law to be referred to the High Court.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32 & 256.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 841 of 2000, decision dated: 4-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND MRS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSRINIVASA HATCHERIES (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 192 = 2001 SLD 192 = 2001 PTD 1414 = (2001) 84 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Jurisdiction under S.136.\nConclusion: High Court declined to answer questions about an Income-tax Officer’s jurisdiction when the Tribunal had conclusively established the lack of jurisdiction.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.136.\n(b) Topic: Academic interest in references.\nConclusion: High Courts avoid addressing matters of academic interest in references under S.136.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.136(5).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,136,136(5) ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 337 of 1991, decision dated: 11-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE\nvs\nMst. IQBAL BEGUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 193 = 2001 SLD 193 = 2001 PTD 1412 = (2000) 245 ITR 6 = (2002) 85 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Trust income and trustee remuneration.\nConclusion: Following earlier rulings, deductions for trustee remuneration and administrative expenses are allowable under Ss.57(i) & 19(i). The High Court dismissed a fresh reference due to the repetitive nature of the question.\nCitation: CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Miscellaneous Trust (1986) 160 ITR 253 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. Nos. 8158 to 8160 of 1995 with C.A. No. 5929 of 1998, decision dated: 15-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. WADHWA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nTRUSTEES OF H.E.H.NIZAM'S MISCELLANEOUS TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 194 = 2001 SLD 194 = 2001 PTD 1410 = (2000) 245 ITR 5 = (2002) 85 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmRg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Investment allowance for excavators.\nConclusion: The applicability of investment allowance for excavators used at work sites is a question of law warranting High Court review.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32A & 256.\n(b) Topic: Machinery verification in rectification proceedings.\nConclusion: Whether machinery used for contract work can be verified in proceedings under S.154 is a question of law to be referred.\nCitation: CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. (1999) 238 ITR 674 rev.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 3014 of 1999, decision dated: 11-05-1999.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 21, 1998, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Income tax Case No. 49 of 1998)", + "Judge Name:": "B. N. KIRPAL AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBHOORATNAM & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 195 = 2001 SLD 195 = 2001 PTD 1409 = (2001) 84 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmSw", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Surcharge, levy of-Retained income-Taxes payable could be treated as retained income for the purpose of levy of surcharge.\n \nC.I.T. v. Messrs Facto Sugar Mills Ltd:, Karachi and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 257 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.78 of 1993, decision dated: 10-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs PUNJAB FLOUR MILLING CORPORATION LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 196 = 2001 SLD 196 = 2001 PTD 1407 = (2000) 245 ITR 1 = (2002) 85 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVmTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemptions under S.10(29).\nConclusion: Conflicting Supreme Court decisions regarding exemptions for income from letting warehouses and interest income necessitate review by a larger bench.\nCitation: Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 589 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 6650 of 1995, decided op 23rd February, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "D.P. WADHWA AND M. B. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K.C. Kaushik and Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGUJARAT STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 197 = 2001 SLD 197 = 2001 PTD 1406 = (2001) 84 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Registration of partnership firms.\nConclusion: Registration and execution of partnership deeds are questions of fact, not law, and thus not subject to High Court review under S.136.\nCitation: In re: Malik & Company 1974 PTD 142; The Commissioner of Income-tax, Rawalpindi v. Messrs Zamindara Flour Mills 1970 SCMR 530 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 112 of 1993, decision dated: 16-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nALPHA MIAN & CO., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 198 = 2001 SLD 198 = 2001 PTD 1402 = (2001) 84 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRA", + "Key Words:": "High Court Reference Declined:\n•\nContext: High Court refused to answer a referred question when the assessee was absent.\n•\nCases Referenced:\no\nDada Bhai H. Mama & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1967) 16 Tax 43.\no\nM. M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (1955) 27 ITR 188.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 19 of 1990, decision dated: 12-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAVI TENTAGE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 199 = 2001 SLD 199 = 2001 PTD 1397 = (2001) 84 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQQ", + "Key Words:": "Question of Fact vs. Law in GP Rates:\n•\nTribunal remarks on the declared gross profit rate in the absence of direct issues.\n•\nCourt observed that Tribunal's findings on achievable GP rates didn't raise a legal question.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 104 of 1993, decision dated: 16-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs NOORANI GHAZI POULTRY HATCHERY AND BREEDING FARM, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 200 = 2001 SLD 200 = 2001 PTD 1386 = (2001) 83 TAX 569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViQg", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Cost of Construction:\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTribunal upheld the rejection of unverifiable accounts.\no\nTribunal invalidated an addition related to undervalued land purchased by a company from directors.\n•\nPrinciple: Addition under Section 13(1)(d) requires tangible proof of excess expenditure over book entries.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 368 of 1991, decision dated: 20-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CRESCENT ART FABRICS (PVT.) LTD., LAHROE\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 201 = 2001 SLD 201 = 2001 PTD 1380 = (2001) 83 TAX 579", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRw", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Appeals in High Court:\n•\nOnly legal questions arising from Tribunal orders are eligible.\n•\nTribunal's findings regarding sufficient notice under S.62 upheld; factual controversies not addressed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 200 of 1997, decision dated: 23rd January, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Ahmed Qureshi for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NAFEES COTTON MILLS, LTD., LAHORE\nVs.\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 202 = 2001 SLD 202 = 2001 PTD 1371 = (2002) 85 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSA", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Revised Returns:\n•\nRevised returns under S.57 do not qualify for self-assessment under S.55.\n•\nTribunal's remand order based on misinterpretation of CBR Circulars deemed invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,57,59(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 318 of 1991, decision dated: 12-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MULTAN ZONE, MULTAN\nVs.\nMessrs MUHAMMAD SALEEM MUHAMMAD ARIF CONTRACTORS, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 203 = 2001 SLD 203 = 2001 PTD 1366 = (2001) 84 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRQ", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Validity Based on Limitation:\n•\nTribunal's stance: Assessments valid under S.65 due to repealing/saving provisions in S.166.\n•\nHigh Court confirmed reassessment was not time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136,166 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 329 of 1991, decision dated: 23rd January, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia, Haider. Rizvi for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "IQBAL POULTRY FARM, FAISALABAD\nVs.\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 204 = 2001 SLD 204 = 2001 PTD 1354 = (2001) 83 TAX 576", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViRg", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Definition of Plant :\n•\nBroader interpretation of plant includes integral factory infrastructure like roads and sidings.\n•\nCase Approved: (1971) 82 ITR 376.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=43 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 359 of 1991, decision dated: 20-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE; RAWALPINDI\nVs.\nMessrs HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX LTD. TAXILA, DISTRICT RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 205 = 2001 SLD 205 = 2001 PTD 1348 = (2001) 84 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViSw", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment in Exempt Income Claims:\n•\nIndividual entitled to proportional exempt share; penalty under S.111 unjustified.\n•\nClaims partially disallowed for exemption don't warrant concealment penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,13613(1)(aa)SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 124 of 1993, decision dated: 18-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, FAISALABAD\nvs\nABDUL JABBAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 206 = 2001 SLD 206 = 2001 PTD 1335 = (2000) 244 ITR 764", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVViTA", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Compensation Payments:\n•\nAssessed as business income in receipt year under S.41(2).\n•\nCompensation finalization via arbitration irrelevant for initial taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 6325 of 1995, decision dated: 17-04-2000, (Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated August 8, 1986 of the Calcutta High Court in I.T.R. No.365 of 1977)", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. WADHWA AND M. B. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla and' oseph Vellapally, Senior Advocates. S.N. Terdol,. B.S. Ahuja, Ms. Neera Gupta, D.N. Misra, Ms. Sushtna Suri, Arvind Kurnar Sharma, Tarun Gulati and Ms. Meera Mathur, Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nUNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 207 = 2001 SLD 207 = 2001 PTD 1333 = (2001) 84 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQw", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal Cancels Revenue's Valuation of Property:\n•\nRegistered sale-deeds and Collector-fixed rates used to refute Revenue's higher valuation.\n•\nTribunal satisfied with declared property values; no legal controversy arose.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 103 of 1991, decision dated: 25-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEA, LAHORE\nvs\nABU BAKAR MAQSOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 208 = 2001 SLD 208 = 2001 PTD 1329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRA", + "Key Words:": "Capital Nature of Guaranteed Returns:\n•\nTribunal ruled guaranteed returns as a substitute for compensation bonds are non-taxable capital receipts.\n•\nHigh Court declined to answer as no factual dispute remained.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,34,26 ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 350 of 1991, heard on 11-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE. LAHORE\nvs\nTAUHEED ELAHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 209 = 2001 SLD 209 = 2001 PTD 1325 = (2001) 84 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQQ", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Filing of Wealth Statement:\n•\nPenalty under S.108 inapplicable; specific provisions in S.110 govern defaults under S.58.\n•\nCourt emphasized strict interpretation of fiscal penalty statutes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=58,108,110,136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.313 of 1991, heard on 8-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, A-ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nSOHAIL ASLAM, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 210 = 2001 SLD 210 = 2001 PTD 1288 = (2000) 244 ITR 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIQg", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Specially Designed Buildings:\n•\nHotel/cinema buildings remain categorized as buildings, not plant. \n•\nFunctional test excludes structures serving as business sites rather than adjuncts.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=5 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4758, 5198, 5199 and 5391 of 1998, 15, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 3690 of 1999, 55, 56, 57, 3434 and 3435 of 2000, decision dated: 12-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": "A. P. MISRA AND M. B. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. L. V. Iyer, B. B. Ahuja and Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocates", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nANAND THEATRES and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 212 = 2001 SLD 212 = 2001 PTD 1286 = (2001) 84 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRw", + "Key Words:": "Allowable Expenditures under S.10(2)(xvi) of IT Act, 1922:\n•\nExpenditure prohibited only if capital or personal; income generation not mandatory.\n•\nExpenditure wholly and exclusively for business cannot be disallowed without objection.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 29 of 1991, heard on 14-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs INTERHOME IMPERIAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 213 = 2001 SLD 213 = 2001 PTD 1243 = (2001) 83 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISA", + "Key Words:": "Army Welfare Trust’s Tax Status:\n•\nRecognized as an association of persons, not a company. \n•\nExemption applies to welfare funds spent under Clause (62) of Part I, Second Schedule.\n•\nInterest income classified as business income; deductions allowed proportionally.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(16)(bb),2(32),22,23,23(1),23(1)(xii),23(1)(xiii),23(1)(xiv),23(1)(xv),23(1)(xviii),SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 110/IB, 111/IB. of 1997-98, 1143/IB, 523/113 and 1356/113 of 1999-2000, decision dated: 3rd October, 2000, hearing DATE : 9-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND, JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmed, D.A. G./L.A. and Riaz Hussain Shah, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 523/IB and 1356/113 of 1999 2000).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 214 = 2001 SLD 214 = 2001 PTD 1241 = (2000) 244 ITR 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRQ", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Insurance Premium:\n•\nThe insurance premium paid for employee-directors was considered part of salary and allowable as a deduction for assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82. It raised a legal question referred to the High Court.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 40, 40A & 256.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 6241 and 6242 of 1995, decision dated: 18-03-1999, (Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 18, 1989 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.Cs. Nos. l55 and 160 of 1989)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND R. C. LAHOTI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVerses\nINDIAN LEAF SPRING MANUFACTURING (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 215 = 2001 SLD 215 = 2001 PTD 1240 = (2000) 244 ITR 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVIRg", + "Key Words:": "Charge of Tax - Sikkim Company:\n•\nIncome accruing in India is chargeable under the Income Tax Act. A company registered in Sikkim receiving income from India was validly served notice under S.148.\nCitations: Alankar Commercial (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Asstt. C.I.T. (2000) 243 ITR 626.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17435 of 1999, decision dated: 6-12-1999.(Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated July 21, 1999 of the Sikkim High Court in C. W. P. No. 18 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "B. N. KIRPAL AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. P. Malhotra, Senior Advocate (A.K. Sanghi and Manish Pitak, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "ALANKAR COMMERCIAL (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 216 = 2001 SLD 216 = 2001 PTD 1238 = (2000) 244 ITR 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVISw", + "Key Words:": "Deferred Annuity Premium for Directors:\n•\nPremiums for deferred annuity policies paid by the company for Managing Directors were held deductible, raising legal questions.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Russel (L.W.) (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC).\n•\nGujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1994) 210 ITR 358 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1650 and 1651 of 1994 with 4573 of 1998, 2385 and 2386 of 1994, decision dated: 23rd February, 1999.(Civil Appeals Nos. 1650 and 1651 of 1994 were by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 15, 1992 of the Gujarat High Court in I. T, As. Nos. 194 and 195 of 1992)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, V. N. KHARE AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. L Verma, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad and Girish Chander, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCADILA CHEMICALS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 217 = 2001 SLD 217 = 2001 PTD 1963 = (2000) 246 ITR 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVITA", + "Key Words:": "Company Substantially Interested by Public:\n•\nA company formed to take over Indian business of a foreign entity was deemed a company substantially interested by public due to widely based shareholding and High Court-approved amalgamation.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Harrisons Crossfield (India) Ltd. (1996) 220 ITR 494.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. Nos. 15498 and 15499 of 1996, decision dated: 2-08-2000.(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated January 25, 1996 of the Kerala High Court in I.T.R. Nos. 136 and 137 of 1989)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, S. S. M. QUADRI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Rajiv. Nanda and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHARRISON CROSSFIELD (INDIA) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 218 = 2001 SLD 218 = 2001 PTD 1949 = (2000) 246 ITR 306 = (2002) 85 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQw", + "Key Words:": "National Savings Certificate Nomination:\n•\nA nominee receiving sums retains them for the benefit of successors under the applicable law of succession.\nCitations:\n•\nSint. Sarbati Devi v. Sint. Usha Devi (1984) 55 Comp. Cas. 214 (SC).\n•\nLife Insurance Corporation of India v. United Bank of India Ltd. (1971) 41 Comp. Cas. 603 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4538 of 2000, decision dated: 16-08-2000.(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated March 20, 1999 of the Bombay High Court in F.A.C. No.849 of 1982)", + "Judge Name:": "K. T. THOMAS AND R. P. SETHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjay K. Kaul, Senior Advocate (Rakesh Batra, Advocate for L. P. Aggarwalla & Co. Advocates with him) for Appellants.", + "Party Name:": "VISHIN N! KHANCHANDANI and another\nvs\nVIDYA LACHMANDAS KHANCHANDANI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 219 = 2001 SLD 219 = 2001 PTD 1947 = (2000) 246 ITR 462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERA", + "Key Words:": "Penalty on Honest Estimate of Advance Tax:\n•\nThe Tribunal found that penalties under S.273 could not be imposed if the advance tax estimate was made honestly based on then-prevailing legal interpretations.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 1858 of 1994, decision dated: 17-02-1999.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated Jun 29, 1993 of the Gujarat High Court in I.T.A. No. 162 of 1993)", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN AND U. C. BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. K. Prasad, Advocate for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 220 = 2001 SLD 220 = 2001 PTD 1848 = (2001) 83 TAX 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQQ", + "Key Words:": "Right of Appeal and Reference:\n•\nAppeals are substantive rights granted by law; references are advisory in nature. The Tribunal rejected a reference as the substituted law allowed appeals only for orders post-2000.\nCitations:\n•\nSh. Muhammad Sadiq v. I.A. Khan 1991 MLD 1205.\n•\nPakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Pak Saaf Dry Cleaners PLD 1981 SC 553.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "R. A. No. 2(IB) of 2000-2001, decision dated: 28-11-2000, hearing DATE : 21st November, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sikandar Hayat Khan for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 221 = 2001 SLD 221 = 2001 PTD 1816 = (2001) 83 TAX 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVEQg", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Tax on Payments to Non-Residents:\n•\nPayments to non-residents without deduction of tax required clear agreements to determine liability under S.52. Claims of exemptions were rejected due to lack of documentation.\nCitations: Law Lexicon Dictionary, 1997 Edn.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(29),12,12(5),50,50(3A),50(4),52,80,80AA,Cl.(77A) ofPartI of Second Schedule ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2919/LB and 2921/LB of 1999, decision dated: 17-02-2001, hearing DATE : 19-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN, ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalique-ur-Rehman, F.C.A. and Iqbal Ahmad, I.T.P. for Appellant.\nShafqat Mahmood Chohan, L.A., Muhammad Asif, D.R. and Adnan Saeed, Assessing Officer for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 222 = 2001 SLD 222 = 2001 PTD 1794 = (2001) 83 TAX 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERw", + "Key Words:": "Salary Income Classification:\n•\nIncome derived from employer-employee relationships is classified as salary under S.16. Commissions received in addition to salary were not deductible.\nCitations: I.T.A. No. 1834/KB of 1984-85.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,16(2)(a)(iii),31,31(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2721/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 26-04-2000, hearing DATE : 26-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S. NASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bakht Zaman, D.R. for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 223 = 2001 SLD 223 = 2001 PTD 1789 = (2001) 84 TAX 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESA", + "Key Words:": "Tax Appeal Without Deposit Requirement:\n•\nThe condition to deposit tax before an appeal under S.129(2) was declared invalid by following precedents.\nCitations: Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 1996 Lah. 672.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,129(2),199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5136 of 2001, decision dated: 6-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SONIA SILK, 108ANARKALI, LAHORE through Sheikh WajihudDin Ahmad\nvs\nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, through Chairman, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 224 = 2001 SLD 224 = 2001 PTD 1784 = (2000) 241 ITR 248 = (2000) 82 TAX 322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERQ", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Validity Based on Audit Reports:\n•\nAudit findings on extra depreciation constituted valid information for reassessment under S.147(b).\nCitations: Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 522 of 1986 (Reference No. 357 of 1986), decision dated: 19-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRMNANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nFIRST LEASING CO. OF INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 225 = 2001 SLD 225 = 2001 PTD 1782 = (2000) 241 ITR 268 = (2000) 82 TAX 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVERg", + "Key Words:": "Business Commencement Date and Expenditure:\n•\nA company was held to have commenced business upon securing a letter of intent, making related expenditures deductible from that date.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 221 of 1988 (Reference No. 160 of 1988), decision dated: 2-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nFRANCO TOSI INGEGNERIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 227 = 2001 SLD 227 = 2001 PTD 1773 = (2000) 241 ITR 269 = (2000) 82 TAX 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVESw", + "Key Words:": "Appeals Against Interest Orders:\n•\nLevy of interest under S.220(2) is non-appealable; adjustments to incorrectly paid interest under S.214 are permissible.\nCitations:\n•\nC.E.S.C. Ltd. v. CIT 1999 PTD 1212.\n•\nCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 145 of 1993, decision dated: 13-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y. R. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K. Pal, Senior Advocate and Subrata Das for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK PLC\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 228 = 2001 SLD 228 = 2001 PTD 1770 = (2000) 241 ITR 50 = (2000) 82 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVETA", + "Key Words:": "Deduction on Borrowed Agricultural Funds:\n•\nInterest on borrowings for agriculture was not deductible against fixed deposit interest income assessed under Other Sources. \nCitations: Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT 1998 PTD 900.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 23 of 1997, decision dated: 22-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nVAIKUNDAM RUBBER CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 229 = 2001 SLD 229 = 2001 PTD 1767 = (2000) 241 ITR 6 = (2000) 82 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQw", + "Key Words:": "Special Deduction on Interest Income:\n•\nPartners of firms holding fixed deposits were not entitled to deductions under S.80L following retrospective legal amendments.\nCitations:\n•\nC IT v. Gopalkrishna M. Singre (1995) 214 ITR 443 (Bom.).\n•\nCIT v. Brij Raman Das (1979) 118 ITR 397 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 84 of 1990, decision dated: 3rd August, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND MRS. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "RN. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSmt. MANDAKINI M. JOG" + }, + { + "Case No.": "561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 230 = 2001 SLD 230 = 2001 PTD 1764 = (2000) 241 ITR 15 = (2000) 82 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRA", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance - Hotel Business:\n•\nInvestment allowance was not allowed for hotel kitchen, storeroom, and equipment since hotels do not produce or manufacture articles.\n•\nHowever, depreciation as a plant was allowed for the hotel building.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Vrindavan Hotels (P.) Ltd. 2000 PTD 3674.\n•\nEast India Hotels Ltd. v. CIT 1997 PTD 1386.\n•\nCIT v. Hotel Luciya 1999 PTD 3690.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 27 of 1997, decision dated: 23rd September, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nABAD HOTELS INDIA (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 231 = 2001 SLD 231 = 2001 PTD 1762 = (2000) 241 ITR 70 = (2000) 82 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQQ", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust - Exemption:\n•\nTrusts promoting trade and commerce without profit-making activity were held as charitable entities, eligible for S.11 exemption.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.11.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 50 of 1982, decision dated: 23rd March, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "S. L. SARAF AND R. K. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBANARAS BRASS MERCHANT AND MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 232 = 2001 SLD 232 = 2001 PTD 1759 = (2000) 241 ITR 171 = (2000) 82 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQQg", + "Key Words:": "Firm - Interest to Partners:\n•\nOnly net interest paid to a partner should be considered for disallowance under S.40(b). Academic questions were not answered.\nCitations: Keshvaji Ravji & Co. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1954 and 1955 of 1986 (References Nos. 1371 and 1372 of 1986), decision dated: 29-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKAMADHENU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 233 = 2001 SLD 233 = 2001 PTD 1755 = (1999) 237 ITR 131 = (2000) 81 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRw", + "Key Words:": "Special Deduction - Export of Granite:\n•\nProfits from granite export did not qualify for deduction under S.80HHC as minerals included granite per legal interpretation.\nCitations: Stonecraft Enterprises v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 550.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 144 to 146 of 1994, decision dated: 18-03-1999, (Appeals by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated July 28, 1993 of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.R.C. Nos. 134 to 136 of 1992)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND R. C. LAHOTI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Ganguli, Senior Advocate (M.T. George, Advocate with him) for Appellant. V. Gaurishanker, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, Advocate with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "STONE CRAFT ENTERPRISES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 234 = 2001 SLD 234 = 2001 PTD 1752 = (1999) 240 ITR 341 = (2000) 82 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSA", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains - Agricultural Land:\n•\nRetrospective Explanation to S.2(1A) clarified income from the sale of certain lands is not agricultural income and is taxable.\nCitations: S. Mutyam Reddy v. ITO (1988) 169 ITR 174 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 762 of 1997, decision dated: 1st October, 1999.(Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated October 9, 1987 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.9605 of 1981", + "Judge Name:": "S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R. C. LAHOTI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (K.C. Kaushik, S.W.A. Qadri and S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for Appellants.", + "Party Name:": "UNION OF INDIA and others\nvs\nS. MUTHYAM REDDY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 235 = 2001 SLD 235 = 2001 PTD 1750 = (2000) 241 ITR 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRQ", + "Key Words:": "Refund - Reversal by High Court:\n•\nRefunds granted based on a Tribunal's order are invalidated when the Tribunal's order is overturned by the High Court.\nCitations: CIT v. K.T.M.S. Mahmood (1997) 228 ITR 113 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1836 of 1986, decision dated: 22nd August 1996", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Devanathan and K.C. Rajappa for Petitioner. S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "K.T.M.S. MAHMOOD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER (SIXTH) and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 236 = 2001 SLD 236 = 2001 PTD 1744 = (2000) 82 TAX 251 = (2000) 241 ITR 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQRg", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust - Maintenance of Nuns:\n•\nA charitable society receiving salary donations from nuns was eligible for S.11 exemption; nuns were not beneficiaries.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 11 & 13.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 684 and 685 of 1987 and 1018 of 1990 (References Nos. 457 and 458 of 1987 and 503 of 1990), decision dated: 10-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner and Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\n21ST SOCIETY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 237 = 2001 SLD 237 = 2001 PTD 1741 = (2000) 241 ITR 208 = (2000) 82 TAX 296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQSw", + "Key Words:": "Penalty - Concealment of Income:\n•\nTribunal held no concealment where mistakes were rectified upon discovery. Penalties were canceled, and no legal questions arose.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.256 & 271.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petitions Nos.99 to 101 of 1997, decision dated: 17-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND K. P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s).", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for Petitioner. V. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate for K.Mani for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBEST SUPPLY AGENCY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 238 = 2001 SLD 238 = 2001 PTD 1739 = (2000) 241 ITR 211 = (2000) 82 TAX 358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVQTA", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity - Incremental Liability:\n•\nTribunal's error in calculating gratuity liability was highlighted, and deductions were disallowed due to lack of proper justification.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 58 of 1982 (Reference No. 28 of 1982), decision dated: 17-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nPULLICAR MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 239 = 2001 SLD 239 = 2001 PTD 1736 = (2000) 241 ITR 124 = (2000) 82 TAX 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQw", + "Key Words:": "Penalty - Revised Returns:\n•\nRevised returns showing higher income to avoid litigation were accepted as bona fide; penalty for concealment was not justified.\nCitations: Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 64 of 1996, decision dated: 20-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "B.A. KHAN AND SHAMBHOO SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Pawanekar for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSURESH CHANDRA MITTAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 240 = 2001 SLD 240 = 2001 PTD 1734 = (2000) 241 ITR 229 = (2000) 82 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRA", + "Key Words:": "Income from Deposits - Soft Drinks Manufacturer:\n•\nDeposits for returnable bottles were not treated as income since they were refundable and not part of sales proceeds.\nCitations: Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 519 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petition No. 255 of 1998, decision dated: 20-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMADURAI SOFT DRINKS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 241 = 2001 SLD 241 = 2001 PTD 1725 = (2000) 241 ITR 216 = (2000) 82 TAX 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQQ", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Disclosure - Construction Cost:\n•\nVoluntary disclosure of income does not prevent inquiries. Higher construction costs discovered were actionable.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.131.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3198 of 1998, decision dated: 11-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R. S. GARG, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema with Ku. Seema Agarwal for Petitioner. Abhay Sapre with P. Shandiyal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Smt. SHASHI DEVI\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 242 = 2001 SLD 242 = 2001 PTD 1717 = (2000) 241 ITR 71 = (2000) 82 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMQg", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment - Body of Individuals:\n•\nIncome escaping assessment through failure to file returns justified reassessment. Agreement among heirs led to assessment as a body of individuals.\nCitations: Meera & Co. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 635 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1074 to 1081 of 1988 (References Nos. 836 to 843 of 1988), decision dated: 27-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. V. Ramanathan for the Assessee. Mrs. Chitra Venkatraman for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "SAKINABAI IBRAHIM & SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER. OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 243 = 2001 SLD 243 = 2001 PTD 1712 = (2000) 241 ITR 53 = (2000) 82 TAX 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRw", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Bonus & Hospitality:\n•\nBonus paid under settlements and hospitality expenses pre-1976 amendment were allowed as deductible expenses.\nCitations: CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 134 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1046 to 1048 of 1985 (References Nos.553 to 555 of 1985) decided on 28-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the. Commissioner. S.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nLAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 244 = 2001 SLD 244 = 2001 PTD 1706 = (2000) 241 ITR 91 = (2000) 82 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSA", + "Key Words:": "Litigation Expenses - Fixed Assets:\n•\nLitigation costs for unpaid sale consideration of fixed assets were capital expenditures and not deductible.\nCitations: J.K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 221 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos.301 to 303 of 1978 and 214 to 216 of 1980, decision dated: 30-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": " ARUN KUMAR AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. R. Khaitan for the Assessee. Sanjiv Khanna and Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "DALMIA DAIRY INDUSTRIES LTD. (formerly Dalmia Cement Ltd.)\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 246 = 2001 SLD 246 = 2001 PTD 1698 = (2000) 241 ITR 62 = (2000) 82 TAX 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRQ", + "Key Words:": "Expenditure in Violation of Statutes:\n•\nPayments violating Companies Act ceilings were disallowed. Rectification proceedings were invalid for prior approvals.\nCitations: Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 534 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1554 to 1556 of 1985 and 1136 and 1137 of 1986 (References Nos. 1014 and 1016 of 1985 and 724 and 725 of 1986), decision dated: 17-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nINDIA CEMENTS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 247 = 2001 SLD 247 = 2001 PTD 1691 = (2000) 241 ITR 20 = (2000) 82 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMRg", + "Key Words:": "Perquisites - House Rent:\n•\nStandardized rents for company-provided accommodation were not concessional and did not constitute taxable perquisites.\nCitations: P.V. Rajagopal v. Union of India (1998) 233 ITR 678 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=2 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.4400, 4978, 5664 of 1996 and 33904 of 1997, decision dated: 21st April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suryanarayana Murthy, A. V. Krishna Koundinya, G.S. Rao, V. Ajayakumar and P.B. Vijaya Kumar for Petitioner. S.R. Ashok for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "STEEL EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION\nVs\nRASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 248 = 2001 SLD 248 = 2001 PTD 1685 = (2000) 241 ITR 407 = (2000) 82 TAX 449", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMSw", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation - Guest Houses:\n•\nPre-1979 guest house-related expenses and depreciation were deductible as law amendments were not retrospective.\nCitations: CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 808 of 1983 (Reference No.416 of 1983), decision dated: 20-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nCARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 249 = 2001 SLD 249 = 2001 PTD 1675 = (2000) 241 ITR 231 = (2000) 82 TAX 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVMTA", + "Key Words:": "Firm - Registration Continuity:\n•\nFirms reconstituted due to partner death required fresh registration. Partial-year registrations were invalid.\nCitations: Addl. CIT v. Abdul Kareem & Co. (1979) 117 ITR 233 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 126 of 1984, decision dated: 22-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pranav G. Desai for Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nKIRIT WOOD WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 250 = 2001 SLD 250 = 2001 PTD 1672 = (2000) 241 ITR 259 = (2000) 82 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQw", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity - Disallowance:\n•\nGratuity provisions without an approved fund or payment during the year were disallowed.\nCitations: Premier Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 719 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1748 of 1986 (Reference No. 1181 of 1986), decision dated: 12-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nORIENT PHARMA (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 251 = 2001 SLD 251 = 2001 PTD 1666 = (2000) 241 ITR 198 = (2000) 82 TAX 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRA", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Director Remuneration:\n•\nGuarantee commission paid to a director for standing as a guarantor is not a remuneration or perquisite under S.40(c) or S.40A(5).\n•\nFor employee-directors, S.40(c) applies to remuneration or benefits.\nCitations:\n•\nBharat Beedi Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 1063 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Hico Products (Pvt.) Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 567 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 299 of 1988, decision dated: 17-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND MRS. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner. Ashok N. Bhogani with V.P. Salunkhe and Ms, A Mishra instructed by A. Bhogani & Co. for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nTRADE WINGS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 252 = 2001 SLD 252 = 2001 PTD 1661 = (2000) 241 ITR 402 = (2000) 82 TAX 455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQQ", + "Key Words:": "Surtax and Gratuity Fund Contributions:\n•\nSurtax levied on company profits is not deductible.\n•\nContributions to an approved gratuity fund are deductible if made before January 1, 1976, per S.40A(7).\nCitations:\n•\nSmith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 581 (SC).\n•\nCarborandum Universal Ltd. v. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 1 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.220 and 221 of 1981 (References Nos.72 and 73 of 1981), decision dated: 20-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Balasubramanian for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 253 = 2001 SLD 253 = 2001 PTD 1656 = (2001) 83 TAX 563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzQg", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction at Source - Pesticides Income:\n•\nTax paid at import (S.50(5)) satisfies liability; no further tax can be demanded under S.50(4).\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Sir E.H. Jaffer & Sons I.T.A. No.98 of 1998.\n•\nMessrs Elahi Cotton Mills and others v. Federation of Pakistan 1997 PTD 582.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,50,50(4),50(5),80C(4) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 13956 of 1999 and 20514 of 2000, heard on 2-03-2001, hearing DATE : 2-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "WELCON CHEMICALS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 254 = 2001 SLD 254 = 2001 PTD 1649 = (2001) 84 TAX 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRw", + "Key Words:": "Customs Rebate - Income Treatment:\n•\nCustoms rebates on duties are not direct income but reduce production costs.\n•\nCourts cannot reassess facts unless findings are contrary to the record.\nCitations:\n•\nHarihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1960) 39 ITR 594.\n•\nBlack's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 42 of 1988, heard on 7-02-2001. dates of hearing: 6th and 7-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. M. Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ANSAR EXPORT ENTERPRISES LTI).\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ZONEB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 255 = 2001 SLD 255 = 2001 PTD 1647 = (2001) 84 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSA", + "Key Words:": "Notices Issued to Deceased Persons:\n•\nNotices addressed to a deceased individual are invalid if legal representatives are not properly named.\n•\nAssessments must name legal heirs explicitly.\nCitations:\n•\nSahasranghsu Kanta Acharya v. Collector of Malda and others (1963) 47 ITR 754.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,58,61 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2519 of 2001, heard on 15-03-2001, hearing DATE : 15-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "USMAN SAEED BUTT\nVs.\nTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2 COMZone-I; LAHORE." + }, + { + "Case No.": "586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 256 = 2001 SLD 256 = 2001 PTD 1637 = (2001) 84 TAX 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRQ", + "Key Words:": "Notices Issued to Deceased Persons:\n•\nNotices addressed to a deceased individual are invalid if legal representatives are not properly named.\n•\nAssessments must name legal heirs explicitly.\nCitations:\n•\nSahasranghsu Kanta Acharya v. Collector of Malda and others (1963) 47 ITR 754.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8,SecondSched.SecondSched.,PartI,cl.79A ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 941 of 1999, decision dated: 1st February, 2001, hearing DATE : 1st February, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid A. Siddiqui for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondent No. 4. Muhammad Jamil for Respondent No. 5", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN AUTOMOBILE CORPORATION LIMITED\nVs.\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 257 = 2001 SLD 257 = 2001 PTD 1633 = (2001) 84 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzRg", + "Key Words:": "CBR Circulars and Legal Remedies:\n•\nCBR circulars are not binding on appellate or tribunal authorities.\n•\nPetitioners cannot bypass appellate remedies through constitutional petitions.\nCitations:\n•\nCollector of Customs v. Messrs S.M. Ahmad & Company (Pvt.) Limited 1999 SCMR 138.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(1),65(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3520 of 2001, decision dated: 15-03-2001, hearing DATE : 15-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din.Khalid for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HOME PLANNERS through Muhammad Azeem, Partner\nVs\nTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE06, COYS, Zone-III, LAHORE (NOW CIRCLE 14, COY Zone-II, LAHORE) and 4 others." + }, + { + "Case No.": "588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 258 = 2001 SLD 258 = 2001 PTD 1574 = (2001) 84 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzSw", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment - Principles of Reason to Believe :\n•\nThe belief for reassessment must be based on reasonable grounds, not suspicion or rumor.\n•\nTaxpayers can challenge notices but must provide evidence to refute new information.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Burhan Engineering Co. Ltd. v. The Income-tax Officer (1985 PTD 465).\n•\nShagufta Begum v. The Income-tax Officer PLD 1989 SC 360.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=17,65,SecondSched Income Tax Rules, 1922=34,34(1),34(1A) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D 1214 of 2000. decided on 19-01-2001, hearing DATE : 19-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ather Saeed for Petitioner. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondents Nos.2 to 5.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MACPAC FILMS LTD.\nVs.\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 259 = 2001 SLD 259 = 2001 PTD 1548 = (2001) 83 TAX 573", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVUzTA", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction - Revisional Orders:\n•\nHigh Court cannot entertain questions of law from revisional orders under Art. 199 if appellate remedies were bypassed.\n•\nErroneous decisions within jurisdiction do not qualify for constitutional intervention.\nCitations:\n•\nFaqir Muhammad v. Nawab Bibi and another 1988 MLD 695.\n•\nUtility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1987 SC 447.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138,62,136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1376 of 1996, heard on 28-02-2001, hearing DATE : 28-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moeen Qureshi for Appellant. Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BHATTI ICE FACTORY, BUCHEKE DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ZONEC, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Qw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 260 = 2001 SLD 260 = 2001 PTD 1538 = (2001) 84 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Qw", + "Key Words:": "Salary and Profit in Lieu of Salary:\n•\nCompensation for termination or modification of employment terms qualifies as profit in lieu of salary under S.16 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nCourts must follow statutory definitions over dictionary meanings.\nCitations:\n•\nSalah-ud-Din v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 244.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,16(2)(c)(i),16(2)(c)(ii) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974=44 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 110, 190 and 191 of 2000, decision dated: 12-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2000). Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2000). Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos. 190 and 191 of 2000). Muhammad Farid Khan and Habib Zia, Advocates Supreme Court for Respondents (in Civil Appeals. Nos. 190 and.191 of 2000)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUZAFFARABAD\nvs\nALTAF AHMAD MIR, AVP, NBP, RHQ, MUZAFFARABAD and 22 others\nCivil Appeals Nos. 190 and 191 of 2000 SALARY OFFICER, TAXATION DEPARTMENT AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR and others\nvs\nMUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 261 = 2001 SLD 261 = 2001 PTD 1534 = (2001) 84 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RA", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Reference to High Court - Question of Fact vs. Law:\n•\nWhether a venture is in the nature of trade is a question of fact, not law.\n•\nTribunal’s findings on profit motive or deemed income, based on evidence, are conclusive unless material evidence is ignored or misinterpreted.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,13,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.46 of 1992, heard on 30-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, FAISALABAD\nVs.\nFAROOQ AKRAM CHEEMA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 262 = 2001 SLD 262 = 2001 PTD 1525 = (2001) 84 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6QQ", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Section 66-A - Retrospective Effect:\n•\nS.66-A is not procedural; it does not apply retrospectively to completed assessments.\n•\nAssessments under repealed laws must comply with S.166 for pending returns.\n•\nCitations: Ms. Anjuman Shaheen v. I.A.C. of Income-tax 1993 PTD 1232; Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,66A(2)(a),166,166(2)(a) Income Tax Rules, 1922=23,23(3) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.322 of 1991, decision dated: 7-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Petitioner. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MONNOO INDUSTRIES LTD.\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE." + }, + { + "Case No.": "593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Qg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 263 = 2001 SLD 263 = 2001 PTD 1518 = (2000) 245 ITR 421 = (2002) 85 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Qg", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income - Trading Receipts:\n•\nExcess amounts retained during business activities are trading receipts, regardless of separate account maintenance or later adjustments (e.g., transfer to Sugar Equalisation Fund).\n•\nCitations: CIT v. K.C.P. Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 602; Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 87 ITR 542 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 7652 of 1996, decision dated: 9-08-2000.(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated December 29, 1994, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.C. No. 12 of 1987)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, R. C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.F. Nariman and T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocates (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, K. Ram Kumar and Ms. L. Roopa, Advocates with them) for Appellant. Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra, S. Rajappa and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "K.C.P. LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Rw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 264 = 2001 SLD 264 = 2001 PTD 1509 = (2000) 245 ITR 417 = (2002) 85 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Rw", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Non-Resident Accounts:\n•\nA Malaysian citizen temporarily staying in India for medical reasons is not a resident under S.10(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. K. Ramullan (1997) 226 ITR 264 (Ker.) reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1659 to 1661 of 1997, decision dated: 9-08-2000.(Appeal. from the judgment and order, dated September 10, 1996 of the Kerala High Court in LTA. Nos. 109, 113 and 114 of 1992)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate (S.M.S. Anam, Advocate with him) for Appellant. ranbir Chandra, Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "K. RAMULLAN\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 265 = 2001 SLD 265 = 2001 PTD 1504", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6SA", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts - Finding of Fact:\n•\nDisproportionate claims (e.g., wastage, sales tax liabilities) unsupported by evidence justify rejection of accounts.\n•\nTribunal’s findings on such facts are conclusive unless no material supports them.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.21 of 1979, heard on 17-01-2001, hearing DATE : 17-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Raza Kazim for Appellant. Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 266 = 2001 SLD 266 = 2001 PTD 1502 = (2001) 84 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6RQ", + "Key Words:": "Absence of Assessee in Reference to High Court:\n•\nIf the assessee fails to appear, the High Court is not bound to answer referred questions.\n•\nCitations: Dada Bhai H. Mama & Sons, Karachi v. CIT (1967) 16 Tax 43.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.348 of 1991, heard on 13-11-2000, hearing DATE : 13-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "LALAZAR GLASS & SILICATE FACTORY, FAISALABAD\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Rg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 267 = 2001 SLD 267 = 2001 PTD 1496 = (2000) 245 ITR 116 = (2002) 85 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Rg", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Business Expenditures:\n•\nSurtax is not deductible as a business expenditure.\n•\nFree distribution of prescription drug samples constitutes sales promotion under S.37(3A).\n•\nCitations: Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 581 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2717 with 4545 to 4547 of 1996, decision dated: 20-07-2000(Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 1996 was by certificate from the judgment and order, dated March 11, 1991 of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.R.C. No. 182 of 1985)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND MRS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.A. Dave, Senior Advocate (Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Ramesh Singh, Maninder Singh and M.S. Syal, Advocates with him) for Appellant. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (G. Venkatesh Rao and Ms.,Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ESKAYEF (now known as SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd.)\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Sw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 268 = 2001 SLD 268 = 2001 PTD 1492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6Sw", + "Key Words:": "Agreed Assessments - Binding Nature:\n•\nAgreed assessments are binding unless coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation is proven.\n•\nPenalty proceedings cannot arise from agreed assessments unless explicitly included.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Muhammad Hanif C.T.R. No.362 of 1991.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=154,154(6) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.28 of 1992, heard on 6-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nHaji MUHAMMAD ASHRAF" + }, + { + "Case No.": "599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 269 = 2001 SLD 269 = 2001 PTD 1484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVV6TA", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax - Purchases:\n•\nPurchases below Rs.25,000 and unverifiable ones are not subject to withholding tax.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5339/LB of 1999, decision dated: 17-08-2000, hearing DATE : 17-08-2000", + "Judge Name:": "M. MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Bashir, D.R. for Appellant. Mian Muhammad Javaid for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 270 = 2001 SLD 270 = 2001 PTD 1480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQw", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Procedures - Confrontation with Proposed Estimates:\n•\nAssessing Officers must confront taxpayers with proposed sales estimations under S.62.\n•\nSmall companies (capital < Rs.1.5 million) are exempt from withholding tax.\n•\nCitations: C.B.R. Letter No.C. No.3(7)SS(WHT)/98-99.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1),52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6183/LB, 6182/LB, 6180/LB, 6181/LB, 853/LB and 854/LB of 1999, decision dated: 19-04-2000, hearing DATE : 22-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.6183/LB, 6182/LB, 6180/LB and 6181 /LB of 1999). Shahid Azam, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.6183/LB, 6182/LB, 6180/LB and 6181/LB of 1999). Shahid Azam, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.853/LB and 854/LB of 1999). Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.853/LB and 854/LB of 1999).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 271 = 2001 SLD 271 = 2001 PTD 1475 = (2001) 83 TAX 482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRA", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Additional Assessment:\n•\nProceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are not confined to the reasons stated in the notice for reopening.\n•\nAdditional assessment can be made regarding total income, tax payable, or reliefs claimed excessively.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT PLD 1965 SC 443; Hind Wire Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1996 PTD 562.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(1)(b),136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 299 of 1991, heard on 26-10-2000, hearing DATE : 26-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE C.I.T. RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSAIFULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 272 = 2001 SLD 272 = 2001 PTD 1474 = (2001) 83 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQQ", + "Key Words:": "Income from Property - Taxability:\n•\nTax cannot be levied on property solely because it is valuable or property tax is paid unless income is generated.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6401 of 1996, heard on 18-10-2000, hearing DATE : 18-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD. QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. Shafqat Mahmood Chauhan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAMEEL and another\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, Income Tax COMPLEX, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 273 = 2001 SLD 273 = 2001 PTD 1467 = (2001) 83 TAX 551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYQg", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction and Completed Assessments:\n•\nRevisional powers under S.66-A cannot be exercised by the same authority that passed the original order.\n•\nI.A.C. acting as an Assessing Officer retains their status, and subsequent revisions require a higher authority.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(1)(c),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No 253 of 2000, heard on 30-01-2001. dates of hearing: 29th and 30-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed A. Andarabi and Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner. Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SANDAL ENGINEERING (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nvs\nTHE INSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, RANGEI, COMPANIES Zone-I, FAISALABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 274 = 2001 SLD 274 = 2001 PTD 1444 = (2001) 84 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRw", + "Key Words:": "Existence of Firm - Question of Fact:\n•\nWhether a firm is genuine is a question of fact and does not constitute a legal controversy for reference to the High Court.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax, Rawalpindi v. Zamindara Flour Mills, Lyallpur 1970 SCMR 530.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.45 of 1993, decision dated: 6th December; 2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs AFZAL BROTHERS, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 275 = 2001 SLD 275 = 2001 PTD 1440 = (2001) 83 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSA", + "Key Words:": "Workers’ Welfare Fund and Self-Assessment:\n•\nShort payment of Workers’ Welfare Fund does not preclude acceptance of a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nWorkers’ Welfare Fund is not a levy under the Income Tax Ordinance and is treated separately.\n•\nCitations: I.T.A. No.2316/LB of 1998.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1851/LB of 1999, decision dated: 25-03-2000, hearing DATE : 25-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Abdul Ghafoor, I.T.P. and Imran Rasheed for Appellant AND Shahid Zaheer, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 276 = 2001 SLD 276 = 2001 PTD 1437 = (2001) 83 TAX 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRQ", + "Key Words:": "Stock Discrepancies - Additions:\n•\nVariances between book records and pledge statements justify additions under S.13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(C) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.35 of 1993, decision dated: 5-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MULTAN ZONE; MULTAN\nVs.\nMessrs ALMAKHDOOM INDUSTRIES, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 277 = 2001 SLD 277 = 2001 PTD 1433 = (2001) 84 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYRg", + "Key Words:": "Rebate on Super-Tax - Food Processing:\n•\nRebate on super-tax applies to processing, freezing, and canning of specific food items, not ice cream or similar products.\n•\nCitations: Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartII,PartA,cl.(1)(v) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 83 of 1991, decision dated: 24-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Revenue. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs PAK. INDUSTRIAL PROMOTORS LTD. LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 278 = 2001 SLD 278 = 2001 PTD 1427 = (2000) 245 ITR 428 = (2002) 85 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYSw", + "Key Words:": "Leave Encashment - Deductibility:\n•\nProvision for leave encashment is a definite liability and deductible even if discharged in the future.\n•\nCitations: Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 9271 of 1995, decision dated: 9-08-2000.(Appeal from the judgment and orgy, dated November 7, 1994, of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.R.C. No.57 of 1985)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, R. C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEDGE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Senior Advocate (P.J. Pardiwalla, K.P. Kumar and K.T.Anantharaman, Advocates for M/s. Lawyers Inn, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Senior Advocate (Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate with", + "Party Name:": "BHARAT EARTH MOVERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 279 = 2001 SLD 279 = 2001 PTD 1425 = (2001) 84 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtYTA", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Findings as Final:\n•\nNo legal controversy arises when Tribunal upholds First Appellate Authority’s findings based on material evidence.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.365 of 1991, decision dated: 20-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Saeed for the Revenue AND Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEB, LAHORE\nVs\nMessrs LAHORE AMERICAN SOCIETY SCHOOL, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 280 = 2001 SLD 280 = 2001 PTD 1420 = (2000) 245 ITR 272 = (2002) 85 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQw", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court on Rectification:\n•\nQuestions of law arising from rectification orders under S.254(2) are referable to the High Court.\n•\nCitations: Popular Engineering Co. v. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 398 (MP) overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 4089 of 1988, decision dated: 3rd August, 2000(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated November 11, 1997, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in I.T.R. No. 13 of 1996)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, U. C. BANERJEE AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General. Ahuja, Senior Advocate. N.K. Aggarwal, B.K. Parsad, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Sushma Suri and Prakash Shrivastava, Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nDURGA ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 281 = 2001 SLD 281 = 2001 PTD 1419 = (2001) 84 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURA", + "Key Words:": "Questions Not Ruled Upon:\n•\nHigh Court declines to answer questions not ruled upon by the Tribunal or arising from its order.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.377 of 1991, decision dated: 22-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saadat Ali Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nVs.\nSh. GHULAM HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 282 = 2001 SLD 282 = 2001 PTD 1417 = (2000) 245 ITR 3 = (2002) 85 TAX 49 = 2020 PTCL 612", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQQ", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Effect of Proviso to S.43B:\n•\nProviso to S.43B has retrospective operation, making deductions allowable for payments before return submission.\n•\nCitations: Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 6 of 1996, decision dated: 1st February, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "B.M. KIRPAL, M.B. SHAH AND R.C. LAHOTI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 51 = 2008 SLD 51 = 2008 PTD 1157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUQg", + "Key Words:": "Strict Interpretation of Tax Exemptions:\n•\nTax exemptions must meet strict conditions, and compliance is mandatory for eligibility.\n•\nCitations: Federation of Pakistan v. Zaman Cotton Mills 2001 SCMR 563.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartI,Cls.(122C),(118C) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition Nos. 827-829 of 2007, decision dated: 19-12-2007, hearing DATE : 19-12-2007.(On appeal from the judgment dated 12-6-2007 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in T.R. No.159 of 2003)", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONES, PESHAWAR\nVs\nMessrs RIVER SIDE CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD. GADOON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 52 = 2008 SLD 52 = 2008 PTD 1162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURw", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Reopening Assessments:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman held reopening under S.122 without jurisdiction as illegal, amounting to maladministration.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Hirjina & Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax Central, Karachi.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,9(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,50,156,132,135,59,59A,63,65,50 Income Tax Rules, 2002=68 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(1),120,121 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1505-K of 2003, decision dated: 18-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs B.P. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 283 = 2001 SLD 283 = 2001 PTD 1172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSA", + "Key Words:": "Refund Processing as Maladministration:\n•\nFailure to issue due refunds promptly constitutes maladministration, regardless of sub judice assessment matters.\n•\nCitations: 2001 PTD 3956; 2003 PTD 2317.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,65,100 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(a),9(2)(b),9(2)(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 116 of 2004 decided on 24-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shamim Ahmad, Advisor, (Dealing Officer). Sayyid Ali Imran Rizvi for the Complainant. Faqir Hussain; DCIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Ch. BILAL AHMAD\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 284 = 2001 SLD 284 = 2001 PTD 1175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURQ", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Distribution and Taxation:\n•\nFailure to distribute mandatory dividends attracts taxation under S.12(9A), irrespective of exemption claims.\n•\nCitations: Kadnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(9A),12(a),62,12(9A),66A & SecondSched.,Cl.(118C),.6-C.B.R.CircularNo.F.12(9A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.28(PB) of 2004, decision dated: 8-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LIAQAT ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Amin Shah, FCA and Mehmood Mirza for Appellant. Tariq Bakhtiar, DR for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 285 = 2001 SLD 285 = 2001 PTD 1192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtURg", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Receipts:\n•\nCompensation for non-competition agreements constitutes capital receipts if tied to loss of an income-generating asset.\n•\nCitations: Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., Ltd. v. CIT 1979 ITR.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4122/LB and 4123/LB of 2003, decision dated: 4-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Nauman Sh., I.T.P. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 286 = 2000 SLD 286 = 2000 PLC 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUSw", + "Key Words:": "Trade Union Registration Cancellation:\n•\nRegistrar must prove service of notice for cancellation; failure to do so invalidates the action.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application No. XAR 106 of 1998, decision dated: 31st August, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. TAMIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "PRECISION RUBBER PRODUCTS LABOUR UNION through Vice President\nVs\nMessrs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 38 = 2000 SLD 38 = 2000 PTD 3582 = (1999) 238 ITR 680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtUTA", + "Key Words:": "Business Loss Disallowance:\n•\nAssessee cannot be penalized for discrepancies in sellers’ books; genuine transactions and losses are allowable.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R.No.72 of 1993, decision dated: 17-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "YR. MEENA AND DEBI PRASAD SIRCAR I, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBASANT INVESTMENT CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 39 = 2000 SLD 39 = 2000 PTD 1768 = (1998) 234 ITR 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQw", + "Key Words:": "Appeals Against Improper Orders:\n•\nOrders arising from improper exercise of power, including interest levies, are appealable.\n•\nCitations: Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 198 of 1990, decision dated: 29-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MOTILAL B. NAIK AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.V. Prasad for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSRI DURGA TOBACCO CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 287 = 2001 SLD 287 = 2001 PTD 2539 = (2001) 248 ITR 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRA", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Shares in Amalgamation:\n•\nShares received in an amalgamated company replace the cost basis of shares in the amalgamating company for capital gains computation.\n•\nExtinguishment of rights in the amalgamating company constitutes a transfer under S.2(47).\n•\nCitations: Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 647 (SC) disapproved; Mrs. Grace Collis v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 55 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4437 to 4445 of 1997, decision dated: 23rd February, 2001(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated June 3, 1996, of the Kerala High Court in ITR. Nos.269 to 277 of 1985)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (P.S. Narasimha and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, V. Balaji and P.N. Ramalingam, Advocates with him) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMrs. GRACE COLLIS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 288 = 2001 SLD 288 = 2001 PTD 2548 = (2001) 248 ITR 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQQ", + "Key Words:": "Income Accrual in Mercantile Accounting:\n•\nIncome from coffee sales accrues in the year of sale even if additional amounts are received later.\n•\nCitations: Bisonfield A Estate v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (1998) 233 ITR 656.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1678 and. 1679 of 1998, decision dated: 14th November 2000.(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 14, 1996, of the Kerala High Court in Tax Rev. Cases Nos.3 and 35 of 1994)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D. P. MOHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Garg, Ms. Manish Gupta and N.D. Garg, Advocates with him) for Appellant. G. Prakash, Advocate for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "BISON FIELD A ESTATE\nvs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 289 = 2001 SLD 289 = 2001 PTD 2553 = (2001) 83 TAX 567", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmQg", + "Key Words:": "Questions of Academic Interest:\n•\nHigh Court declines to answer questions with no revenue implications.\n•\nReopening under S.65 barred by limitation remains moot if tax liability is unaffected.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65,136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.66 of 1993, decision dated: 9-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue. Mian Ashaq Hussain for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nVs\nCRESCENT ART FABRIC LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 290 = 2001 SLD 290 = 2001 PTD 2556 = (2001) 248 ITR 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRw", + "Key Words:": "Pre-emptive Purchase of Property:\n•\nEntire property transfer by co-owners is subject to pre-emptive purchase provisions if apparent consideration exceeds prescribed limits.\n•\nCitations: C.B. Gautam v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=48,48K ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5426 of 1997, decision dated: 13-03-2001. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 5 and 6, 1996, of the Gujarat High Court in S.C. A. No. 10405 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY and another\nVs\nSmt. VARSHABEN BHARATBHAI SHAH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 291 = 2001 SLD 291 = 2001 PTD 2564 = (2001) 83 TAX 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSA", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction and Self-Assessment:\n•\nTaxes deducted after June 30 cannot be adjusted against the demand for the same assessment year under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7E),59,136,19 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3928/LB of 2000, decision dated: 10-03-2001, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Imran Rashid and Ch. Abdul Ghafoor,.T.P. for Appellant. Javed ur Rehman, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 292 = 2001 SLD 292 = 2001 PTD 2565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRQ", + "Key Words:": "Questions Beyond Tribunal’s Rulings:\n•\nHigh Court refuses to rule on issues not raised or decided by the Tribunal.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 33 of 1995, decision dated: 11-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD, S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zaka Ullah for Petitioner. Muhammad llyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "H. M. INVESTMENTS (PVT.) LTD. LAHORE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COYS Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 293 = 2001 SLD 293 = 2001 PTD 2584 = (2001) 83 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmRg", + "Key Words:": "Workers’ Welfare Fund in Presumptive Tax Regime:\n•\nAssessee under S.80C is exempt from Workers’ Welfare Fund charges.\n•\nCitations: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1201.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,80c,80C,4(4) ", + "Case #": "R. A. No. l I/LB of 2000, decision dated: 31st January, 2001, hearing DATE 25-1-2001", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed-ur-Rehman, D. R. for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 294 = 2001 SLD 294 = 2001 PTD 2593 = (2001) 84 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmSw", + "Key Words:": "Substantial Legal Questions:\n•\nOnly substantive, debatable legal questions warrant reference to the High Court.\n•\nCitations: Rajput Metal Works Ltd. v. CIT, Rawalpindi 1976 PTD 119.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. NO-44 of 1996, heard on 3rd April, 2001, hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Dr. MUKHTAR HASSAN RANDHAWA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COYS ZONE1, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 295 = 2001 SLD 295 = 2001 PTD 2154 = (2001) 84 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtmTA", + "Key Words:": "Simple Valuation Disputes:\n•\nHigh Court avoids ruling on simple valuation disputes lacking substantive legal controversy.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 37 of 1991, decision dated: 14-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AZONE, LAHORE\nVs\nBABAR MAQSOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 296 = 2001 SLD 296 = 2001 PTD 2156 = (1999) 239 ITR 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQw", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Tax Non-Compliance:\n•\nInterest under S.201(1A) for non-deduction of tax is not a deductible business expense.\n•\nCitations: Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 733 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 468 of 1986 (Reference No.316 of 1986), decision dated: 20-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nCHENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENT LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 297 = 2001 SLD 297 = 2001 PTD 2161 = (2001) 84 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRA", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income - Approval Requirements:\n•\nTwo separate approvals were required for additions to income under S.13(1)(d).\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 5 of 1994, decision dated: 20-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue. Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Respondent,", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nvs\nPUNJAB COOKING OIL LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 298 = 2001 SLD 298 = 2001 PTD 2162 = (1999) 239 ITR 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQQ", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Investment Allowance:\n•\nHigher depreciation rates apply only to vehicles used for hire, not for self-business.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Sardar Stones (1995) 215 ITR 350 (Raj.).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.70 of 1994, decision dated: 25-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. Ravindra Shrivastava and Prem Francis for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax COMMISSIONER\nvs\nANUPCHAND & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 299 = 2001 SLD 299 = 2001 PTD 2169 = (1999) 239 ITR 471", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiQg", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Additional Remuneration:\n•\nRemuneration accrues only after approval of accounts at a company’s general meeting.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. South Madras Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 913.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.294 of 1984 (Reference No.243 of 1984), decision dated: 11-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramaniam for C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSESHASAYEE BROS. (P:) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 300 = 2001 SLD 300 = 2001 PTD 2179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRw", + "Key Words:": "Lack of Interest Allegations:\n•\nTribunal cannot dismiss appeals based on perceived lack of interest by Revenue if adequately represented.\n•\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 41 of 1993, decision dated: 19-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE\nVs\nALTARIQ CONSTRUCTION CO., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 301 = 2001 SLD 301 = 2001 PTD 2180 = (1999) 239 ITR 596", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSA", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital:\n•\nInterest earned on borrowed capital is capital in nature and not taxable as income from other sources.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 663.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 22 of 1992, decision dated: 7-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. S. Ravi for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nRAASI CEMENT LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 302 = 2001 SLD 302 = 2001 PTD 2182 = (1999) 239 ITR 603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRQ", + "Key Words:": "Tax Clearance Certificates:\n•\nPrinciples for obtaining certificates include ensuring clearance of tax liabilities before property transfers.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1746 of 1997, decision dated: 10-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "AJOY NATH RAY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Khaitan for Petitioner. Dipak Deb for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "SASHANK INVESTMENT AND CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LTD. and another\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER COMPANIES WARD 12(3) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 303 = 2001 SLD 303 = 2001 PTD 2185 = (1999) 239 ITR 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiRg", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Deductions:\n•\nGratuity deductions require full compliance with S.40A(7). Partial remittance invalidates the claim.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 693 of 1987 (Reference No.466 of 1987), decision dated: 11-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAVASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nJAYALAKSHMI MILLS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 304 = 2001 SLD 304 = 2001 PTD 2187 = (2001) 84 TAX 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiSw", + "Key Words:": "Absence of Assessee in Reference:\n•\nHigh Court is not obligated to answer questions if the assessee is absent in the referred case.\n•\nCitations: Dada Bhai H. Mama & Sons, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1967) 16 Tax 43.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 10 of 1995, decision dated: 15-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BANNU WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 305 = 2001 SLD 305 = 2001 PTD 2189 = (1999) 239 ITR 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtiTA", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Partner’s Contribution:\n•\nContribution of assets to a firm constitutes a transfer under S.45, requiring evaluation for capital gains.\n•\nCitations: Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C No.961 of 1985 (Reference No.492 of 1985) decided on 4th November 1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Mennakshisundaram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nA. C. MAHESH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 306 = 2001 SLD 306 = 2001 PTD 2193 = (1999) 239 ITR 645", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQw", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Physical Disability:\n•\nDeduction eligibility depends on disability substantially reducing earning capacity, not on income levels.\n•\nCitations: Sardar Harpreet Singh v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 679.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 119 of 1983, decision dated: 3rd November, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R.BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. Ajay R. Mehta for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nBHAGWAT PRASAD P. PARIKH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 307 = 2001 SLD 307 = 2001 PTD 2198 = (2001) 84 TAX 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRA", + "Key Words:": "Unverifiable Expenses - Tribunal’s Decision:\n•\nThe Tribunal's finding that certain expenses were unverifiable and partially allowable was based on material evidence. No legal question arose from this decision.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 571 of 1999, decision dated: 15-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHZAD IZHAR (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 308 = 2001 SLD 308 = 2001 PTD 2200 = (1999) 239 ITR 694", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQQ", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Validity of Loan and Deposit Provisions:\n•\nSections 269-SS and 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring loans above a certain limit to be via account payee cheques, were upheld as valid, reasonable restrictions to prevent tax evasion.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (1960) 40 ITR 189 (SC); K.R.M. V. Ponnuswamy Nadar Sons v. Union of India (1992) 196 ITR 431 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 30318 of 1994 and 33115 of 1995, decision dated: 25-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.R. Prasad for Petitioner. M.V. Seshachala for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "CHAMUNDI GRANITES (P.) LTD\nVs.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 309 = 2001 SLD 309 = 2001 PTD 2207 = (2001) 84 TAX 519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIQg", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Modified Assessments:\n•\nPenalty imposed based on an assessment modified in appeal does not hold. The Tribunal correctly deleted the penalty as the original demand was invalidated.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Begum Mumtaz Jamal PLD 1976 Lah. 761.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=91,91(4A),136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.3 of 1994, decision dated: 20-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, LAHORE\nVS.\nJAVED GHANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 310 = 2001 SLD 310 = 2001 PTD 2208 = (1999) 239 ITR 700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRw", + "Key Words:": "Cooperative Society Special Deduction:\n•\nIncome from securities, government subsidies, and dividends qualify for special deductions under S.80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1984) 148 ITR 196 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos.908 and 909 of 1986 (References Nos.585 and 586 of 1986), decision dated: 11-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nDISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 311 = 2001 SLD 311 = 2001 PTD 2213 = (2001) 84 TAX 447", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISA", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Trading Results - Question of Fact:\n•\nThe Tribunal's decision on trading results involved no legal controversy and was upheld as a factual finding.\n•\nCitations: The Lungla (Sylhet), Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1970) SCMR 872.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.52 of 1993, decision dated: 19-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE A, LAHORE\nVS.\nAL FALAH INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 312 = 2001 SLD 312 = 2001 PTD 2218 = (1999) 239 ITR 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRQ", + "Key Words:": "Non-Resident Technical Services and Taxation:\n•\nAgreements involving non-residents for technical services must be analyzed entirely to determine if income qualifies as royalties under S.9(1)(vii). Tribunal findings remanded for reconsideration.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Superintending Engineer (1985) 152 ITR 753 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 179 and 180 of 1991, decision dated: 27-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. K.K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. N. Ramachandran Nair for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "ASIAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICE\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 313 = 2001 SLD 313 = 2001 PTD 2232 = (2001) 84 TAX 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtIRg", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Notices under Old Law:\n•\nFiling a return in response to notices under the Income Tax Act, 1922, precludes challenges to their validity later.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=63,63(3),34,22,22(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 371 of 1991, decision dated: 24-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUTLEJ TEXTILE MILLS, LAHORE\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 314 = 2001 SLD 314 = 2001 PTD 2246 = (2001) 248 ITR 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtISw", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment - Legal Grounds:\n•\nTribunal's decision to quash reassessment purely on legal grounds presented a valid question of law for the High Court.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 3912 of 1999, decision dated: 12-09-2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 10, 1998 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Income-tax Case No.55 of 1997)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (S.W.A. Qadri, S.K. Dwivedi, Bipul Kumar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. R.K. Virmani and P. Mohanty, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nJ. K. BERI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 315 = 2001 SLD 315 = 2001 PTD 2247 = (2001) 84 TAX 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtITA", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities:\n•\nAn Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s assessment retains its validity even if framed using powers delegated from the Deputy Commissioner.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(1)(c),5(a)(c),13,13(e),66,66A(1),136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 53 of 1993, heard on 12-04-2001, hearing DATE : 12-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE A, LAHORE\nVS.\nMessrs A. L, HAMIDI, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 316 = 2001 SLD 316 = 2001 PTD 2251 = (2001) 84 TAX 517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQw", + "Key Words:": "Gross Profit Rates - Question of Fact:\n•\nQuestions concerning the application of gross profit rates to specific trades were factual, not legal, and hence not answerable by the High Court.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 129 of 1993, decision dated: 9-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Mehmood Ayyaz, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALAM SHER & BROTHERS CONTRACTORS, MIANWALI\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax ZONE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 317 = 2001 SLD 317 = 2001 PTD 2257 = (2001) 84 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERA", + "Key Words:": "C.I.F. Sales as Trading Results:\n•\nTribunal decisions about adopting C.I.F. sales for income computation were matters of fact, not law, and not addressed by the High Court.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Enterprises, Sialkot 1999 PTD 1329.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,32,32(3) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.49 of 1994, decision dated: 14-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA\nVS.\nMessrs WAQAR TRADING COMPANY, SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 318 = 2001 SLD 318 = 2001 PTD 2258 = (2001) 247 ITR 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQQ", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Delayed Returns:\n•\nInterest under S.139(8) can be charged for assessments initiated under S.147, as clarified by amendments applicable retrospectively.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. K. Govindan & Sons (1999) 238 ITR 1005.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1144 of 1999, decision dated: 1st December, 2000.(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated July 31, 1998 of the Kerala High Court in I.T.R. No.63 of 1996)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, D. P. MOHAPATRA AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Roy Abraham and Ms. Baby Krishnan, Advocates for Appellants. K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda and S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "K. GOVINDAN & SONS\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 319 = 2001 SLD 319 = 2001 PTD 2269 = (2001) 84 TAX 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtEQg", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge and Retained Income:\n•\nTaxes paid qualify as retained income for calculating surcharges under applicable provisions.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 257.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.62 of 1993, decision dated: 21st December, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner. Naeem Sehgal for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nVS.\nMessrs MILLAT TRACTORS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 320 = 2001 SLD 320 = 2001 PTD 2270 = (2001) 247 ITR 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERw", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Apparent Consideration:\n•\nDiscounted value of consideration in property transfers must be determined from the date of the agreement to payment dates.\n•\nCitations: Shrichand Raheja v. S.C. Prasad, Appropriate Authority (1995) 213 ITR 33 (Bom.) overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1158 of 1998, decision dated: 6-12-2000.(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated October 19, 1995 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No.7506 of 1991)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "RAMESH BHAI J. PATEL\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 321 = 2001 SLD 321 = 2001 PTD 2274 = (2001) 84 TAX 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESA", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Violations - Deletion of Additions:\n•\nAdditions made without mandatory procedural approvals were invalid, and their deletion by the Tribunal was justified.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Muhammad Kassim 2000 PTD 280.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,13,13(1),13(2) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 47 of 1993, decision dated: 6-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE A, LAHORE\nVS.\nMUHAMMAD AAMER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 322 = 2001 SLD 322 = 2001 PTD 2282 = (2001) 84 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERQ", + "Key Words:": "Grant-in-Aid as Capital Receipts:\n•\nGrants-in-aid to statutory corporations for loss compensation are capital receipts and exempt from tax as casual, non-recurring income.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Gogte Minerals 1998 PTD 2498.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(24),15,136,SecondSched,CL.65 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 56 of 1992, heard on 10-04-2001, hearing DATE : 10-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, LAHORE\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 323 = 2001 SLD 323 = 2001 PTD 2300 = (2001) 84 TAX 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtERg", + "Key Words:": "Barred Assessments under S.65:\n•\nAssessments barred by limitation under the old law cannot be reopened under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 107 of 1993, heard on 12-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Yousaf Umar for Petitioner. Saddat Ali Khawja for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., ZONE B, LAHORE\nVS.\nMessrs NIAMAT & BROTHERS, SHAHKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 324 = 2001 SLD 324 = 2001 PTD 2306 = (2001) 84 TAX 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtESw", + "Key Words:": "Academic Interest in Liquidation Cases:\n•\nQuestions raised about liquidated entities without affecting tax liabilities are academic and not answered by the High Court.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.81 of 1993, decision dated: 12-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafaqat Mehmood Chohan Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nVS.\nMessrs RURAL FOOD PRODUCTS, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 325 = 2001 SLD 325 = 2001 PTD 2307 = (1999) 239 TAX 815", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtETA", + "Key Words:": "House Rent Allowance Exemption:\n•\nAssessees residing in their own houses are not eligible for house rent allowance exemption under S.10(13A).\n•\nCitations: CIT v. S.C. Mittal (1980) 121 ITR 503 dissented.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1107 and 1108 of 1984 (References Nos.964 and 965 of 1984), decision dated: 25-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nV. KARTHIKEYAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 326 = 2001 SLD 326 = 2001 PTD 2309 = (2001) 84 TAX 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQw", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge Non-Leviability:\n•\nSurcharge on capitalized retained income is not applicable under certain clauses.\n•\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Messrs Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. 1993 PTD 343.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,FirstSched,ClA(b)(ii) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 338 of 1991, heard on 8-11-2001, hearing DATE : 8-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., CENTRAL, ZONE, LAHORE\nVS.\nMessrs PIONEERS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 327 = 2001 SLD 327 = 2001 PTD 2311 = (1999) 239 TAX 602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRA", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation Relief:\n•\nIncome from rubber estates in Malaysia is exempt from Indian taxation under the double taxation agreement.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. VR. S.R.M. Firm (1994) 208 ITR 400.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case Nos. 48 and 49 of 1990 (References Nos. 8 and 9 of 1990), decision dated: 27-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P.THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nMrs. SHAMSUNISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 329 = 2001 SLD 329 = 2001 PTD 2312 = (2002) 85 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQQ", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Shortcomings in Approvals:\n•\nAdditions invalidated due to the lack of required procedural approvals were rightly deleted.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Muhammad Kassim 2000 PTD 280.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.32 of 1994, decision dated: 2-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Yousaf Umar for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, LAHORE\nVS.\nMessrs EAST PAKISTAN CHROME, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 330 = 2001 SLD 330 = 2001 PTD 2313 = (1999) 239 ITR 890", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQQg", + "Key Words:": "Director’s Commission Excluded from Ceiling:\n•\nCommission paid to a director’s proprietary firm was neither excessive nor unreasonable and excluded from the ceiling under S.40(c).\n•\nCitations: Prakash Beedies (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 1063.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 93, of 1998, decision dated: 8-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND SM. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Tetley for the Commissioner. V.B. Patel for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs.\nMELAUTO INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 331 = 2001 SLD 331 = 2001 PTD 2316 = (2001) 84 TAX 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRw", + "Key Words:": "Dismissal of Appeals on Procedural Grounds:\n•\nAppeals dismissed for violating procedural rules of the Tribunal were restored by the High Court for adjudication on merits.\n•\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=10,11 ", + "Case #": "C.I.T. No. 37 of 1999, decision dated: 7-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nVS.\nSheikh RASHID AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 332 = 2001 SLD 332 = 2001 PTD 2318 = (1999) 239 ITR 831", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSA", + "Key Words:": "Embezzlement Loss:\n•\nBusiness losses due to embezzlement are deductible and occur when discovered.\n•\nCitations: Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10212 of 1994, decision dated: 26-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "V. K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.V. Javali for Petitioner. E.R. Indra Kumar for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "TADALAM G. DWARAKANATH & CO.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 333 = 2001 SLD 333 = 2001 PTD 2322 = (2001) 84 TAX 516", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRQ", + "Key Words:": "Freight Costs as Profit and Loss Items:\n•\nFreight and insurance expenses are part of the Profit and Loss Account, not the trading account.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 102 of 1993, decision dated: 16-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nVS.\nMessrs LOCUS TRADERS SHAN (PVT.) LTD, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 334 = 2001 SLD 334 = 2001 PTD 2323 = (1999) 239 ITR 835", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQRg", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income:\n•\nMarriage expenses incurred by a company were not considered concealed income of a director due to a bona fide impression.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 1329 of 1982 (Reference No.820 of 1982), decision dated: 24-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nA. G. ABRAHAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 335 = 2001 SLD 335 = 2001 PTD 2327 = (2001) 84 TAX 514", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQSw", + "Key Words:": "Brought Forward Loss Adjustments:\n•\nTax liability is calculated after adjusting for brought-forward losses, and questions about the Self-Assessment Scheme usually do not involve law.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 43 of 1994, decision dated: 30-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRANWALA\nVS.\nMessrs DAWN METALWARE INDUSTRIES LTD., SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 336 = 2001 SLD 336 = 2001 PTD 2329 = (2002) 85 TAX 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtQTA", + "Key Words:": "Income from Rented Factory Shed:\n•\nRent from a factory shed on leased land is taxable as income from other sources, not property income.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.212 of 1991, decision dated: 6-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "YR. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Smt. MANDIRA MUKHERJEE\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 337 = 2001 SLD 337 = 2001 PTD 2333 = (2001) 84 TAX 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQw", + "Key Words:": "Definite Information for Reassessment:\n•\nAvailability of information justifying reassessment is a factual issue, not a legal one.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 8 of 1994, decision dated: 24-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES, LAHORE\nVS.\nMessrs PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 338 = 2001 SLD 338 = 2001 PTD 2334 = (1999) 239 ITR 848", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRA", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction on Enhanced Compensation:\n•\nLand Acquisition Officers must deduct tax at source on enhanced compensation amounts.\n•\nCitations: Rama Bai v. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of India=226 ", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 13822 of 1994-U, decision dated: 25-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "O. Ramachandran Nambiar for Petitioners. Smt. P.K. Santhamma, Government Pleader for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "M. KUMARAN and others\nVS.\nSTATE OF KERALA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 339 = 2001 SLD 339 = 2001 PTD 2337 = (2001) 84 TAX 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQQ", + "Key Words:": "High Court Review of Tribunal Findings:\n•\nHigh Court cannot challenge factual findings by Tribunals unless they result in legal questions.\n•\nCitations: Iram Ghee Mills Ltd. v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 1998 PTD 3835.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As: Nos. 17 to 20 of 2000, heard on 23rd April, 2001, hearing DATE : 23rd April, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Javid, Bar at Law for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BILZ (PVT.) LIMITED, MULTAN\nVS.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES CIRCLE O1, MULTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 340 = 2001 SLD 340 = 2001 PTD 2341 = (1999) 237 ITR 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMQg", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust Income Accumulation:\n•\nAccumulation under S.11 requires notice to be submitted before the conclusion of the assessment.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association (1994) 209 ITR 441 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=17 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1662 and 166 of 1994, decided on. 13-12-2000.Civil Appeals Nos. 1662 and 166 of 1994, decided on. 13-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. L. Verma and G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocates (Kamlendra Mishra, Ajay Kumar Sharma, S.K. Dwivedi, Ms. Sushma Suri, K.P. Bhatnagar and D.S. Mehra, Advocates with them) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nNAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 341 = 2001 SLD 341 = 2001 PTD 2346 = (2001) 248 ITR 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRw", + "Key Words:": "Provision for Contingent Excise Duty:\n•\nContingent liabilities like pending excise duty are not deductible expenses.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 194.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2756 of 1998. decided on 28-11-2000.Civil Appeal No.2756 of 1998. decided on 28-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND MS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate (Ms. Shruti Choudhary and Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Advocates with him) for Appellant. S. Ganesh, Mrs. Asha G. Nair and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "INDIAN SMELTING AND REFINING CO. LTD.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 342 = 2001 SLD 342 = 2001 PTD 2347 = (2001) 248 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSA", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust Donations:\n•\nDonations received by a charitable trust are income, and 25% may be accumulated tax-free.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation (1997) 228 ITR 620.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2658 of 1998, decision dated: 28-11-2000.Civil Appeal No. 2658 of 1998, decision dated: 28-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND MS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ganesh, Rajiv Nanda; S. K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. S. Muralidhar, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nPROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 343 = 2001 SLD 343 = 2001 PTD 2361 = (2001) 247 ITR 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRQ", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Tribunal Findings:\n•\n(a) Payments under a settlement with trade unions after lock-out were deemed deductible business expenditure under S.37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tribunal’s finding that the ten units constituted a single business was upheld.\n•\n(b) The High Court must accept the Tribunal’s factual findings unless challenged as perverse.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair (1985) 152 ITR 138 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.4475 and 4476 of 1998, decision dated: 30-11-2000.Civil Appeals Nos. 4475 and 4476 of 1998, decision dated: 30-11-2000.(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 30, 1984 of the Kerala High Court in I.T.R. Nos.229 of 1979 and 74 of 1980)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, DORAISWANTY RAJU AND MRS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ganesh, Pratap Venugopal, P.S. Sudheer and K.J. John, Advocates for Appellants. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S.W.A. Qadri, S.K. Dwivedi, Bipul Kumar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 344 = 2001 SLD 344 = 2001 PTD 2366 = (2001) 247 ITR 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMRg", + "Key Words:": "Balancing Charge and Reassessment:\n•\n(a) The balance amount awarded under an umpire’s arbitration accrued in the year the award was finalized and was taxable under S.41(2).\n•\n(b) Reassessment proceedings were valid due to failure to disclose material facts under S.147(a).\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 14561 of 1996, decision dated: 2-08-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, S. S. M. QUADRI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. N. Monga, Manu Monga, Rakesh K. Sharma and Navneet Negi, Advocates for Appellant. K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda, Advocate for Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO.\nVS.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 345 = 2001 SLD 345 = 2001 PTD 2382 = (2001) 84 TAX 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMSw", + "Key Words:": "Export Rebate and Limitation:\n•\nPartners of a registered firm were entitled to export rebate claims under Ss.14 and 151 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nasir Ali and others 1999 PTD 1173 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,136,151,136,151 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.79 of 1996, decision dated: 19-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Saeed for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRANWALA\nVS.\nMessrs M. ANWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 346 = 2001 SLD 346 = 2001 PTD 2398 = (2001) 84 TAX 444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWtMTA", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge and Bad Debt Allowance:\n•\n(a) Taxes payable could be considered retained income for surcharge purposes.\n•\n(b) Bad debt claims allowed under S.23(1)(x) despite initial assessment errors.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 257 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(x),30,136,23(1)(x),30,136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 48 of 1995, heard on 25-04-2001, hearing DATE : 25-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHJAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nKOHINOOR SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 347 = 2001 SLD 347 = 2001 PTD 2401 = (2001) 247 ITR 273 = (2000) 81 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQw", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance and Special Deduction:\n•\n(a) Additions to hatchery buildings qualified as plant under S.32A for investment allowance.\n•\n(b) Special deductions under S.80JJ were applicable to the hatchery business.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 468 of 1997, decision dated: 2-08-2000(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 27, 1995, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.C. No.39 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, S. S.M. QUADRI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Rajappa, Rajiv Nanda and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. P.J Paradiwalla and R.B. Hathikhanawala, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nVENKATESWARA HATCHERIES (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 348 = 2001 SLD 348 = 2001 PTD 2341 = (2001) 247 ITR 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRA", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust Income Accumulation:\n•\nNotice of income accumulation must be submitted before assessment completion to claim exemption under S.11.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association (1994) 209 ITR 441 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2039 of 1997, decision dated: 2-08-2000.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated January 17, 1996 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.C.C. No.668 of 1991)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. L. Verma and G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocates (Kamlendra Mishra, Ajay Kumar Sharma, S.K. Dwivedi, Ms. Sushma Suri, K.P. Bhatnagar and D.S. Mehra, Advocates with them) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 349 = 2001 SLD 349 = 2001 PTD 2404 = (2001) 247 ITR 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQQ", + "Key Words:": "Salary - Deferred Annuity Policies:\n•\nCommission amounts used for deferred annuity policies on managing directors’ lives were taxable as salary income under S.15.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Nandishore Sakarlal (Indl.) 1997 PTD Note 51 at p.93 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 7723 connected with 7724 to 7726 of 1997, decision dated: 15-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Sushma Suri and Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Advocates for Appellant. S. K. Dholakia, Senior Advocate (M.N. Shroff and Chirag M. Shroff, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nNAVNIT LAL SAKAR LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 350 = 2001 SLD 350 = 2001 PTD 2411 = (2001) 84 TAX 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszQg", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal Procedure - Illegible Documents:\n•\nRejection of appeals for illegible copies was invalid without providing rectification opportunities. Appeals were deemed pending for proper disposal.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=11,15,15(3) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. Nos. 36 to 39 of 1996, heard on 3rd April, 2001, hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nVS.\nFINE CLOTH HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 351 = 2001 SLD 351 = 2001 PTD 2413 = (2001) 247 ITR 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRw", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Notices and Writs:\n•\nHigh Courts must examine reasons for reassessment notices. If prior notices were complied with, subsequent notices might be invalid.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 7314 of 1996, decision dated: 28-07-2000.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 19, 1991, of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.356 of 1991)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, R. C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.J. John, Advocate for Appellant. Anil Kumar Gupta", + "Party Name:": "COMUNIDADO OF CHICALIM\nVS.\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 352 = 2001 SLD 352 = 2001 PTD 2415 = (2001) 247 ITR 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSA", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains - Supreme Court Review:\n•\nThe Supreme Court referred the decision in Union of India v. S. Muthyam Reddy (1999) 240 ITR 341 to a larger Bench for reconsideration of capital gains matters.\n•\nCitations: Union of India v. S. Muthyam Reddy (1999) 240 ITR 341.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 8036 to 8039 of 1995, decision dated: 15-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D. P. MOHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajiv Nanda, Ms. A. Subhashini, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (K. Moruthi Rao, Ms. K. Radha and G. Prabhakar, Advocates with him) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INOME TAX\nVS.\nK. ANITA REDDY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 353 = 2001 SLD 353 = 2001 PTD 2416 = (2001) 84 TAX 442", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRQ", + "Key Words:": "Penalty in Agreed Assessment:\n•\nThe terms of an agreed assessment must be explicit about any penalties. If no penalty provisions were agreed upon during the settlement, the Assessing Officer cannot impose penalties later. The Tribunal upheld deletion of penalties imposed under S.111.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,136 ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 18 of 1995, heard on 11-04-2001, hearing DATE : 11-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Ahmad Shujjah Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, B ZONE III, LAHORE\nVS.\nHAJI & CO., SHEIKHUPURA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 354 = 2001 SLD 354 = 2001 PTD 2418 = (2001) 247 ITR 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszRg", + "Key Words:": "Income and Investment Allowances:\n•\n(a) Interest receipts and hire charges from contractors were capital receipts reducing capital cost.\n•\n(b) Work-in-progress treated as opening capital for S.80J computation.\n•\n(c) Generating station buildings integral to the system were plants eligible for investment allowance under S.32A.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Anand Theatres (2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC); CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC); CIT v. Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. (1997) 224 ITR 353 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 7319 of 1996, decision dated: 27-07-2000.(Appeal by special leave from judgment and order; dated February 11, 1991, of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.R. C. No.242 of 1985)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, R. C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Tyagi and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nKARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 355 = 2001 SLD 355 = 2001 PTD 2421 = (2001) 247 ITR 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszSw", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Non-Compliance:\n•\n(a) Interest cannot be levied for failure to comply with S.142(1) notices if returns were filed.\n•\n(b) Absence of a specific direction under assessment orders precludes interest demands.\n•\n(c) Interest must be calculated on declared, not assessed, income.\n•\nCitations: Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 72; (1996) 222 ITR 44.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 10360 of 1996 with Civil Appeals Nos. 145 to 149 of 1997, decision dated: 1st August, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra, Rajiv Nanda arid Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellants. Deba Pradsad Mukherjee, Advocate for the Respondents (in C.A.No. 10360 of 1996).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nVS.\nRANCHI CLUB LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 356 = 2001 SLD 356 = 2001 PTD 2423 = (2001) 247 ITR 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWszTA", + "Key Words:": "Royalty and Delayed Agreements:\n•\nUnder S.80-O, delayed submission of agreements cannot be condoned. Compliance with timelines is mandatory for claiming reliefs.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. Nos. 7258 and 7259 of 1996, decision dated: 20-07-2000.(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 22, 1989 of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1358 of 1987 and W.P. No.3459 of 1986)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND MRS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocate with him) for Appellants.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others DATA SOFTWARE RESEARCH C0. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Qw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 357 = 2001 SLD 357 = 2001 PTD 2425 = (2001) 247 ITR 797", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Qw", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Research Expenditure:\n•\nRetrospective clarification disallowed simultaneous depreciation and research expenditure deductions under S.35.\n•\nCitations: Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC); CIT v. Hico Products (P.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 517 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of India=14,19(1)(g) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2348 and 2349 (NT) of 1992, decision dated: 4-02-1999.(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated October 4, 1990 of the Bombay High Court in I. T. R. No. 343 of 1975 and W. P No. 1236 of 1980)", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN AND U. C. BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Dhruv Mehta and B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nHICO PRODUCTS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 358 = 2001 SLD 358 = 2001 PTD 2426 = (2001) 247 ITR 785", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RA", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts and Newspaper Income:\n•\nBusiness income was exempt only if incidental to trust objectives or corpus. Interpretation favored the assessee when ambiguities existed.\n•\nCitations: Thanthi Trust v. Asst. CIT (1995) 213 ITR 626 reversed; Thanthi Trust v. CBDT (1995) 213 ITR 639 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appear Nos.4406 to 4410 with 4395 to 4402 of 1996, 4759 to 4761 of 1998, 5772 and 497 to 499 of 2000, decision dated: 31st January, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHARUCHA N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General of India and M.L. Verma and K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocates (Nikhil Sakhardande. K. Misra, Ms. Sushma Suri and T.C. Sharma, Advocates with them) for Appellants. Dr. Debiprasad Pal, Senior Advocate (Tripurari Ray, Ms. Priay Hingorani and Vineet Kumar, Advocates with him) for Respondents. S. Prasad, Advocate for Respondent (in C. As. Nos.4759 to 4761 of 1998).", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nTHANTHI TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 359 = 2001 SLD 359 = 2001 PTD 2441 = (2001) 248 ITR 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6QQ", + "Key Words:": "Spouse Income Inclusion:\n•\nIncome earned by an assessee’s spouse as Karta of HUF from a firm is not includible in the assessee’s income under S.64.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Shri Om Prakash (1999) 238 ITR 1044 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 3317 of 1990, decision dated: 24-08-2000.(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated November 26, 1987, of the Gujarat High Court in I. T. R. No. 19 of 1986)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND MS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra., S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. Raj Kumar Mehta and Khwariakpam Nobin Singh, Advocates for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSmt. RAVABAN B. MISTRY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Qg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 360 = 2001 SLD 360 = 2001 PTD 2443 = (2001) 247 ITR 818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Qg", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment with Fresh Material:\n•\nFindings from subsequent assessments allow reopening of earlier assessments under S.147(a).\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 446 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2577 of 1982, decision dated: 23rd July, 1997.(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated June 1, 1981, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.R. No.91 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": "S. C. SEN AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (Ms. Indu Goswami and Arvind Minocha, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING CO. (P.) LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Rw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 361 = 2001 SLD 361 = 2001 PTD 2450 = (2001) 247 ITR 819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Rw", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Disclosure and Cash Credits:\n•\nImmunity under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme (S.24, Finance Act 1965) applies only to declarants, not third-party assessments.\n•\nCitations: ITO v. Rattan Lal (1984) 145 ITR 183 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1965=24 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 787 of 1977, decision dated: 20-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": "B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nUNITED TRADING AND CONSTRUCTION CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 339 = 2000 SLD 339 = 2000 PTD 1778 = (1998) 234 ITR 497", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6SA", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Returns:\n•\nRegistered firms are penalized for late return filings, even if advance taxes exceed assessed taxes.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Bhabuti Contractor (1990) 183 ITR 445 (MP); Jain Brothers v. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 134 of 1993, decision dated: 26-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Shrivastava for Appellant. Abhay Sapre for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "DEV CHAND & SONS\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 1 = 1994 SLD 1 = (2001) 247 ITR 821 = 2001 PTD 2454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6RQ", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Tax Refunds and Fresh Demands:\n•\nFresh demand notices must be issued after appellate refunds; original notices do not revive. Interest cannot be charged for the interim period.\n•\nCitations: Vikrant Tyers Ltd. v. First ITO (1993) 202 ITR 454 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 10202 to 10204 of 1995, decision dated: 9-02-2001.(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated November 26, 1992, of the Karnataka High Court in W.Ps. Nos. 17068 to 17070 of 1988)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Sarangan, Senior Advocate (Sanjoy Kunur and R.N. Keshwani, Advocates with him) for Appellant. B. B. Ahuja; Senior Advocate (Rajiv Tyagi, B. V. B. Das and Ms Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "VIKRANT TYRES LTD\nVs.\nFIRST Income Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Rg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 362 = 2001 SLD 362 = 2001 PTD 2467 = (2001) 247 ITR 817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Rg", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Provisions:\n•\nGratuity provisions for liabilities before March 31, 1974, were disallowed in AY 1975-76 for non-compliance with S.40A(7)(b)(ii).\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Periya Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. (1987) 167 ITR 32 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1989, decision dated: 10-02-1998. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated March 20, 1987 of the Kerala High Court in I.T.R. No.363 of 1982)", + "Judge Name:": "B. N. KIRPAL AND A. P. MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Janaki Ramchandran, Advocate with him) for Appellant. Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Shashi Kiran and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "PERIA KARAMALAI TEA AND PRODUCE CO. LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Sw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 363 = 2001 SLD 363 = 2001 PTD 2468 = (2001) 248 ITR 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6Sw", + "Key Words:": "Interest from Bank Deposits:\n•\nInterest from short-term deposits before equipment purchase is taxable as Income from Other Sources. \n•\nCitations: Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5391 of 1997, decision dated: 21st November, 2000.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 10, 1996 of the Kerala High Court in I. T. R. No. 103 of 1991)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND MS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. L. Verma Senior Advocate (S.W. A. Quadri, S. K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Dr. S. Narayanan and Subramonium Prasad, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nAUTOKAST LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 364 = 2001 SLD 364 = 2001 PTD 2469 = (2001) 247 ITR 810", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cWt6TA", + "Key Words:": "Jackpot Winnings:\n•\nCrediting jackpot winnings to business accounts does not change its nature as Income from Other Sources. \n•\nCitations: CIT v. Lachmandas Veerbhandas (1981) 128 ITR 606 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3364 of 1984, decision dated: 18-12-1997.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 30, 1980 of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.R. C. Nos. 107 and 108 of 1977)", + "Judge Name:": "SUHAS C. SEN AND S.S.M. QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Hemant Sharma and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nLACHHMAN DAS VEERABHANDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 365 = 2001 SLD 365 = 2001 PTD 2470 = (2001) 247 ITR 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQw", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Payment of Self-Assessment Tax:\n•\nPenalties under S.140A(3) for non-payment of self-assessment tax were upheld as constitutional and non-confiscatory.\n•\nCitations: A.M. Sali Maricar v. I.T.O. (1973) 90 ITR 116 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 152 and 153 of 1979, decision dated: 30-10-1996. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated December 6, 1972 of the Madras High Court in W.Ps. Nos.594 and 595 of 1970)", + "Judge Name:": "B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (Anil Srivastava and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellants. A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER and another\nVs.\nA.M.S. SALI MARICAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 366 = 2001 SLD 366 = 2001 PTD 2472 = (2001) 247 ITR 820", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRA", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Condition Precedent:\n•\nThe Gujarat High Court quashed a reassessment notice due to insufficient reasons disclosed by the Assessing Officer. The Supreme Court set aside the decision and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing the assessee to raise all contentions. •\nCitation: VXL India Ltd. v. Assistant CIT (1995) 215 ITR 295 set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 15424 of 1996, decision dated: 8-11-2000.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 26, 1995 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.6291 of 1994)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nVXL INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 367 = 2001 SLD 367 = 2001 PTD 2473 = (2001) 247 ITR 803", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQQ", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure - Metal Roads:\n•\nExpenditure on constructing metal roads for enduring benefits was capital expenditure, not deductible as revenue expenditure. Metal roads could not qualify as buildings; depreciation was disallowed.\n•\nCitations: Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 900 (SC); Indore Municipal Corporation v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 540 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5950 of 1983, decision dated: 11-03-1997. (Appeal by special. leave from the judgment and order, dated September 12, 1980 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M. C. C. No. 17 of 1977)", + "Judge Name:": "S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Anjali Varma, Advocate for J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates for Appellant. Ranvir Chandra, Anil Srivastava, C. Radhakrislma and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 368 = 2001 SLD 368 = 2001 PTD 2475 = (2001) 248 ITR 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYQg", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Investment Allowance:\n•\nQuestions of law referred to the High Court included whether extra-shift allowance was allowable for computers and whether investment allowance applied to data processing machines when the assessee acted as an indenting agent.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation (1981) 130 ITR 739 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.6169 of 1995, decision dated: 17-03-1999. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 11, 1993 of the Bombay High Court in I. T. A. No.303 of 1993)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND R. C. LAHOTI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate, N.D.B. Raju, B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant. Respondent Ex parte.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nE. MERCK SERVICE AND AGENCIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 369 = 2001 SLD 369 = 2001 PTD 2477 = (2001) 247 ITR 805", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRw", + "Key Words:": "Succession and Speculation Loss:\n•\nA partnership firm formed by heirs of a deceased sole proprietor could carry forward the speculation loss of the predecessor, as it constituted succession by inheritance.\n•\nCitations: Saroj Aggarwal v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 497 (SC); CIT v. Madhukant M. Mehta (1981) 132 ITR 159 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.94 to 98 with 99 and 100 of 1982, decision dated: 29-04-1997. (Civil Appeals Nos.94 to 98 of 1982 are from the judgment and order, dated August 12, 1980 of the Gujarat High Court in I.T.R. No. 115 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": "S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K. N. Nagpal, B.K. Prasad and C. Radha Krishna, Advocates with him) for Appellant (in C.As. Nos.94 to 98 of 1982).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nMADHUKANT M. MEHTA (and other appeals)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 370 = 2001 SLD 370 = 2001 PTD 2481 = (2001) 247 ITR 798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSA", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Refund as Non-Income:\n•\nSales tax collected and refunded later when determined not payable was not taxable income for the commission agent.\n•\nCitations: Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 87 ITR 542 (SC); CIT v. Devatha Chandraiah & Sons (1985) 154 ITR 893 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2373 to 2375 of 1991, decision dated: 4-02-1999.(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 15. 1983 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R. No.4 of 1979)", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN AND U. C. BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Respondent Ex parte.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nD. SHANKARAIAH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 371 = 2001 SLD 371 = 2001 PTD 2484 = (2001) 247 ITR 658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRQ", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Educational Institutions:\n•\nUniversities need not exist in India to claim exemption under S.10(22); however, they must engage in educational activities in India and not for profit. Mere book publication is insufficient.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Oxford University Press (1996) 221 ITR 77 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 533 with 534 and 4406 of 1997, 7275 of 1999, decision dated: 24-01-2001. (Civil Appeal No. 533 of 1997 is by special leave for the judgment and order, dated December 21, 1995 of the Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No. 82 of 1984)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, D. P. MOHAPATRA AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 372 = 2001 SLD 372 = 2001 PTD 2512 = (2001) 248 ITR 816", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYRg", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains - Bonus Shares:\n•\nIn computing capital gains for the transfer of original shares, the issuance of bonus shares must be factored in to reduce the acquisition cost.\n•\nCitation: Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 509 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Cases Nos. 5 and 6 of 1995, decision dated: 13-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH NEGDE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji, Advocates for the Assessees. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "Master SUMANTH RAMANUJAM and another\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 373 = 2001 SLD 373 = 2001 PTD 2513 = (2001) 248 ITR 799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYSw", + "Key Words:": "Recovery and Sale of Property:\n•\nSale confirmations during recovery proceedings were invalid if tax demands had been extinguished. Service of demand notices was mandatory for recovery.\n•\nCitations: Mohan Wahi v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 144 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No-.2488 of 2001, decision dated: 30-03-2001. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated January 11, 2000, of the Aliahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No.640 of 1999)", + "Judge Name:": "DR. A. S. ANAND, C.J.I, R. C. LAHOTI AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Sri MOHAN WAHI\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 374 = 2001 SLD 374 = 2001 PTD 2527 = (2001) 248 ITR 816", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBYTA", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust and Business Exemption:\n•\nTrusts holding businesses must meet S.11(4A) conditions. Cases remanded to the Tribunal for determination.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (1997) 225 ITR 686 (Ker.) set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 6083 with 6298 of 1997, decision dated: 21st November, 2000.(Civil Appeal No.6083 of 1997 is by special leave from the judgment and order, dated January 10, 1997, of the Kerala High Court in I.T.R. No. 42 of 1994)", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHANWHA, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND MRS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior. Advocate (K. Mirsaand Dhananjay Kr. Singh, Advocates with him).for Appellant. V. U. Bradi and C.N. Sreekumat Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nDHARMODAYAM CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 375 = 2001 SLD 375 = 2001 PTD 2532 = (2001) 247 ITR 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQw", + "Key Words:": "Special Deductions and Retrospective Laws:\n•\nS.80AB was held declaratory with retrospective application. CBDT circulars stating otherwise were irrelevant.\n•\nCitations: H.H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 433 (SC); Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 4665 of 1996, decision dated: 20th July; 2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 3, 1993, of the Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No.510 of 1978).", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND MRS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Sunil Dogra, Manu Nair, Ms. Sayali Phatak and Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates with him) for Appellant. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "N.N. BHAGWATI\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 376 = 2001 SLD 376 = 2001 PTD 2548 = (2001) 248 ITR 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURA", + "Key Words:": "Income Accrual - Coffee Pooling:\n•\nExcess payments received for pooled coffee accrue in the year of sale, per the mercantile system.\n•\nCitations: Bisonfield A Estate v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Special) (1998) 233 ITR 656 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1678 and 1679 of 1998, decision dated: 14th November 2000. (Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 14, 1996, of the Kerala High Court in Tax Rev. Cases Nos.3 and 35 of 1994)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D. P. MOHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Garg, Ms. Manish Gupta and N.D. Garg, Advocates with him) for Appellant. G. Prakash, Advocate for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "BISON FIELD A ESTATE\nVs.\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 377 = 2001 SLD 377 = 2001 PTD 2596 = (2001) 83 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQQ", + "Key Words:": "Improper Notice Service:\n•\nImproperly served assessment notices constitute procedural irregularity, not a lack of jurisdiction. The assessment order was valid but irregular.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1966 SC 1; 1971 SCMR 681.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=154,13,61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 25/LB to 29/LB of 2000, decision dated: 24-10-2000, hearing DATE : 24-10-2000,", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SAFIA CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Ahmed Qureshi for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 378 = 2001 SLD 378 = 2001 PTD 1782 = (1998) 234 ITR 501", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUQg", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Refunds:\n•\nTax deducted at source loses its original character post-assessment; refunds attract interest under S.244(1A).\n•\nCitations: Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W. No. 2644 of 1991, decision dated: 28-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dharam Vir Singh Gupta for Petitioner., Sanjeev Khanna with Ms. Premlata Bansal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "SAG CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES\nVs.\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 379 = 2001 SLD 379 = 2001 PTD 2603 = (2001) 84 TAX 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURw", + "Key Words:": "Super Tax Allocation:\n•\nShare of super tax for a registered firm could not be apportioned based on partner shares.\n•\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anweraly Haji Noor Muhammad (1992) SCMR 458.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(2),65,65(4),16 Income Tax Act, 1922=16(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 14 of 1993, decision dated: 20-03-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Zia Haider Rizvi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs IQBAL A. QAZI, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 380 = 2001 SLD 380 = 2001 PTD 2605 = (2001) 83 TAX 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSA", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Agents and Default:\n•\nA withholding agent not deducting taxes is liable only if the supplier has not paid taxes.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. (1992) SCC 904.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,50,50(4)(a),143,143B ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 2666/LB to 2670/LB of 2000, decision dated: 3rd March, 2001, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi and Yousaf Ali Ch., I.T.P. for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 381 = 2001 SLD 381 = 2001 PTD 2612", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURQ", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts:\n•\nRejection of accounts due to minor unverifiable portions is invalid unless discrepancies are substantial.\n•\nCitations: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,136 ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 1 of 1991, decision dated: 10-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmed Shulah Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "BARRY BROTHERS\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 382 = 2001 SLD 382 = 2001 PTD 2618 = (2001) 248 ITR 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBURg", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance for Generators:\n•\nData processing is goods processing, qualifying industrial companies for investment allowance on generators.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Peerless Consultancy Services (Pvt.) Ltd. (1990) 186 ITR 609 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 1152 of 1995, decision dated: 1st November, 2000.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated January 9, 1990, of the Calcutta High Court in I.T.R. No.23 of 1985)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, D. P. MOHAPATRA AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi, R.N. Verma and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. S.V. Deshpande, Manisli Singhvi, Pramit Saxena and Ms. Anuradha Rastogi, Advocates for,Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nPEERLESS CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 383 = 2001 SLD 383 = 2001 PTD 2620 = (2001) 84 TAX 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUSw", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Notices:\n•\nAssessments post-1979 Income Tax Ordinance required S.65 notices.\n•\nCitation: C.T.R. No.345 of 1991.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 68 of 1997, heard on 8-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nVs.\nMUHAMMAD ASHRAF BKO, GUJAR KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 384 = 2001 SLD 384 = 2001 PTD 2622 = (2001) 248 ITR 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBUTA", + "Key Words:": "Special Deduction - Interest Income:\n•\nWhether interest income qualifies for gross total income under S.80-I is a question of law.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Jaiswal Chemicals (P.) Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 106 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos.33, 35 and 34 with 36 of 2000, decision dated: 3rd January, 2000.", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND S. S.M. QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nABHIJIT IRON PROCESSORS (P.) LTD. (No.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 385 = 2001 SLD 385 = 2001 PTD 2624 = (2001) 248 ITR 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQw", + "Key Words:": "Investment Deposit and Interest Income:\n•\nWhether interest income qualifies as eligible business profits for deductions under S.32AB and S.80-I is a question of law.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.5671 and 5672 with 5673 of 1999, decision dated: 1st October, 1999.(Civil Appeals Nos.5671 and 5672 of 1999 are by special leave from the orders, dated April 17, 1998, of the Bombay High Court in I.T.A. No. l l of 1995 and I. T. A. No.43 of 1995).", + "Judge Name:": "B.N. KIRPAL AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Raval, Additional Solicitor General (Hemant Sharma and S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nJAISWAL CHEMICALS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 386 = 2001 SLD 386 = 2001 PTD 2627 = (2001) 248 ITR 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRA", + "Key Words:": "Royalty as Tax under S.43B:\n•\nRoyalty is classified as a tax under S.43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Unpaid royalty for limestone extraction cannot be deducted.\n•\nCitations: India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 188 ITR 690 (SC); CIT v. Gorelal Dubey (1998) 232 ITR 246 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 12278 of 1996, decision dated: 12-09-2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 24, 1996 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.C.C. No.598 of 1992)", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHARUCHA AND V.N. KHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Prakash Shrivastava, Advocate for Appellant. Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar, Advocate with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "GORELAL DUBEY\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 387 = 2001 SLD 387 = 2001 PTD 2629 = (2001) 247 ITR 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQQ", + "Key Words:": "Book Profits and Unabsorbed Depreciation:\n•\nUnder S.115J of the Income Tax Act, loss in S.205(1)(b) of the Companies Act includes unabsorbed depreciation. Provisions of S.205 are incorporated into S.115J by reference.\n•\nCitations: Surana Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 178 of 1997, decision dated: 11-02-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, CJ AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CHINTHA PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. (P.) LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 388 = 2001 SLD 388 = 2001 PTD 2633 = (2001) 248 ITR 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmQg", + "Key Words:": "Incentive Bonus Deduction:\n•\nQuestions on whether incentive bonuses assessed as Salaries qualify for a 40% deduction were deemed questions of law. High Court decisions denying such deductions were set aside.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Ram Krishna Bank (1995) 215 ITR 901 (Gauhati) overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5861 of 1997, decision dated: 16-11-2000.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated June 25, 1996 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No.4 (M) of 1996)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, D. P. MOHAPATRA AND S. N. PHUKAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Respondent. Ex parte.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nANIL K. HAZARIKA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 389 = 2001 SLD 389 = 2001 PTD 2640 = (2001) 84 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRw", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Tax on Exporters:\n•\nAssessees exporting cotton yarn were subject to provisions in Part II of the Eighth Schedule, not Part III, as export of goods manufactured in Pakistan falls under Part II.\n•\nCitations: Leave to appeal refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80CC,EighthSched ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 298-K of 2000, decision dated: 13-12-2000, hearing DATE : 13-12-2000.(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 18-4-2000 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitutional Petition No.D-1521 of 1999).", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID AZIZ KHAN AND DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Tariq Javed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others\nVs.\nMessrs USMAN LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 390 = 2001 SLD 390 = 2001 PTD 2642 = (2001) 83 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSA", + "Key Words:": "Annulment of Assessments:\n•\nAssessments based on illegally recorded statements or improper evidence must be annulled. Tax evasion cases require robust and legally gathered evidence.\n•\nCitations: 1985 PTD (Trib.) 178; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 103 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=148,62 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 574(PB) to 577(PB) of 1998-99, decision dated: 29-03-2000, hearing DATE : 26-01-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "FAZLUR REHMAN KHAN, MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND ABDUR REHMAN AFRIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sultan Wazir, D.R. for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1749 = 2001 SLD 1749", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRQ", + "Key Words:": "Preventive Detention under Martial Law:\n•\nConstitutionally, personal liberty remains protected unless explicitly suspended. Courts can review the legality of preventive detention orders even under Martial Law.\n•\nCitations: Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of the Army Staff PLD 1977 SC 657.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1203 of 1978, decided on 14th January 1979. dates of hearing: 14th to 16th, 10th to 23rd November; 4th, 13th, 28th December 1978 and 14th January 1979.", + "Judge Name:": "Before Abdul Kadir Shaikh, C. J., Abdul Hayee Kureshi, I. Mahmud, Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and Z. A. Channa, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioners in person. Usman Ghantt Rashid, A. G. (Sind) assisted by Abbas H. N. K. Farooqui and Hassan Akbar for Respondent. S. Sharifuddin Pirzada, N. K Jatoi, R. H. Farooqui, Khalid M. Ishaque, A. A. Fazeel, Muhammad All Sayeed and Nasim Farooqui: Amicus curiae.", + "Party Name:": "MUMTAZ ALI BHUTTO AND anothers\nVS\nTHE DEPUTY MARTIAL L4W ADMINISTRATOR, SECTOR 1, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 392 = 2001 SLD 392 = 2001 PTD 2649 = (1999) 240 ITR 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmRg", + "Key Words:": "Medical Expense Reimbursements:\n•\nCash reimbursements for medical expenses are not subject to the ceiling under S.40A(5) of the Income Tax Act and cannot be included in computing the limit.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 644 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 280 and 281 of 1986 (References Nos. 158 and 159 of 1986), decision dated: 3rd November, 1997.", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nLUCAS INDIAN SERVICE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 393 = 2001 SLD 393 = 2001 PTD 2651 = (1999) 240 ITR 654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmSw", + "Key Words:": "Expenditure on Roads - Revenue Nature:\n•\nAsphalting kaccha roads within factory premises qualifies as revenue expenditure under S.37, as it enhances existing infrastructure.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Chemaux Ltd. (1994) 74 Taxman 201 (Bom.) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1993, decision dated: 4-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND SMT. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Vaidya instructed by S.N. Inamdar for the Assessee. R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "BHARAT FORGE CO. LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 394 = 2001 SLD 394 = 2001 PTD 2653 = (1999) 240 ITR 672", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBmTA", + "Key Words:": "Undisclosed Income and Re-deposit Evidence:\n•\nTribunal findings that directors re-deposited withdrawn amounts justified the deletion of additions to income. No question of law arose as findings were based on facts.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.30 of 1999, decision dated: 4-08-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nPESTO CHEM INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 395 = 2001 SLD 395 = 2001 PTD 2655 = (1999) 240 ITR 628", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQw", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Change of Opinion:\n•\nReassessment based on the same material but differing views of officers constitutes a mere change of opinion and is invalid under Ss.147 and 148.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.9598 of 1996, decision dated: 13-07-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "B. C. PATEL AND M. C. PATEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Soparkar for Petitioner. B.B. Nayak for Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "GOVIND CHHAPABHAI PATEL\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 396 = 2001 SLD 396 = 2001 PTD 2658 = (1999) 240 ITR 660", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRA", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes - Scope of Record :\n•\nThe record for rectification proceedings under S.154 includes all materials available to the authority at the time of initiation, including prior years' assessments. Errors arising from interconnected assessments can be rectified if apparent on the record.\n•\nCitations: Anglo Dutch Paint, Colour and Varnish Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 614 (Delhi); CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 868 to 870 of 1982 (References Nos. 1127, 1128 and 1039 of 1979), decision dated: 9-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASINAHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRANRANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Mrs. Maya Nichani for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nM.R.M. PLANTATIONS (P.) LTD," + }, + { + "Case No.": "732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 397 = 2001 SLD 397 = 2001 PTD 2667 = (1999) 240 ITR 632", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQQ", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Deductions - Electricity Undertakings:\n•\nGratuity liabilities of an electricity undertaking acquired by the State are deductible under S.40A(7), as the gross amount payable by the State reduces by gratuity obligations.\n•\nCitations: W.T. Surer & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 643 (SC); CIT v. Sarada Binding Works (1985) 152 ITR 520 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 142 of 1993, decision dated: 26-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA AND R. K. MAZUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME .TAX\nVs.\nSIJUA (JHARRIAH) ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 398 = 2001 SLD 398 = 2001 PTD 2671 = (1999) 240 ITR 887", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiQg", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Delayed Returns vs. Advance Tax:\n•\nInterest under S.139(8) for delayed filing and S.215 for advance tax deficiency address different lapses. Waivers granted for S.215 do not apply to S.139(8).\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 5088 of 1993-E, decision dated: 14-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "P. V. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.V. Surendran for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "K. GOVINDAN & SONS\nVs.\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 399 = 2001 SLD 399 = 2001 PTD 2673 = (2001) 248 ITR 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRw", + "Key Words:": "Disallowances and Allowances in Business Expenditure:\n•\n(a) Royalty expenses are deductible.\n•\n(b) Medical expense reimbursements for directors fall under disallowance provisions.\n•\n(c) Guesthouse expenses are non-deductible except where justified by law.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Ashoka Mills Ltd. (1996) 218 ITR 526 (Guj.); CIT v. Gaekwar Mills Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 734 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 39 of 1985, decision dated: 5-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, C.J. AND A.R. DAVE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish J. Shah for the Commissioner. M.R. Bhatt for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nARVIND MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 400 = 2001 SLD 400 = 2001 PTD 2677 = (2001) 248 ITR 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSA", + "Key Words:": "TDS on Transport Contracts:\n•\nBefore 1995 amendments, TDS under S.194C was not applicable to transport contracts. Circulars attempting to enforce it before that were invalid.\n•\nCitations: Naresh Kumar & Co. v. Union of India (2000) 243 ITR 760 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3797 of 2001, decision dated: 19-02-2001. (Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order, dated February 22, 2000, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C. W. P. No. 1450 of 2000)", + "Judge Name:": "B.N. KIRPAL AND GIS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General of India (Pritesh Kapoor and V.B. Balaram Das, Advocates with him) for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "UNION OF INDIA and another\nVs.\nOM PRAKASH S.S. & COMPANY and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 401 = 2001 SLD 401 = 2001 PTD 2679 = (2001) 248 ITR 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRQ", + "Key Words:": "Stock Exchange Membership and Tax Attachment:\n•\nMembership rights are personal privileges, not transferable assets, and are not subject to tax attachment.\n•\nCitations: Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad v. Assistant CIT (1998) 231 ITR 906 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1727(NT) of 1998 with Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 1995 decided on 2-03-2001. (Civil Appeal No. 1727(NT) of 1998 is from the judgment and order, dated January 17, 1998 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C. A. No. 9089 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y.K. SABHANVAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Additional Soliciter General for India. K.N. Raval. Senior Advocates.. Ashok H. Desai, Ramesh P. Bhatt and Dr. V. Gauri Shankar. Ching M. Shroof, M.N. Shroof, Ranbir Chandia, Ms. Neera. Gupta, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.", + "Party Name:": "STOCK EXCHANGE, AHMEDABAD\nVs.\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 402 = 2001 SLD 402 = 2001 PTD 2686 = (2001) 248 ITR 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiRg", + "Key Words:": "Trustee Taxation - Beneficiaries' Specific Shares:\n•\nTrustees of trusts with specific beneficiaries' shares are assessed individually for each beneficiary’s share and not at the maximum marginal rate.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 872 to 877 of 2001, decision dated: 25-01-2001. (Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 1, 1999 of the Rajasthan High Court in I.T.As. Nos.7, 9, 10; 16, 17 and 18 of 1999)", + "Judge Name:": "B.N. KIRPAL AND MS. RUMA PAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "The Department preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. D.N. Ray and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. Pallav Shishodia, Divyang K. Chhaya and Abhijat P. Medh, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nAJAY VIJAY TRADERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 403 = 2001 SLD 403 = 2001 PTD 2688 = (2001) 248 ITR 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiSw", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Deductions and Poultry Sheds:\n•\nIncome from poultry sheds qualifies for higher depreciation. Activities like selling eggs can qualify as industrial activity under Ss.80HH and 80-I.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 4554 of 2000, decision dated: 11-08-2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated June 16, 1998 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.C. No.20 of 1998)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, MS. RUMA PAL AND S. N. VARIAVA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General (Neera Gupta and Ms. Sushina Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS.\nRATNAM POULTRY (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 404 = 2001 SLD 404 = 2001 PTD 2690 = (2001) 248 ITR 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBiTA", + "Key Words:": "TDS on Contractors Pre-1995:\n•\nPre-1995, payments to transport contractors did not attract TDS under S.194C. Circulars enforcing otherwise were invalid.\n•\nCitations: Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 435 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5004 of 1997, decision dated: 28-02-2001. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated April 9, 1997, of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C. W.P: No. 1667 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ganesh, M.L. Patodia and Praveen Kumar for Appellant. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Ashok K. Srivastava\"\" S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri with him) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "BIRLA CEMENT WORKS\nVS.\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 405 = 2001 SLD 405 = 2001 PTD 2706 = (2001) 248 ITR 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQw", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions for Warehousing Income:\n•\nExemptions for warehousing income extend to miscellaneous income, staff quarters rent, and supervision charges if part of operational income.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 6650 of 1995, decision dated: 3rd May, 2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 2, 19,37 of the Gujarat High Court in I.T.A. No. 143 of 1987)", + "Judge Name:": "G. B. PATTANAIK, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND S. N. VARIAVA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K.C. Kaushik, Ms. Sushma Suri and Mrs. Sushila Shukla, Advocates with him) for Appellants. B.V. Desai and Siddhartha Chowdhury for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGUJARAT STATE. WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 406 = 2001 SLD 406 = 2001 PTD 2708 = (1999) 239 ITR 680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRA", + "Key Words:": "Deposit of TDS with Interest:\n•\nTribunal's cancellation of an ITO's order for TDS deposit with interest constitutes a question of law.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4856 of 2000, decision dated: 1st September, 2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 16, 1996, of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.I.T.R. No.4 of 1996)", + "Judge Name:": "S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Dwivedi, Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nRAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 407 = 2001 SLD 407 = 2001 PTD 2710 = (2001) 248 ITR 449", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQQ", + "Key Words:": "Interest from Fixed Deposits:\n•\nInterest paid on loans against fixed deposits is not deductible from interest income earned on those deposits.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan (1998) 229 ITR 801 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 6506 and 6507 of 1997, decision dated: 27-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Pritish Kapur, Ajoy Sharma and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates for Appellant. R. Subramoinum Prasad, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nDr. V. P. GOPINATHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 408 = 2001 SLD 408 = 2001 PTD 2712 = (2001) 248 ITR 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIQg", + "Key Words:": "Export Deduction for Freight Charges:\n•\nEligibility of sea freight and insurance charges for export development deductions is a legal question.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India (P.) Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 68 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 7790 of 1997, decision dated: 27-02-2001. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated May 3 1996, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.C. No.84 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Tyagi, B.V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. H.K. Puri, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nROADMASTER INDUSTRIES OF INDIA (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 409 = 2001 SLD 409 = 2001 PTD 2714 = (1999) 239 ITR 484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRw", + "Key Words:": "Commissioner’s Powers under S.263:\n•\nPowers under S.263 include revising matters not considered by the appellate authority, even retroactively.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "No.48 of 1993, decision dated: 15-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y. R. MEENA AND R. K. MAZUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Soumitra Pal and B. D. Halder for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSHREE DURGA AGENCIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 410 = 2001 SLD 410 = 2001 PTD 2717 = (1999) 239 ITR 489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISA", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Sale Price - Capital Gains:\n•\nInterest on unpaid sale price is revenue income and does not qualify as capital gains.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Union Land and Building Society (Pvt.) Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 794 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 557 of 1986 (Reference No. 392 of 1986), decision dated: 7-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND K. GNANAPRAKASAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "MOUNT STUART TEA ESTATE AND AMAR COFFEE PLANTATION\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 411 = 2001 SLD 411 = 2001 PTD 2723 = (1999) 239 ITR 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRQ", + "Key Words:": "Race Winning Income - Financial Year Applicability:\n•\nIncome from race winnings is assessed in the financial year, not the assessee's regular accounting year.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Rashmi Kamdar (1996) 217 ITR 559 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 1221 of 1982 (Reference No. 733 of 1982), decision dated: 24-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nAMARLAL KRISHANDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 412 = 2001 SLD 412 = 2001 PTD 2725 = (1999) 239 ITR 867", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBIRg", + "Key Words:": "Unabsorbed Depreciation - No Limitation:\n•\nCarry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance is not subject to S.139(1) limitations.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.12599 and 12600 of 1991, decision dated: 30-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramabhadran for Petitioner. M.V. Sheshachala for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "BRAHMAVAR CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 413 = 2001 SLD 413 = 2001 PTD 2729 = (1999) 239 ITR 871", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBISw", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Recovery During Appeal:\n•\nCommissioners (Appeals) have implied powers to stay recovery during pending appeals.\n•\nCitations: Prem Prakash Tripathi v. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 461 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition (C) No. 1473 of 1999, decision dated: 26-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. PATNAIK, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and S.K. Agarwal for Petitioner. G.K. Joshi for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BONGAIGAON REFINERY AND PETRO CHEMICALS LTD\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 414 = 2001 SLD 414 = 2001 PTD 2732", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBITA", + "Key Words:": "Legal Expenses in Disciplinary Proceedings:\n•\nLegal expenses in defending professional disciplinary proceedings are deductible if aimed at preserving business reputation.\n•\nCitations: Mallalieu v. Drummond (1983) 2 AC 861 (HL).", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections:": "Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970=(C.10),S.130(A) ", + "Case #": "Appeal from the Court of Appeal, decision dated: 17-06-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "HOUSE OF LORDS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Lord Hoffmann, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 415 = 2001 SLD 415 = 2001 PTD 2740 = (1999) 239 ITR 899", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQw", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income:\n•\nPenalty cannot be levied if the assessee adequately explains cash availability during searches.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Lal Chand Tirath Ram (1997) 225 ITR 675 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 32 of, 1998, decision dated: 11-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjeev Khanna Ajay Kumar Jha for the Commissioner. S.R. Kharbanda or the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGAURI SHANKER SUSHIL KUMAR & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 416 = 2001 SLD 416 = 2001 PTD 2743 = (1999) 239 ITR 851", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Perquisite Value of Rent-Free Accommodation\nKey Point: Rule 3(a)(iii) of the Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, prescribing the mode of computation of perquisite value, is mandatory and applies irrespective of whether accommodation is owned or leased by the employer. The Tribunal erred in determining perquisite value based on actual rent paid rather than the statutory method.\nConclusion: The Court mandated the application of Rule 3(a)(iii) for valuation, emphasizing statutory uniformity. The Tribunal must compute the fair rental value per the Rule’s Explanation 2.\nRel.: Krishan Gopal v. Prakashchandra AIR 1974 SC 209.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=3,3(a)(iii),3(a)(iii) ", + "Case #": "T.C. No.612 of 1986 (Reference No.447 of ]986), decision dated: 20-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Krishan Gopal v. Prakashchandra AIR 1974 SC 209; (1974) 2 SCR 206 (SC) applied. C.V. Rajah for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyer, Padrfanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nK.S. SUNDARAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 417 = 2001 SLD 417 = 2001 PTD 2751 = (1999) 239 ITR 908", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital or Revenue Expenditure\nKey Point: Expenditure incurred on machinery maintenance is revenue in nature and qualifies as an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nRel.: C.I.T. v. Cooperative Sugars Ltd. (1999) 235 ITR 343 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 87 of 1995, decision dated: 18-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. B. S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate and P.R. Raman and K. Anand for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF. INCOME TAX\nVs.\nCOOPERATIVE SUGARS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 418 = 2001 SLD 418 = 2001 PTD 2753 = (1999) 239 ITR 914", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBEQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\nKey Point: Surrendering income or agreeing to an addition during assessment due to lack of substantiation does not constitute concealment of income warranting a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).\nRel.: Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.675 of 1990 (Reference No.239 of 1990), decision dated: 12-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nJAYARAJ TALKIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 419 = 2001 SLD 419 = 2001 PTD 2755 = (1999) 239 ITR 916", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Other Sources and Deductions\nKey Point: Income derived from a composite source, including services, is not wholly house property income. Deductions for expenses like guard salaries and electricity charges are allowable as they pertain to income from other sources.\nRel.: CIT v. Kanak Investments (Pvt.) Ltd. (1974) 95 ITR 419 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.P. No. 103 of 1998, decision dated: 10-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "AJOY NATH RAY AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Deb for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nJYOTSNA RANI SAHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 420 = 2001 SLD 420 = 2001 PTD 2758 = (1999) 239 ITR 919", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Effect of Revision Under Section 263\nKey Point: When a Commissioner’s order under Section 263 is set aside, any consequential assessment order based on that direction also fails.\nRel.: Original assessments hold unless lawfully set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 112 of 1984, decision dated: 11-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSHIVABHAI B. PATEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 421 = 2001 SLD 421 = 2001 PTD 2761 = (1999) 239 ITR 921", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appointment of Special Auditor\nKey Points:\n(a) The complexity of accounts, not turnover, determines the necessity for appointing a special auditor under Section 142(2A).\n(b) Where accounts are extensive and intricate, such as in cases involving multiple branches and potential fraud, the appointment of a special auditor is justified.\nRel.: Peerless General Finance v. DCIT (1999) 236 ITR 671 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "G.A. Nos.2095and 2218 of 1999 and A.P.O.T. Nos.401 and 425 of 1999, decision dated: 5-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y R. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDUR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Y R. Meena and Ranjan Kumar Mazumdur JJ Roy Choudhury for the Commissioner. Dr. Pal for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nI.T.C. LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 422 = 2001 SLD 422 = 2001 PTD 2774 = (1999) 239 ITR 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBERg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Superannuation Contributions and Director Remuneration\nKey Points:\n(a) Entire contributions to superannuation funds are deductible.\n(b) Section 40(c), not Section 40A(5), applies for director remuneration limits.\nRel.: CIT v. Hico Products (Pvt.) Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 567 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 104 of 1990, decision dated: 7-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.U. Khatri with J.P. Deodhar for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nMAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 423 = 2001 SLD 423 = 2001 PTD 2776 = (1999) 239 ITR 941", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBESw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Fees for Technical Services\nKey Point: Fees payable under agreements prior to April 1, 1976, and approved by the Central Government are not taxable under Section 9(1)(vii).\nRel.: Technical services agreements before the cut-off date are exempt.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C.P. Nos. 351 and 352 of 1997, decision dated: 17-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkatraman for the Commissioner. N. Devanathan for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assesee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSULZER BROTHER LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 424 = 2001 SLD 424 = 2001 PTD 2782 = (1999) 240 ITR 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBETA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation for Assessment Extension\nKey Points:\n(a) Limitation can extend if the Assessing Officer satisfies conditions under Section 271(1)(c).\n(b) The High Court cannot reopen cases for new facts under Section 258.\nRel.: Established procedural boundaries in assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.6 of 1997, decision dated: 3rd September, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "BRIJESH KUMAR, C.J. AND D.N. CHOWDHURY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Gogoi, Senior Advocate and R.K. Joshi for the Assessee. U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "BUDHINDRA NATH SARMA\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 425 = 2001 SLD 425 = 2001 PTD 2788 = (1999) 240 ITR 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revenue Nature of Expenditure on Leasehold Premises\nKey Point: Expenditure on temporary improvements to leased premises for business purposes is revenue, not capital, in nature.\nRel.: CIT v. Andavar Calendering Mills (1994) 210 ITR 815 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.315 and 316 of 1986 (References Nos. 193 and 194 of 1986) decided on 5-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND K. GNANAPRAKASAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nHARIDAS BHAGATH & CO. (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 426 = 2001 SLD 426 = 2001 PTD 2790 = (1999) 240 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation on Electrical Fittings\nKey Point: Electrical fittings and similar items are not plant and attract a 10% depreciation rate as furniture and fittings. \nRel.: Functional definition of plant clarified.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=5 ", + "Case #": "Reference No.338 of 1987, decision dated: 29-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND MRS. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner. J.J. Jain, instructed by T. Pooran & Co. for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nHOECHST DYES AND CHEMICALS (P.) Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 427 = 2001 SLD 427 = 2001 PTD 2795 = (1999) 240 ITR 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Registration of Firms and Business Income\nKey Point: Mere letting out of property does not constitute business activity; such income is taxable as property income, making the firm ineligible for registration.\nRel.: CIT v. Phabiomal & Sons (1986) 158 ITR 773 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.233 of 1990, decision dated: 15-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND S. ANANDA REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nVEERABHADRA INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 428 = 2001 SLD 428 = 2001 PTD 2799 = (1999) 240 ITR 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQQg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure Deductions\nKey Points:\n(a) Expenditure on foreign tours for professional purposes is deductible.\n(b) Hosting events like football tournaments may qualify as business expenditure.\nRel.: Liberal interpretation of Section 37.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 183 of 1978, decision dated: 13-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ajay Jha for the Commissioner. Ms. Monica Singal for the Assessee,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nDELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS, CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 429 = 2001 SLD 429 = 2001 PTD 2802 = (1999) 240 ITR 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Trust Income and Section 164(1)\nKey Point: Section 164(1) does not apply to trusts with identifiable beneficiaries having specified shares.\nRel.: Distinction clarified for beneficiary-specific trusts.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 31, of 1987, decision dated: 10-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with B.M. Chattarjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nTRUSTEES OF THE TRUST FOR RELATIVES OF MRS. SUNEETI RAJE A. APTE TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 430 = 2001 SLD 430 = 2001 PTD 2804 = (1999) 240 ITR 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Expenditure on Retirement of Partner\nKey Point: Payments for relinquishing a retiring partner's share are capital expenses.\nRel.: CIT v. Puran Das Ranchoodas & Sons (1988) 169 ITR 480 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 18 of 1991, decision dated: 15-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND S. ANANDA REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSANGHAM ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 431 = 2001 SLD 431 = 2001 PTD 2806 = (2001) 249 ITR 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRQ", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Interest on Borrowed Capital\nKey Point: Interest on overdue loan amounts, including accrued interest, is deductible under Section 36.\nRel.: Riches v. Westminster Bank Ltd. (1947) AC 390 (HL).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 603 of 1987, decision dated: 23rd July, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND MRS. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner. S.J. Mehta with I.M. Munim and Ms. A. Vissanji for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHINDUSTAN CONDUCTORS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 432 = 2001 SLD 432 = 2001 PTD 2812 = (1999) 240 ITR 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQRg", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exclusion of Minor Sons’ Partnership Income\nKey Point: Income from minor sons’ partnership benefits is not includible in the Karta’s individual total income.\nRel.: CIT v. Shri Om Prakash (1996) 217 ITR 785 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 123 of 1984, decision dated: 12-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "RAJESH BALIA AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMULJI GORDHANDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 433 = 2001 SLD 433 = 2001 PTD 2815 = (1999) 240 ITR 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQSw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Classification of Income\nKey Points:\n(a) Interest earned on bank deposits is income from other sources, not business income.\n(b) Foreign exchange fluctuations’ impact on capital cost does not qualify for development rebate.\nRel.: Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.Cs. Nos. 191 and 1-92 of 1983 (References Nos.63 and 64 of 1983), decision dated: 9-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SOUTH INDIA SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 434 = 2001 SLD 434 = 2001 PTD 2824 = (2001) 84 TAX 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBQTA", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment Validity Under Income Tax Ordinance\nKey Points:\n(a) Assessments for years prior to 1979 require notices under Section 65.\n(b) Notices under Section 56 for pre-1979 years are invalid.\nRel.: Procedural invalidity of certain assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(5),56,65,136,166,154,154(6) ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 114 of 1997, decision dated: 8-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs QURESHI CHEMICALS STORE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 435 = 2001 SLD 435 = 2001 PTD 2829 = (2001) 84 TAX 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQw", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revenue vs. Capital Receipts\nKey Points:\n(a) Substance, not form, determines the nature of receipts.\n(b) Receipts arising directly from business are taxable, even if non-recurring.\nRel.: Senairam Doongarmall v. C.I.T., Assam (1961) 42 ITR 392.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 178 of 1991, decision dated: 9-05-2001, hearing DATE : 8-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nTRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF LATE C.E. BEVEN PETMAN, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 436 = 2001 SLD 436 = 2001 PTD 2848 = (2001) 83 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Service of Notice (Ss. 154, 62, 63)\nThe Assessing Officer served a notice under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to the ex-Chief Accountant of the assessee. The contention raised by the assessee that the notice should not have been considered valid because the recipient had left their employment was rejected by the Tribunal. It was held that the Assessing Officer had no means of knowing this, and representatives of the assessee participated in proceedings without raising objections.\n(b) Best Assessment and Non-attendance of Assessee (S.63)\nAn ex parte assessment was upheld by the Tribunal as the Assessing Officer gave sufficient opportunities to the assessee to present their case and waited for a reasonable time.\n(c) Enhancement of Sales in Absence of Books of Accounts (S.62)\nThe assessee failed to submit detailed and verifiable records of sales. The enhancement made by the Assessing Officer was deemed commensurate with the company's production capacity and upheld by the Tribunal.\n(d) Gross Profit Rate\nThe assessee's declared gross profit rates from previous years were 28% and 23%. The Tribunal rejected the request to reduce the rate to 15% for the current year and deemed it reasonable to set the rate at 25%.\n(e) Rejection of Declared Trading Results (S.62)\nThe declared trading results were rejected due to discrepancies in production patterns and unverifiable data. The Assessing Officer’s estimation based on electricity consumption and other factors was upheld.\n(f) Applicability of Presumptive Tax Regime (Second Schedule, Part IV)\nThe assessee's sales, primarily to industrial concerns, fell under S.80-C of the Ordinance. Since the assessee did not opt for the presumptive tax regime, they were taxed accordingly.\n(g) Rejection of Trading Results in Absence of Records (S.62)\nWithout proper books of accounts, the Assessing Officer resorted to estimating production and sales using available data. This action was upheld as the assessee failed to present any worthwhile rebuttal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C,62,63,154,SecondSched,C1.9 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.124/LB, 125/LB of 1989 90, 1248/LB to 1252/LB and 2268/LB to 2271/LB of 1995, decision dated: 14-07-2000, hearing DATE : 28-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan and Naseer Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "GORELAL DUBEY\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 437 = 2001 SLD 437 = 2001 PTD 2872", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Reopening of Assessment (Ss. 65, 13(1)(aa), 59-A)\nAn assessment completed under S.59-A was reopened under S.65 based on the same information about a car purchase. The Tribunal annulled the action, stating that S.65 could only be invoked with new and definite information obtained after the original assessment.\nRelevant Cases: 1990 PTD 155 and 1997 PTD 1485.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13,13(1)(aa),59,59A ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1213(LB) of 2001, decision dated: 7-06-2001, hearing DATE : 6-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan, A. R. for Appellant. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHINTHA PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. (P.) LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 438 = 2001 SLD 438 = 2001 PTD 2876 = (2001) 84 TAX 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMQg", + "Key Words:": "Export Rebate and Partners' Entitlement\nPartners of a firm were entitled to receive the export rebate that had already been allowed to the firm.\nCase Referenced: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nasir Ali and others 1999 PTD 1173 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.66 of 1997, decision dated: 8-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, LAHORE, ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nFAROOQ AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 439 = 2001 SLD 439 = 2001 PTD 2877 = (2001) 84 TAX 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Retrospective Effect of Amendments\nIf an amendment to a statute explicitly states it applies retrospectively, it will be effective from the date of the original statute.\n(b) Retrospective Explanation of S.19(3)\nThe explanation added to S.19(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, regarding rental income was deemed retrospective in nature.\n(c) Rental Income from House Property (S.19(3))\nThe Tribunal incorrectly deleted the addition of rental income. The explanation to S.19(3) clarified that rent received for a self-occupied property leased to the employer is taxable as property income.\nRelevant Cases: Muhammad Hussain Patel v. Habib Wali Muhammad PLD 1981 SC 1 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,19(3) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 80 of 1997, heard on 9-05-2001, hearing DATE : 9-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad IIyas Khan for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nSARDAR MUHAMMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 440 = 2001 SLD 440 = 2001 PTD 2880 = (2001) 83 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Share Deposits as Loans (Ss. 12(18), 66-A)\nShare deposit money exceeding the authorized capital was treated as a loan. The Revising Authority’s action under S.66-A was upheld.\n(b) Deeming Provisions (S.12(18))\nTransactions presented as loans were scrutinized under the deeming provisions to determine the real nature of the transaction.\n(c) Judicial Responsibility\nCourts are responsible for discovering the true nature of transactions and applying the correct law.\nRelevant Cases: Messrs Kanwar Textile Mills Limited, Lahore rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3863/LB and 3864/LB of 1998, decision dated: 30-10-1999, hearing DATE : 2-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar P.ssain Naqvi, Iqbal Hashmi and Yousaf Ali Chaudhary, I.T.P. for Appellant. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan and Shahid Bashir, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 441 = 2001 SLD 441 = 2001 PTD 2896 = (2001) 84 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Reopening Assessment under Amnesty Scheme (Ss. 59-D, 65)\nAn assessment was reopened under S.65 despite the assessee having filed a declaration under S.59-D. The Tribunal annulled the order, noting that no valuation discrepancy was identified before the amnesty declaration.\n(b) Double Taxation Avoidance\nThe Tribunal modified the order to annul the assessment rather than cancel it, ensuring the same income was not taxed twice.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59D,13,13(1)(d)(aa),62,65,13(1)(d),13(1)(aa),62A,66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1380/KB, 1381/KB and 1382/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 22-05-2001, hearing DATE : 17-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Hidayatullah, D.R for Appellant. Najam Irshad for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 442 = 2001 SLD 442 = 2001 PTD 2906 = (2001) 84 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMRg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Additional Tax (Ss. 87, 156)\nAdditional tax imposed through rectification after 9 years was barred by the 4-year limitation period.\n(b) Show-Cause Notice\nFailure to issue a show-cause notice rendered the order for additional tax invalid.\nRelevant Cases: PLD 1964 SC 410 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=87,156,156(4) ", + "Case #": "I:T..As. Nos. 3168/LB, 3163/LB, 3169/LB, 3.167/LB, 3166/LB, 3165/LB, 3164/LB, 3256/LB, 3257/LB/ 3258/LB and 3259/LB of 1996, decision dated: 23rd December, 2000, hearing DATE : 16-11-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Khan for Appellant. Ashraf Ahmed Ali, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 443 = 2001 SLD 443 = 2001 PTD 2914 = (2001) 84 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMSw", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction on Imports (S.50(5))\nTax deducted at the import stage was deemed final, as the imported items were considered commercial goods.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5),66,66A,80,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1244/KB, 1245/KB and 1266/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 6-04-2001, hearing DATE : 27-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "E.U. Khawaja for Appellant. Qamar-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 444 = 2001 SLD 444 = 2001 PTD 2919 = (2001) 84 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTBMTA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Revision Powers (S.66-A)\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s powers were limited when acting as an Assessing Officer. The Tribunal invalidated assessments based on improper application of S.66-A.\n(b) Housing Societies\nReceipts from plot sales were not subject to G.P. rates without material evidence.\nRelevant Cases: Sukdeo Doe Jalan v. C.I.T. rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(1)(c),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.296/IB to 300/IB of 1998-99, decision dated: 31st March, 2001, hearing DATE : 30-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir Khursheed, I.T.P. for Appellant. Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 445 = 2001 SLD 445 = 2001 PTD 2922 = (2001) 84 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQw", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Period for Trial Production Sales\nThe Tribunal corrected the exemption period for a company’s trial production sales to reflect the appropriate dates.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,62,80,80D,SecondSched,Cl.118 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1072/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 28-04-2001, hearing DATE : 24-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shabbar Zaidi, F.C.A. for Appellant.Qamar-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 1602 = 1979 SLD 1602 = 1979 PLD 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- Art. 199-Writ-Jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199- Held, of widest amplitude-Considerations flowing from provisions of a sub-Constitutional law bearing upon finality of orders passed there- under-Cannot prevail to exclude Constitutional jurisdiction or to inhibit its exercise-Answer to question whether Constitutional jurisdiction should be exercised in a case falling within purview of powers of High Court-Depends upon circumstances of each case- Orders passed by District Judges in their revisional jurisdiction under C. P. C.-Held, not immune from being agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction-Such jurisdiction, however, to be exercised with extra caution and care bearing in mind basic difference between want of jurisdiction and an illegal or irregular exercise there of Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be made available for interfering with orders of Courts simply on procedural matters or on plane of propriety-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115.- [Revision(civil)-Jurisdiction].\nIt is axiomatic that a provision embodied in a sub-Constitutional legislation making orders passed thereunder as final does not take away the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. It follows, therefore, that no considerations flowing from the provisions of a sub-Constitutional law bearing upon the finality of orders passed thereunder even in the absence of express provision in that behalf can prevail to exclude the Constitutional jurisdiction or to inhibit its exercise. Answer to the question whether Constitutional jurisdiction should be exercised in a case falling within the purview of the powers of the High Court would depend upon the circumstances of each case.\nThe Constitution envisages that a writ can issue against any decision of a Court and while so providing it has or shall be deemed to have the knowledge that Courts function under a regular procedure and more so civil Courts. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is of widest amplitude and simply on the premises that revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure has been conferred at the District level on the District Judges and the Additional District Judges an immunity cannot be attached to their orders from being agitated in this jurisdiction if otherwise they are amenable thereto.\nIn the exercise of this jurisdiction it has, however, to be essentially taken note of that it should be exercised with extra care and caution bearing in mind that there is a basic difference between want of jurisdiction and an illegal or irregular exercise thereof. The defect if any in an order can, according to the procedure established by lax, be corrected by appeal or revision. The jurisdiction under this Article will not be made available for interfering with the orders of the Courts below simply on procedural matters or on the plane of propriety. The power under this Article is not intended merely for correcting their errors in law or on facts.\nMuhammad Hussain Munlr acrd others v. Slkandar and others PLD 1974 S C 139 ref.\n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-.\n- Art. 199 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-Objection to jurisdiction of Additional District Judge neither raised in writ petition nor during course of hearing before him-Petitioner not entitled to impugn orders passed by Additional District Judge.[Jurisdiction].\nSardar Muhammad Ayub v. Pakistan and others 1969 SCMR 96; Begum Wazir Ahmad Industrial Home v. Mst. Nlaz Begurn and 3 others PLD 1976 S C 214; A.bdul Qayyum v The State and another 1976 SCMR 321 and Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Muhammad Husain and S others PLD 1976 S C 729 ref.\n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-\n- O. XIV, r. 1-Framing of issues-Order of District Judge framing separate issues on each controversial point instead of joint issue Held, intended to carry oat intendment of express provision of law oil subject.-[Framing of issues].\n(d) Constitution of Pakistan (19,3)-\nArt. 199-Writ-Alternate remedy by ultimate appeal available-Fact that such appeal may take a long time to be decided-Hed, cannot change position of availability of alternate remedy.-[Appeal (civil)].", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 3610 and 3611 of 1977, decided on 28th October 1978. dates of hearing: 22nd, 24th and 25th July 1978.", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MEHBOOB AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Sarfraz Ahmad and Sh. Abdul Haque for Petitioners. Syed Munlr Hussain and M. Bllal Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "DR. SAJJAD AHMAD AND anothers\nVS\nDR. MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 10 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 446 = 2001 SLD 446 = 2001 PTD 2926 = (2001) 84 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.13(1)-Unexplained investment-Onus of proof-Onus of proving the fact that assessee had concocted the story was not on the department since the burden was placed upon the assessee under S.13(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to offer satisfactory explanation to the effect that the sum of money admittedly available with the assessee in the relevant year was from a definite source and was not to be treated as unexplained money liable to be added as deemed income.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.13(1)(aa) & 19-Addition-Agreement to sell -Assessee had shown the amount from sale of property as exempt income on the basis of agreement to sell and affidavit from the purchaser but no sale deed in respect of such property was executes- Assessing Officer made addition under S.13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 of such declared exempt income as well as income from house property was also assessed in the !antis of the assessee being the owner of such property which was deleted by the First Appellate Authority-Validity-Simple agreement to sell was never acted upon and there was no deed for sale and transfer of the property in question-Such a sham arrangement could not satisfy the requirements of S.13(1) or S.19 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 since the house property remained in the ownership of the assessee and the source of money declared by the assessee could not be attributed to any genuine sale of the property-Order of First Appellate Authority was declared unsustainable being devoid of correct interpretation of the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and based on improper appraisal of evidence and incorrect appreciation of facts of the case and order of Assessing Officer was restored by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \nBachu Bai F.E. Dinshaw v. CIT 1967 PTD 170; B.D. Avari v CIT 1989 PTD 670 (H.C, Kar.); CIT v. Hans Ri' Gupta (1982) 137 ITR 195 and CIT N Zorostrian Building Society Limited (1976) 102 ITR 499 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),13(1)(aa),19 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.747/IB to 749/11 of 1999-2000, decision dated: 31st March, 2001, hearing DATE : 27-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Zahid Hussain, A.C.M.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 447 = 2001 SLD 447 = 2001 PTD 2933 = (2001) 84 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzQg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 116(b)-Imposition of penalty after notice of hearing, etc.-Non-compliance of notice-Conclusion-Perpetual non-compliance at the end of assessee led the Assessing Officer to draw the conclusion that the default was wilful and committed without reasonable cause.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 108-Penalty-Excessive and harsh-Penalty in circumstances, calculated in accordance with the provisions of S.108 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was pot adjudged to be excessive and harsh.\n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.108-Penalty-Mens tea-Department had not to establish mens tea on the part of assessee since in a fiscal law, failure to furnish the prescribed statement, without reasonable cause, attracts penalty .and the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to impose upon the defaulter the penalty under S.108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-No discretion available with the Assessing Officer if the failure to furnish such statement, without reasonable cause, was proved after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person failing to furnish such statement as word may appearing in S.108 of the Ordinance was substituted by the word shall through -Finance Act, 1994 leaving no discretion with the Assessing Officer.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 116(b)-Imposition of penalty after notice of hearing etc.-Non-filing of statements-Assessee was provided repeated opportunities and its persistent non-compliance with notices/letters issued by the Assessing Officer gave strong support to the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish the required statements, without reasonable cause, and had no explanation to offer when provided opportunities of being heard under S.116(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n \n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 108(b), 142 & 50(4)-Penalty was imposed for non-furnishing monthly statements of tax deduction under S.50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard-­Validity-Nothing was available on record to suggest that the penalty was imposed without proper service of statutory notices-Penalty order was deemed to be correct in the absence of any evidence to the contrary-Order of Assessing Officer as well as First Appellate Authority was maintained by the Tribunal and appeal was rejected.\n \n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.108-Penalty-Wrong writing of assessment year on the face of order-­Effect-Penalty order made it clear beyond doubt that the penalty was imposed for failure to furnish monthly statements under S.142 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for the month of July, 1996 to November, 1996-­Writing of assessment year 1997-98 on the face-sheet (and not in, the body of the penalty order) did not vitiate penalty proceedings.\n \n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-­\n \n-S. 155-Certain mistakes not to vitiate assessment, etc.-No assessment order, notice warrant or other document under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 shall be void or otherwise inoperative merely for want of form or for a mistake, defect or omission therein, if such want of form or mistake, defect or omission was not of a substantial nature prejudicially affecting an assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=116,116(b),108,108(b),50,50(4),142,155 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.674/IB of 1997-98, decision dated: 19-04-2001, hearing DATE : 17-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Abdul Jaleel, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 448 = 2001 SLD 448 = 2001 PTD 2938 = (2001) 83 TAX 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 62-Assessment on production of accounts, evidence etc.-Rejection of accounts-Assessing Officer rejected the declared version of the assessee after recording the finding to the effect that assessee's sales and purchases were in cash and not open to verification-Validity-Assessing Officer neither pointed out material defects nor quoted any parallel case to justify the rejection of account -Unverifiability of sales and purchases alluded to in the order was immaterial in the context because in spite of the same the accounting version was accepted for preceding year-If the Assessing Officer had objections to decrease in G:P., he should have gone deeper into the matter by comparing the prices of assessee's menue items with prices of raw materials last year to draw adverse inference on valid basis-Argument that assessee had been confronted with the defects on the order sheet was not found forceful in the context-Notice under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, was a statutory requirement which had to be met and entries in order sheet were no substitute for the same-Entries on order sheet were meant only for day to day record of proceedings and the Assessing Officer was obligated under the law to issue notice under S.62 confronting the assessee with the defects or deficiencies found and his intention to reject the version and estimate the same in case he was so inclined-Assessing Officer was directed to accept the declared sales and G.P. in the circumstances by the Tribunal.\n \nI.T.A. No.223/KB of 1990-91 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 76/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 20-10-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Zakaria for Appellant. Pervez Akhtar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 449 = 2001 SLD 449 = 2001 PTD 2941 = (2001) 83 TAX 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 62-Assessment on production of accounts, evidence etc.-Assessee, a spinning mill-Rejection of accounts-Absence of Spinning Master's report-Effect-Spinning Master's report was though an important and relevant document of the record but non-production of such record could not invest the Assessing Officer with power to reject the accounts, contrary to -established history of the case-Admitted positions being that assessee's accounts, without production of Spinning Master's reports, were accepted from 1977-78 to 1982-83 in spite of a much higher claim of wastage, Department could not make the absence of Spinning Master's report the basis of rejection of accounts.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)- \n \n-S. 62-Assessment on production of accounts, evidence etc.-Rejection of accounts-Unverifiable cash sales-Name and addresses of the buyers-­Arguments that sales were not verifiable did not hold good because the Assessing Officer himself accepted the declared average sales rate in all the three assessments in dispute while making additions on account of excessive wastage, and in cash sales the seller could not insist on names or the addresses of the buyers-Non-verifiability of purchases in export account was mere formality as no specific instance was either confronted to assessee or cited in assessment order, nor any discrepancy in purchase rate had been pointed out-Assessing Officer did not have any material basis to reject either the manufacturing account or the export account.\n \nI.T.A. No. 1127/HQ of 1989-90; 1.T.A. No.3895/KB of 1986-87; dated 1-6-1995; I.T.A. No.494/HQ of 1989-90, dated 4-9-1997 and I.T.A. No. 137/HQ of 1991-92, dated 12-6-1994 ref.\n \n1997 PTD 76; 1990 PTD 254; Indus Textile Mills v. CIT 1989 PTD 567 and 1992 PTD 341 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.897/KB to 899/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 19-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vishno Raja Qavi, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Javed Zakaria for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 450 = 2001 SLD 450 = 2001 PTD 2946 = (2001) 83 TAX 278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 59(1), 80-B, 80-C & 80-CC-Self-Assessment Scheme-Presumptive income for purpose of comparison-Assessment year 1997-98-When Self-Assessment Scheme was introduced, it contained the provisions relating to the presumptive income to be included for purpose of comparison of income whereas Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1997-98 did not carry any such provision, excluding presumptive income, as such there was no bar to consider presumptive income for the purpose of comparison-­When no presumptive provision was given in the original Self-Assessment Scheme, any subsequent clarification of the Central Board of Revenue might not be taken into consideration being extraneous-Clarification or interpretation issued by the Central Board of Revenue being expressly contrary to the Self-Assessment Scheme could not override the Scheme itself.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 156 & 59(1)-Rectification of mistake-Self-Assessment Scheme 1997-98- Application for rectification of Tribunal's in I.T.A. No.683/KB of 1998-99, dated 25-3-1999 in which Tribunal held that presumptive tax under S.80-C will be taken for the purpose of comparison in respect of Self-Assessment Scheme for the year 1997-98, on the basis of another Tribunal's in I.T.A. No.257/KB of 1998-99 in which the same issue was decided contradictory to its own earlier decision -Validity-­ Assessee's case qualified under Self-Assessment Scheme-Judgment in I.T.A. No.683/KB of 1998-99, dated 25-3-1999 contained correct exposition of law as compared to the order, dated 31-3-1999 in I.T.A. No.257/KB of 1998-99-No room was left for rectification-Judgment referred for rectification having not been overruled by any subsequent Larger Bench of the Tribunal or superior Court, the same was a binding -Issue involved had rightly been decided in I.T.A. No. 683 of 1998-99, dated 25-3-1999-Judgment bearing I.T.A. No.257/KB of 1998-99 was overruled-­ [Messrs A.G. Meraj & Co.'s case I.T.A. No.257/KB of 1998-99 overruled].\n \nI.T.A. No.683/KB of 1998-99 confirmed.\n \nMessrs A.G. Meraj & Co.'s case I.T.A. No.257/KB of 1998-99 overruled.\n \n1993 PTD (Trib.) 1196 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),80,80B,80C,80CC,156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect) No.02/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 11-09-2000, hearing DATE : 26-08-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Zakaria for Appellant. Khalid Siddiqui, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 451 = 2001 SLD 451 = 2001 PTD 2951 = (2001) 83 TAX 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzRg", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 66-A-Companies Profit (Workers' Participation) Act (XII of 1968)-­Companies Profit (Workers Participation) Rules, 1971-Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioner's order-Assessing Officer allowed claim on account of contribution to Workers Participation Fund-Inspecting Additional Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to modify the order by disallowing the respective claims on the ground that allocation made with interest earned on the accumulated balances were neither distributed amongst the workers, nor the same were transferred to W.W.F. as required under the law yet the Assessing Officer erroneously allowed the entire amounts while framing the assessments-Validity-Provisions of Companies Profits (Workers Participation Fund) Act, 1968 and Rules thereunder as well as the Schedule provided that if a company established a fund and paid to the Fund every year 5 % of its profits during such year, it had to constitute a Board Trustees within the prescribed time to manage the Fund-Board of Trustees expresses the share of each worker in the annual allocation and distributes 100% of annual income of the Fund including capital gains realised each year in proportion to their units of entitlement-Discretion of the worker who continues to remain in service to leave his share in the Fund and such allocated or accruing amounts to the Fund shall be available to the company for business operations subject to the condition that it will pay interest to the Fund on such amount-Company shall be allowed the allocation made to the Scheme as a deduction to arrive at the taxable income-Order was set aside by the Tribunal with the direction to allow the claim after verification of establishment of the Fund.\n \nI.T.As. Nos.1195 to 1201/IB of 1998-99 and 2118 to 2121/KB of 1997-98 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.262/KB to 264/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 30-11-1999, hearing DATE : 26-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMAD BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawed Zakaria for Appellant. Muhammad Umer Farooque, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 452 = 2001 SLD 452 = 2001 PTD 2964 = (2001) 84 TAX 204 = (2001) 84 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzSw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Finance Act (XII of 1991)-S.12-Corporate Assets Tax-Exclusion of unallocated capital expenses-­Determination of depreciation allowance-Principles.\n \nNotwithstanding the departments' treatment of such expenses at the time of determination of depreciation allowance, the fact of the matter is that since these expenses are directly connected with the Company's fixed assets, they constitute Capitalized Expenditure . The Company would be able to derive Recurring Benefit from its fixed assets only if such Capitalized Expenditure has been actually incurred. These expenses eventually merge into the cost incurred on the acquisition of fixed assets. However, it may not be possible to precisely relate the capital expenditure to a particular fixed asset. In -other words such expenditure may be spread over a number of different fixed assets viz. different plant/machinery/building items. In such a situation it may not be possible to tell immediately, the exact quantum of capital expenditure embodied in a particular fixed assets. That is one reason -why such unallocated capital expenses are often excluded at the time of determination of depreciation allowance.\n \nNevertheless where the capital expenditure has been admittedly incurred in the context of the Company's aggregate fixed assets, the nature of such capital expenditure remains unchanged and it must form part of the over all value of the Company's fixed assets. Hence, so far as levy of corporate assets tax is concerned, the capitalized expenditure, though unallocated must form part of the Company's fixed assets.\n \n(b) Finance Act (XII of 1991)-\n \n-S. 12-Corporate Assets Tax-Unallocated capital expenditure-­Taxability-Where capital expenditure had been admittedly incurred in, the context of Company's aggregate fixed assets, the nature of such capital expenditure remained unchanged and it must form part of the overall value of the company's fixed assets and so far as levy of Corporate Assets Tax was concerned, the capitalized expenditure, though unallocated must form part of the company's fixed assets.\n \n(c) Finance Act (XII of 1991)-\n \n-S.12-Corporate Assets Tax-Levy of additional tax/penalty-Penalty and additional tax should not be levied-Central Board of Revenue had issued multiple circulars relating to Corporate Assets Tax which had created confusion in the mind of taxpayers.\n \nI. T. A. No. 1872/LB of 1997 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1991=12 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.897/LB of 1998, decision dated: 29-03-2000: hearing DATE : 25-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": "M. MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Munawar Ghafoor, D.R. for Appellant. Ahmed Mushir Qadri, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 453 = 2001 SLD 453 = 2001 PTD 2969 = (2001) 84 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTAzTA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.80-C(2)(a)(i)-Expression services rendered has not been defined in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 but has to be understood in the context in which it is used in the provision of -the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 80-C-C.B.R. Circular No.11 of 1991, dated 30-6-199.1-Term services rendered -Interpretation-Central Board of Revenue had not restricted interpretation of word services rendered by use of word. includes in its Circular No.11 of 1991 but it was only by way of illustration that services rendered by professionals like legal and medical practitioners, accountants were mentioned in the said circular-Intention 'was not to restrict or limit the application of expression services rendered only to the doctors, lawyers, accountants, auditors, architects, surveyors, actuaries, engineers, advisors and consultants.\n \n(c) Income. Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 80-C & 50(4)-Expression services rendered' -Interpretation-­Intention of Legislature-Intention of Legislature was expressed by unrestricted use of expression services rendered to mean that all recipients of payments on which tax is deductible under S.50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on account of services rendered would fall outside the purview of presumptive tax regime under S.80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the tax deducted in their case would not be final discharge of their tax liability.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 80-C-C.B.R. Circular No.11 of 1991, dated 30-6-1991-Difference between other contractors, suppliers and those who rendered services -Tax deducted under S.50(4) in case of other contractors and suppliers was intended to be their full and final discharge of tax liability, being covered under the presumptive tax regime of S.80-C, the recipients of payments on account of services rendered were intended to be kept outside the presumptive tax regime of S.80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Such persons had to be treated differently from suppliers and contractors, otherwise even contractors and suppliers could claim to have rendered services in one way or the other, either by using man and material for others or working as middleman by making supplies of goods produced by others and was in that context that the intention of the Legislature had to be gathered from the use of expression services rendered which could not be as large and unrestricted as in the dictionaries and not as restricted as shown by way of illustration in C.B.R. Circular No. 11 of 1991, dated 30-6-1991.\n \n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 80-C & 50(4)-Expression services rendered -Reliance on dictionary meaning of the words services rendered cannot be placed by ignoring the context in which these words are used in S.80-C read with S.50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n \n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 80-C & 50(4)-Expression services rendered -Explanation-­Expression services rendered relates to all resident persons who are not contractors or suppliers of goods mentioned in S.50(4)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Distinction could only be made when the facts and circumstances of each case were properly appreciated on the basis of supportive material and a definite conclusion was drawn to maintain the desired difference between the payments made to a resident person on account of services rendered by him and the payments on which tax was deductible under S.50(4) on account of supply of goods or for the execution of other contracts.\n \n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.66-A & 80-C-C.B.R. Circular No.11 of 1991, dated 30-6-1991-­C.B.R. Circular No.25 of 1980, dated 23-9-1980-C.B.R. Letter No. C. No.1(10) WHT-92, dated 7-4-1992-Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioner's order -Assessee declared his income from providing security services-Assessment was finalized under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Inspecting Additional Commissioner observed that the aspect of application of S.80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was ignored and nature of business carried out by the assessee did fall within the ambit of services rendered in view of Circular No.11 of 1991-Assessment was cancelled and Assessing Officer was directed to reframe the assessment by scrutinizing the Bank statement, book of accounts and other details and further, to assess those receipts on which tax was deductible under Ss.50(4) and 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the remaining receipts under normal law -Assessee contended that it was only a manager to the principals, charging fixed amount as its administrative charges and all powers of hiring firing of workers rested with principals-Contention of the Department was that assessee was not a consultant because of its actual physical involvement and active undertaking of the job as a contractor and activities of assessee were not services rendered within the meaning of expression used in S.80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Validity-Assessee's plea was not borne out from the material brought on file-Claim that there was no other contractual income and all payments were received for services rendered was also not substantiated-Inspecting Additional Commissioner was justified in considering that the assessment was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue-Direction to make a fresh assessment in the manner suggested in the order, however, was not fully justified-Bank accounts were not carefully scrutinized by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner and mistake in working out total deposit could influence the independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer-Assessing Officer could not be directed to assess those receipts on which tax was deductible under S.50(4), and S.80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and remaining receipts under normal law-Not all receipts of assessee on which tax was deductible were on account of execution of contracts and not for services rendered under the contracts-Payment on which tax was deductible under S.50(4) had to be scrutinized independently in order to determine the nature of payment vis-a-vis the terms of agreement or, contract on the basis of which such payments were made to the assessee-If Assessing Officer found that payments were made for services rendered within the meaning of expression used in S.80-C, he would have made fresh assessment under normal law as income from business or profession under S.22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-­Only those payments on which tax under S.50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, was deductible would fall within the ambit of S-80-C under the presumptive tax regime of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Re-assessment had to be made by the Assessing Officer independently and without being influenced by the observation of Inspecting Additional Commissioner and keeping in view the observation of the Tribunal after providing full opportunity to assessee to produce books of accounts and other supportive material/evidence.\n \n1965 PTD 373; 1975 PTD (Trib.) (sic); 1967 PTD 156; Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., p. 1372; Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary; Glaxo Laboratories v. IAC 1992 SCC 910; Southern Travels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rawalpindi's case I.T.As. Nos. 672 and 941(IB) of 1998-99 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C,22,80C(2)(a)(1),50,50(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1091/IB of 1998-99, decision dated: 29-05-2001, hearing DATE : 19-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, I.T.P. for Appellant. Abdul Jaleel, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Qw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 454 = 2001 SLD 454 = 2001 PTD 3005 = (1999) 240 ITR 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Qw", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Firm-Assessment-Reconstitution or succession-Firm consisting of seven partners-Death of a partner on 16-5-1977-New partnership deed executed on 17- 1977. between remaining partners and son of deceased partner-No provision in partnership deed that death of partner would not result in dissolution of partnership-Provisions of Partnership Act prevailed in absence of contract to contrary-Firm stood dissolved on death of partner-Resulted in succession of one firm by another firm-Two assessments to be made one for period before death of partner and another for period after death of partner-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 187(2) & 188.\n \nThe assessee-firm consisted of seven partners. One of the partners died on May 16, 1977, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, and a new partnership deed was executed on May 17, 1977, between the remaining partners and the son of the deceased partner. The assessee-firm claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the firm stood dissolved on the death of the partner and by the deed, dated May 17, 1977, a new partnership came into existence, that the old firm should be assessed only for the period up to May 15, 1977 namely, up to the date of death of the partner and a separate assessment had to be made for the newly constituted partnership under the deed, dated May 17, 1977, for the remainder of the previous year. The Income-tax Officer held that it was not a case of dissolution of the firm but it was merely a reconstitution of the firm and section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applied to the case and only one assessment for the entire year had to be made. The Tribunal found that there was no specific provision in the partnership deed, dated October 2, 1970, for the continuation of the partnership, in the event of death of any partner, nor had any material been brought to notice that such a condition existed and further that the partnership deed in terms provided that the provisions of the Partnership Act would be applicable to the partnership in respect of all matters not spelt out in the deed itself; and that, therefore, the partnership came to an end on the death of the partner as provided in section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932. On a reference:\n \nHeld, affirming the decision of the Tribunal, that two separate assessments had to be made, one for the period before the death of the partner and another for the period after the death of the partner.\n \nCIT v. Dalabhai & Co. (G.). (1997) 226 ITR 922 (Guj.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 138 of 1984, decision dated: 19-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNARESH TEA STORES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 455 = 2001 SLD 455 = 2001 PTD 3007 = (1999) 240 ITR 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Reference-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Law applicable-Collaboration agreement entered into with non-resident in 1971-Agreement approved by Central Government-Tribunal justified in holding that royalty payable under agreement was not taxable in India-No question of law arose-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.9 & 256.\n \nHeld, (i) that in the instant cases, the collaboration agreements and also the approval of those agreements by the Government occurred much earlier to April 1, 1976, the date prescribed by the proviso appended to section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Taking these aspects into consideration, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact stating that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption in respect of the fees received for technical services. The findings so recorded by the Tribunal were factual findings. No question of law arose from its order.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Reference-Business expenditure-Royalty earned from local sales-20 per cent. allowed as deduction by Tribunal-Tribunal's order was based on facts-No question of law arose-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 37 & 256.\n \nTribunal had recorded a finding that the royalty was received for supply of know-how designs, drawings, information regarding secret processes, etc. It held that expenditure to be allowed as a deduction would have to relate to paper work, courier and corresponding salaries of staff, etc., mainly because the information was already developed and available to the assessee. It concluded that deduction of 20 per cent. should be allowed in respect of the income from royalty on local sales which is taxable. This was a finding of fact. No question of law arose from its order.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Cases Petitions Nos. 418 to 429 and 537 to 546 of 1997, decision dated: 23rd March, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. Soli Dastur for the Bank Associates for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCOMBUSTION ENGINEERING COMPANY INC., USA Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 456 = 2001 SLD 456 = 2001 PTD 3011 = (1999) 240 ITR 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6QQ", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Penalty-Concealment of income-Penalty could not be quantified unless tax determined-Loss Assessment-No penalty could .be imposed-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 271(1)(c).\n \nIt is clear from a perusal of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that penalty could be determined with reference to the amount of tax and unless tax is determined, penalty could not be quantified. Where a loss assessment is made, the question of determining the amount of tax does not arise and, therefore, no penalty could be determined. When penalty cannot to quantified in the absence of determination of tax, no penalty could be imposed. Even if there is concealment of income, where a loss assessment is made, no penalty could be imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T. R. No. 104 of 1996, decision dated: 29-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nN. KRISHNAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Qg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 457 = 2001 SLD 457 = 2001 PTD 3014 = (1999) 240 ITR 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Qg", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Revision-Limitation-Delay in filing revision petition-No application filed for condonation of delay in spite of notice-Tending in S.95(i)(c) of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 (Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme), meaning of-­Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, 5.264-Indian Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, S.95(i)(c).\n \nUnder the Income-tax Act, a time limit is prescribed for filing a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax and there is a power to condone the delay also. If the revision petition is filed belatedly with an application for condonation of delay which may ultimately be considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay by the Commissioner or may not be so considered, would make the revisional proceedings pending, but if the revision petition is filed belatedly without any application for condonation of delay, then it will not be considered to have been filed in accordance with the provisions of section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n \nThe assessee filed a revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Commissioner of Income-tax on January 29, 1999, against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on March 31, 1997, for the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee neither filed an application for condonation of delay nor stated any reasons for late filing of the petition. In response to the notice, dated February 5, 1999 also no reasons were stated. Hence, the Commissioner of Income-tax dismissed the revision petition by his order, dated February 17, 1999, where it was observed that it was filed only for taking benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1968. The assessee challenged this order of the Commissioner of income-tax by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:\n \nHeld, dismissing the writ petition in limine, that it was the duty of the petitioner to give reasons when a notice was issued to him, so that the revision petition could be maintained. A delayed petition without giving reasons for delay was no petition in the eye of law. Even when a notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out the fact of delay no steps were taken to move an application for condonation of delay at that stage. The word pending in section 95(i)(c) of the Scheme refers to a petition pending in the eye of law. In these circumstances, there was no valid revision preferred by the petitioner and it was not pending. Hence, the order passed by the Commissioner did not require any interference.\n \nMela Ram & Sons v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 607 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 19181 of 1999, decision dated: 23rd June, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "V .K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.V. Javali for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "SHAH GENMAL SAKAL CHAND & CO.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Rw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 458 = 2001 SLD 458 = 2001 PTD 3016 = (2001) 84 TAX 410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Rw", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.59-C.B.R. Circular No.21 of 2000, dated 11-9-2000, para. 6(b) [as substituted by C.B.R. Circular No.26 of 2000, dated 14-10-20001 - C.B.R. Letter No. 7(7)S.Asst./2001, dated 9-6-2001-C.B.R. Letter No.7(7)S. Asst./2000, dated 17-7-2001-C.B.R. Letter No.7(7)S. Asst./2000, dated 10-8-2001-Self-Assessment Scheme 2000-2001, para. 6(b) [as substituted]-­Complaints against selection of cases for total audit under para. 6(4) [as substituted] of C.B.R. Circular No.21 of 2000-Validity-Central Board of Revenue realising the gravity of situation reassessed the position and offered a solution by withdrawing the instructions regarding total audit under para. 6(b) of the Self-Assessment Scheme, 2000-2001-Federal Tax Ombudsman, in circumstances, recommended that the Commissioners who had taken up the case for assessment in respect of an assessee who was selected for total audit under para.6(b) of the Self-Assessment Scheme, 2000-2001 shall not finalise and the proceedings be terminated; that assessment will not be finalised in cases selected under para.6(b) in compliance with instructions dated 9-6-2001 and the proceedings be terminated; that all Zonal Commissioners would vacate order of assessment except in cases in which the assessees agreed to accept the assessment already made which will not be disturbed; that in case of ex parte assessment in the total audit cases the assessment shall be set aside suo motu; that in agreed assessment the assessee, if he thinks. proper, may file appeal and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) would follow the above directions and that in case the Department wishes to select any case for total audit under para.6(b) of the Scheme the same shall be selected by the Regional Commissioner of Income-tax and no other officer, keeping in view the parameters fixed by the C.B.R. in. circular/letter, dated 17-7-2001 which includes a show-cause notice to the assessee before selection-Federal Tax Ombudsman also recorded a note of appreciation for the realistic policy decision made by the Central Board of Revenue and its acceptance by the assessees and taxpayers with trust and confidence.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 895 of 2001, decision dated: 17-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ashraf Hashmi, Masood Ishaq, Kh. Riaz Hussain, Sh. Nisar Ahmad, Siddiq Ahmad, Ch. Muhammad Shahid Abbas and Ch. Hafeezullah, Advocates. Anwar ul Haq for the Complainant.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WAQAS JEWELLERS, SAHIWAL\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE2, SAHIWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 459 = 2001 SLD 459 = 2001 PTD 3024 = (1999) 240 ITR 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6SA", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Business expenditure -Ceiling on expenditure -Company-­Remuneration to Director-Commission paid to proprietary concern belonging to Director-Finding that commission paid was not excessive or unreasonable -Commission could not be taken into account for purposes of computing ceiling under provisions of S.40(c) or S.40A(5) -Indian 'Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.40(c) & 40A(5).\n \nThe assessee was a private limited company which was manufacturing various types of forgings, industrial fasteners and automobile spare parts including general engineering goods. P was the managing director of the assessee. He was paid a salary of Rs.5,400 per annum and perquisites. He was also the proprietor of a concern called P & Co. P & Co. was the selling agent of the products of the assessee under an agreement, dated August 23; 1974. During the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee had paid Rs.5,400 as salary to P. It had also paid commission of Rs.1,24,969 to P. & Co. The Income-tax Officer included such commission -and applied section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for finding out the allowable salary. Following the earlier orders of the Income-tax Appellate. Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the years 1975-76 to 1977-78, in appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the amount paid to P & Co., was not covered by section 40A(5). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that, in the instant case, there was no controversy in regard to the factum of genuineness of the payment or the reasonableness thereof having regard to the legitimate business needs of the assessee. The commission of Rs.1,24,969 paid by the assessee to P. & Co. would neither be covered under section 40A(5) nor under section 40(c).\n \nPrakash Beedies (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 1063 (SC) applied.\n \nPai Paper and Allied Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 410 (Bom.) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. I of 1989, decision dated: 26-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND SM. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Tetley for the Commissioner. V.B. Patel for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMELAUTO INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 460 = 2001 SLD 460 = 2001 PTD 3027 = (1999) 240 ITR 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6RQ", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Interest on borrowed capital-Finding that capital had been used for purpose of business-Interest was deductible-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 36 & 37.\n \nIn order to establish a forging plant at Hyderabad, the assessee ­company entered into an agreement with a French company for supply of the entire machinery and the technical know-how relating thereto. The total price of engineering, imported machinery and equipment and technical assistance had to be paid in transferable currency in 20 half-yearly instalments along with yearly interest at 6 per cent. on all amounts remaining due from the date of last shipment. The assessee-company accordingly paid the instalments including interest and the interest debited. As the profit and loss account for the assessment year 1976-77 was Rs.3,97,477 and for the assessment year 1977-78 it was Rs.1,04,474. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the amounts on the ground that the payment was not for purposes of business and it was for the acquisition of assets before the commencement of business and hence it was capital in nature. The Tribunal allowed the deduction. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that it was not the case of the Department that the interest was paid by the assessee for its personal benefit. It was wholly paid for the purpose of business and under these circumstances the assessee was entitled for deduction of the interest in computing its income.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 15 of 1991, decision dated: 23rd June, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT AND S. ANANDA REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner A.S. Kishore for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nREPUBLIC FORGE CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Rg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 461 = 2001 SLD 461 = 2001 PTD 3030 = (1999) 240 ITR 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Rg", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reassessment-Limitation-Reason given by Department for escapement of tax was non-exercise of due diligence by ITO -Does not attribute any failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment either by not filing return or not furnishing requisite information-No failure to disclose material facts fully and truly-­Notices under S.147 issued after expiry of four years from and of relevant assessment years-Notices barred by limitation-Reassessment not valid-­Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 148.\n \nFor the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 the Income-tax Officer re-opened the assessment of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that an amount of Rs.68,44,752 was claimed by the assessee as a deduction in the computation of the net taxable income and it was not disallowed by the Income-tax Officer while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, for the reason that due diligence was not exercised by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee contended that there had been no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 of the Act or failure to make a return in response to notice issued under subsection (1) of section 142 or under section 148 nor was there any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the relevant assessment year, that the assessment year 1984-85 ended on March 31, 1985, and the assessment year 1985-S6, ended on March 31, 1986, and hence the notice issued in March, 1991, were clearly beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment years for which proceedings for re-assessment were sought to be initiated in each of the cases:\n \nHeld, that a bare perusal of the reason attributed for escapement of tax was non-exercise of due diligence by the Assessing Officer. The reason which led the Assessing Officer to believe that income of the petitioner had escaped assessment did not attribute arty failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment either by not filing the return or not furnishing the requisite information. The notices issued in each of the cases, after-the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86, were beyond the period of four years from the end of that assessment year as envisaged under the proviso to section 147 and the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 147 in these cases after March 31, 1989, in the case of assessment year 1984-85, and after March 31, 1990, in the case of assessment year 1985-86. The initiation of action in each of the cases under section 147 was clearly barred by time. Therefore, the reassessment was not valid.\n \nCIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC) and Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO (1986) 162 ITR 240 (Guj.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Applications Nos. 3241 to 3256 of 1991, decision dated: 24-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "VARELI WEAVES (PVT.) LTD.\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Sw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 462 = 2001 SLD 462 = 2001 PTD 3034 = (1999) 240 ITR 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6Sw", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Business expenditure-Bonus-Additional amount paid as incentive in pursuance of settlement under Industrial Disputes Act-Amount was deductible-Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.36 & 37.\n \nDuring the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee paid a sum of Rs.22,54,136 to its workers as incentive payment in pursuance of a settlement between the management and the workers arrived at under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the amount on the ground that the amount was in excess of the statutory bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and the same should be regarded as a bonus payment. However, the Tribunal held that the amount was deductible. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the Tribunal found that, if the amount was not paid, the workers would have gone on strike, and so the additional amount could be regarded as paid by virtue of commercial expediency. Once it is held that the additional amount is not a bonus, then the provisions under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, do not apply, and the only provision that has to be satisfied for the allowance of the expenditure is section 37. The additional amount was paid on commercial principles and commercial considerations, and was allowable under section 37.\n \nCIT v. Sivanandha Mills Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 629 (Mad.) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1188 of 1985 (Reference No.695 of 1985), decision dated: 4-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Philip George for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nLAKSHMI MILLS CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 463 = 2001 SLD 463 = 2001 PTD 3037 = (1999) 240 ITR 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cTB6TA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Revision-Appeal-Powers of CIT-CIT has jurisdiction to revise matter not agitated in appeal -CIT can revise assessment order made under S. 144B under direction from IAC-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.263.\n \nThe Commissioner of Income-tax has powers of revision under section 263(1) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of matter which were not the subject-matter of appeal.\n \nCIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC) fol.\n \nNotwithstanding the fact that the initial assessment had been trade in accordance with the direction given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise the order of the Income-tax Officer.\n \nCIT v. Shanmugham (V.V.A.) (1999) 236 ITR 878 (Mad.) fol.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Revision-Reassessment-Powers of CIT-Dropping of reassessment proceedings-Original assessment order can be revised-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 142, 147 & 263.\n \nThe order dropping the proceedings under section 147 is not an order of reassessment and, therefore, notwithstanding the fact of dropping the proceedings under section 147, the Commissioner of Income-­tax has jurisdiction under section 263, to revise the original order of assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 546 and 547 of 1986 (References Nos. 381 and 382 of 1986), decision dated: 31st August, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Mrs. Maya J. Nichani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "CCMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nCARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 464 = 2001 SLD 464 = 2001 PTD 3039 = (1999) 240 ITR 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQw", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Salary-Perquisite-Retired employee appointed as technical, consultant for a Company-Employer purchasing from LIC single premium annuity policy-Premium paid to LIC not includible in salary income-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.15.\n \nThe assessee retired from employment but pursuant to an agreement was appointed as a technical consultant in the same company in consideration of the annuity of Rs.50,000 to be taken out by the company in addition to the monthly consultation fee of Rs. 600 for the accounting years ending March 31, 1977 and March 31, 1978. In accordance with the agreement, the company purchased from the LIC a single premium annuity policy by paying a sum of Rs.24,000 on March 1, 1977, and the second policy on March 22, 1979. The Income-tax Officer included the premiums paid by the company in the salary income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that it was not taxable. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that as per the single premium annuity policy, dated March 1, 1977, the annuity was to vest in the assessee on March 1, 1981, and it was to cease on the expiry of five years from the date on which the annuity vested in the assessee. As per the second policy, dated March 22, 1979, the annuity was to vest in the assessee on October 23, 1983. Therefore, in the previous years ending March 31, 1977 and March 31, 1978, the amount of premiums paid towards single premium insurance policy did not vest in the assessee. Accordingly, these amounts could not be included in the salary income.\n \nCIT v. L.W. Russel (1964) 53,ITR 91 (SC) and Doshi (J.H.) v. CIT (1995) 212 ITR 211 (Bom.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 600 of 1987, decision dated: 20-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND MRS. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.\nJ.N. VAS", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nJ.N. VAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 465 = 2001 SLD 465 = 2001 PTD 3044 = (1999) 240 ITR 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRA", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Reassessment – Validity (S. 32AB)\nThe Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings, believing that trading activities of the assessee did not qualify for concessions under S.32AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Tribunal held that:\n•\nTrading activities were not excluded from the definition of eligible business under S.32AB.\n•\nThe reassessment proceedings lacked the required nexus between material on record and the belief of escapement of income.\n•\nReassessment proceedings were declared invalid as the belief was de hors the provisions of S.32AB.\nReferenced Case: Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board (1966).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.6710 of 1991, decision dated: 26-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for the Assessee. B.B. Desai with Manish R. Bhatt for the Department.", + "Party Name:": "DESAI BROTHERS\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT)." + }, + { + "Case No.": "802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 466 = 2001 SLD 466 = 2001 PTD 3050 = (1999) 240 ITR 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQQ", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Accounting – Deduction on Accrual Basis\nThe assessee maintained a separate ledger for sales tax collections and payments, with sales tax credited as part of trading receipts. The Assessing Officer denied deductions for unpaid sales tax liabilities. However, the Tribunal ruled:\n•\nSales tax liabilities accrued during the year of sales and were deductible even if paid later.\n•\nDeduction was allowed on an accrual basis, consistent with the mercantile system of accounting.\nReferenced Cases: Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1156 of 1986 (Reference No.744 of 1986), decision dated: 24-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nAGRICULTURAL FARMS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 467 = 2001 SLD 467 = 2001 PTD 3054 = (1999) 240 ITR 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYQg", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment on Interest from Compensation – Invalidity (S.147)\nThe Tribunal invalidated reassessment proceedings initiated to assess interest on enhanced compensation for land acquisition. Key findings:\n•\nThe assessee had disclosed all material facts during original assessments.\n•\nFailure by the Assessing Officer to investigate or apply correct principles could not justify reopening.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Deoki Nandan & Sons (1982), Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.P. No. 3052 and 3053 of 1989 and 681 of 1992, decision dated: 30-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND D.K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Pramod B. Aggarwala, Ms. Paraveena Gautam and Ms. Rachna Katyal for Petitioner. R.D. Jolly with Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "DELHI FARMING AND CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 468 = 2001 SLD 468 = 2001 PTD 3067 = (1999) 240 ITR 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRw", + "Key Words:": "Writ Petition – Maintainability after Tribunal Order Finality\nThe Tribunal's decision became final after rejection of special leave petitions by the Supreme Court. A subsequent writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision was declared not maintainable.\nKey Ruling:\n•\nOnce a Tribunal’s order attains finality, it cannot be reopened through a writ petition.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 796 of 1998, decision dated: 22-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.E. Dastur with Murlidharan and Ashok Kotangale instructed by A. Kotangale & Co. for Petitioner. J.P. Deodhar with P.S. Jetley for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "MONT BLANC PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 469 = 2001 SLD 469 = 2001 PTD 3069 = (1999) 240 ITR 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYSA", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Share Transfer\nThe assessee claimed that transferred shares were held in trust and not liable to capital gains tax. However, the Tribunal held:\n•\nThere was no trust deed or fiduciary arrangement.\n•\nThe difference between cost and sale price was taxable as short-term capital gains.\nReferenced Statutes: Indian Trusts Act, 1882.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 853 of 1985 (Reference No. 434 of 1985), decision dated: 3rd April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Meenakshi Sundaram for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "SOUNDARARAJAN & CO. (PVT.) LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 470 = 2001 SLD 470 = 2001 PTD 3074 = (1999) 240 ITR 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRQ", + "Key Words:": "Subsidy as Revenue Receipt\nThe assessee received a subsidy reimbursing revenue expenses. The Tribunal treated the subsidy as a revenue receipt since it supported ongoing business operations.\nReferenced Cases: Saroja Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1996), Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 531 of 1986 (Reference No.366 of 1986), decision dated: 23rd March. 1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRARNANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "SREE AYYANAR SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD, \nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 471 = 2001 SLD 471 = 2001 PTD 3076 = (1999) 240 ITR 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYRg", + "Key Words:": "Subsidy as Revenue Receipt\nThe assessee received a subsidy reimbursing revenue expenses. The Tribunal treated the subsidy as a revenue receipt since it supported ongoing business operations.\nReferenced Cases: Saroja Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1996), Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.655 of 1987, decision dated: 14-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND MRS. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with P. S. Jetley for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nJAM MANUFACTURING CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 472 = 2001 SLD 472 = 2001 PTD 3077 = (1999) 240 ITR 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYSw", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure – Leave Salary and Depreciation\n(a) Leave salary paid above limits prescribed under S.10(10AA) raised a question of law requiring reference to the High Court.\n(b) Forklift trucks not classified under specific depreciation entries were still entitled to depreciation at applicable rates.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 74 of 1998, decision dated: 2-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. S. Jetley with R. V. Desai instructed by L. S. Shetty for Applicant. S.J. Mehta with I.M. Munim and Ms. A. Visanji for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nINDIAN SMELTING AND REFINING CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 473 = 2001 SLD 473 = 2001 PTD 3080 = (1999) 240 ITR 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVYTA", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax on Undistributed Profits\nThe Tribunal found the delay in dividend declaration due to audit completion justified, thus exempting the company from additional tax under S.104.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 2068 of 1984 (Reference No. 1526 of 1984), decision dated: 31st March, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSAWHANY TRADING CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 474 = 2001 SLD 474 = 2001 PTD 3082 = (1999) 240 ITR 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUQw", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Based on Audit Objection – Invalidity (S.147)\nAudit objections alone were insufficient for reassessment if the Assessing Officer did not independently form a belief of income escapement.\nReferenced Cases: Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 10543 of 1998, decision dated: 29-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Soparkar for Petitioner. Pranav G. Desai for Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ADANI EXPORTS\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENTS)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 475 = 2001 SLD 475 = 2001 PTD 3110 = (2001) 84 TAX 485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURA", + "Key Words:": "Open-ended Remand Orders – Revisional Jurisdiction (S.66A)\nRemand orders requiring further inquiry are treated as fresh assessments and subject to appeals and revisions. Directions under appellate orders cannot be revised unless they involve new inquiries.\nReferenced Cases: Surendra Overseas Ltd. v. CIT (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(7),62,65,66,66A,132,13,132 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 46 of 1991, decision dated: 9-07-2001, hearing DATE : 28-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 476 = 2001 SLD 476 = 2001 PTD 3117 = (2001) 84 TAX 158 = (2001) 84 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUQQ", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme – Validity of Revisional Action (S.66A)\nThe Tribunal upheld revisional actions where self-assessment returns violated requirements, including under-declared income or non-compliance with prescribed conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6134/LB of 1999, decision dated: 31st March, 2001, hearing DATE : 15-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. A. Khan for Appellant. Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 477 = 2001 SLD 477 = 2001 PTCL 597 = 2001 PTD 3121 = (2001) 84 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUQg", + "Key Words:": "Selection of Audit Cases – Parametric Balloting Violation\nThe Tribunal held that parametric balloting for selecting audit cases violated the random balloting principle of the Self-Assessment Scheme. Such actions were declared void for breaching taxpayers' legitimate expectations.\nReferenced Principles: Promissory Estoppel, Legitimate Expectation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 8389, 10611, 8004, 8003, 10612, 8683, 8684, 8685, 8389 and 10776 of 2001, heard on 21st June, 2001, hearing DATE : 21 st June, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs IKHLAQ CLOTH HOUSE, FAISALABAD\nVs.\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 478 = 2001 SLD 478 = 2001 PTD 3132 = (2001) 84 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURw", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation Agreement (Pakistan-USA) – Permanent Establishment\nThe Tribunal ruled that a US-based principal had no permanent establishment in Pakistan as the local agent acted independently. Income of the non-resident principal was not taxable in Pakistan.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. (1965).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=78 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 364/KB, 1300/KB to 1305/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 16-04-2001, hearing DATE : 4-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalil Ahmed Waggan, A.C.A. and Irfan Sadat Khan for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 479 = 2001 SLD 479 = 2001 PTD 3155 = (2001) 84 TAX 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUSA", + "Key Words:": "Reopening Assessments – Definite Information (S.65)\nInformation from a government department regarding vehicle ownership was deemed definite information justifying reassessment.\nPrinciple:\n•\nInformation must create a reasonable belief of income concealment or omission to qualify as definite information.\nReferenced Cases: Commissioner of Income-tax, Zone-A, Lahore v. Malik Bashir Ahmad (1996).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(2),136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.99 of 1998, decision dated: 2-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, SAHIWAL\nVs.\nMessrs CHOHAN FLYING COACH SERVICE, SAHIWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 480 = 2001 SLD 480 = 2001 PTD 3160 = (1999) 240 ITR 868", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURQ", + "Key Words:": "Rectification – Mistake Apparent from Record\nThe assessee claimed development rebate under S.34 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITO disallowed the rebate due to the absence of requisite reserve creation. The Tribunal found:\n1.\nThe reserve fell short but was later made up in subsequent years.\n2.\nCirculars issued by the CBDT conflicted on this issue.\n3.\nHigh Courts had differing views on whether earlier year reserves could be used.\nHeld: There was no mistake apparent from the record, and rectification was not permissible.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. (1979), CIT v. Arasan & Co. (1985).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 193 of 1984 (Reference No. 142 of 1984), decision dated: 29-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JV", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSAKTHI SUGARS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 481 = 2001 SLD 481 = 2001 PTD 3169 = (1999) 240 ITR 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVURg", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration – Specification of Shares\nThe assessee’s partnership deed lacked explicit specification of partner shares. However, these were detailed in Form No. 11A.\nHeld:\n1.\nShares specified in the registration application were sufficient.\n2.\nThe registration could not be denied based on technical deficiencies in the partnership deed.\nReferenced Cases: Progressive Financers v. CIT (1997), Mandyala Govindu & Co. v. CIT (1976).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 2072 of 1984, 191 and 192 of 1986 (References Nos. 1530 of 1984, 81 and 82 of 1986), decision dated: 18-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S.M. ABDUL WAHAB, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nKIKANI & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 482 = 2001 SLD 482 = 2001 PTD 3175 = (1999) 240 ITR 927", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUSw", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure – Disallowance of Commission\nTribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs.40,000 in commission expenses as reasonable based on facts specific to the year in question.\nHeld: Disallowance was based on facts, and no interference was warranted under S.37.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1123 of 1985 (Reference No.63b of 1985), decision dated: 17-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Raj an for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nK.P.V. SHAIK MOHAMMAD ROWTHER & CO. (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 483 = 2001 SLD 483 = 2001 PTD 3177 = (1999) 240 ITR 929", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVUTA", + "Key Words:": "Revaluation of Securities – Tribunal’s Decision\nTribunal allowed deductions for losses on revaluation of securities, following prior High Court rulings.\nHeld: No question of law arose as the Tribunal relied on consistent judicial principles.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Madras Central Urban Bank Ltd., Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1978).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 301 and 302 of 1997, decision dated: 13-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "B. C. PATEL AND P. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nTAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 484 = 2001 SLD 484 = 2001 PTD 3180 = (1999) 240 ITR 931", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmQw", + "Key Words:": "Business Loss – Entitlement Despite Inactivity\nThe assessee claimed a business loss, which was initially disallowed due to no business activity during the year.\nHeld: Business loss can be claimed if prior and subsequent records establish business continuity.\nReferenced Sections: S.143(3), S.256(2), S.263.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 22 of 1999, decision dated: 4-10-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Naik for Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. R.K. Patel for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nPRAYASHVIN B. PATEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 485 = 2001 SLD 485 = 2001 PTD 3183 = (1999) 240 ITR 934", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRA", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Minor's Income in Parent’s Total Income\nIncome from a minor admitted to partnership benefits was assessed in the mother’s hands under S.64(1)(iii). The Tribunal’s earlier decision to exclude this income was reversed.\nHeld: Income arose due to the minor’s admission to partnership benefits, irrespective of investment sources.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Nirmala Devi (1987), CIT v. Lakshmanir (1941).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos. 1466 to 1469 of 1985, decision dated: 5-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSmt. S.J.S. SELVALAKSHMI AMMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 486 = 2001 SLD 486 = 2001 PTD 3192 = (1999) 240 ITR 943", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmQQ", + "Key Words:": "Penalty – No Evidence of Concealment\nPenalty proceedings were initiated on disallowed expenses.\nHeld: Disallowance alone does not prove fraud or concealment. Penalty was canceled due to lack of evidence.\nReferenced Cases: Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills v. CIT (1987).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "1984 (Reference No. 840 of 1984), decision dated: 1st July, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkatraman for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nINDEN BISLERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 487 = 2001 SLD 487 = 2001 PTD 3197 = (1999) 240 ITR 854", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmQg", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts – Business Activities\nThe trust’s chit fund business was deemed unrelated to its charitable objectives for the assessment year 1979-80.\nHeld: While incidental profits don’t affect charitable status, independent business activities outside primary objectives violate S.13(1)(bb).\nReferenced Cases: Thagarajar Charities v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1357 to 1359 of 1985 (References Nos. 858 to 860 of 1985), decision dated: 28-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "DASA BALINJIKA SEVA SANGAM\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (No. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 488 = 2001 SLD 488 = 2001 PTD 3207 = (1999) 240 ITR 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRw", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Penalty Orders – Time Limitation\nRectification of penalty orders is governed by S.154, not S.275.\nHeld: Rectification within S.154’s limitation is valid, even if original orders were under S.275.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Sara Enterprises (1997), Sharma & Sons v. CIT (1985).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 425 of 1984 (Reference No.374 of 1984), decision dated: 29-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Ramagopal for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "HENRI ISIDORE\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 489 = 2001 SLD 489 = 2001 PTD 3214 = (1999) 240 ITR 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmSA", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment – Bogus Purchases\nThe assessee admitted to bogus purchases.\nHeld: Concealment was proven, and penalty under S.271(1)(c) was valid.\nReferenced Sections: S.271(1)(c).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 49 of 1996, decision dated: 9-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": "P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND B. PRAKASH RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the, Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "BEENA METALS\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 490 = 2001 SLD 490 = 2001 PTD 3217 = (1999) 240 ITR 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRQ", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Notice – Prima Facie Case\nThe assessee undervalued land in returns compared to wealth tax filings.\nHeld: Whether non-disclosure constituted material omission should be decided by tax authorities, not quashed via writ petition.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Jeskaran Bhuvalka (1970).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 7161 and 7020 of 1989, decision dated: 12-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nVs.\nWrit s Nos.7161 and 7020 of 1989, decided on 12th August, 1999." + }, + { + "Case No.": "827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 491 = 2001 SLD 491 = 2001 PTD 3219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmRg", + "Key Words:": "Carry Forward of Losses – Late Filing\nThe assessee’s loss return was filed after the prescribed time.\nHeld: Losses filed late could not be carried forward under S.143.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Dalmia Cement (1976).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1241 of 1986 (Reference No.789 of 1986), decision dated: 25-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Philip George for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "S.K.V. SELVARAJ\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 492 = 2001 SLD 492 = 2001 PTD 3222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmSw", + "Key Words:": "Writ Against Tribunal Observations – Non-Maintainability\nA writ petition against a Tribunal member’s observations during a stay application was dismissed.\nHeld: Observations during procedural matters are tentative and cannot be challenged.\nReferenced Sections: S.254, Art.256.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 7435 and 7436 of 1999, decision dated: 10-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR, D. K., JAIN AND, J. B. GOEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "E.R. Indrakumar for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "JOINT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (TDS)\nVs.\nJINDAL TRACTBEL POWER CO. LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 493 = 2001 SLD 493 = 2001 PTD 3225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVmTA", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Claim – Ownership Without Title Deed\nThe assessee used a property without a formal title deed due to pending legalities.\nHeld: Possession and beneficial use establish ownership for depreciation under S.32.\nReferenced Cases: Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999), CIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No-166 of 1981, decision dated: 17-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.P. Bhatnagar and Jodh Singh for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "GOWERSONS PUBLISHERS (PVT.) LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 494 = 2001 SLD 494 = 2001 PTD 3232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViQw", + "Key Words:": "Hundi vs. Promissory Note – Applicability of S.69D\nAn instrument was ruled a promissory note, not a hundi, based on its content.\nHeld: S.69D does not apply, and no addition to income was warranted.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals (1995).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 559 of 1988, decision dated: 18-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nK.P. ABDULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 495 = 2001 SLD 495 = 2001 PTD 3237 = (1999) 240 ITR 877", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Surtax Liability – Not an Allowable Deduction\nSurtax liability cannot be deducted in computing business income.\nReferenced Case: Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996).\n(b) Commission Paid to Directors – Applicability of Section 40(c)\nCommission paid on a turnover basis to directors is considered remuneration or benefit and is subject to the ceiling under S.40(c).\n(c) Subsidy and Depreciation\nSubsidy received from SIPCOT should not be deducted when computing the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes.\nReferenced Case: CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994).\n(d) Special Deduction for New Undertakings – S.80J\nThe value of work-in-progress and goods in transit should be included as part of the capital employed for calculating relief under S.80J.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 149 and 150 of 1986 (References Nos.78 and 79 of 1986), decision dated: 4-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "McDOWELL & CO. LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1748 = 2001 SLD 1748 = 2001 PTD 3241 = (1999) 240 ITR 910", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViQQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interest for Delay in Filing Returns or Paying Advance Tax\nNo notice is required before levying interest for delays. Filing timely returns and paying advance tax are statutory obligations.\n(b) Expenditure on Guest Houses\nExpenditures on maintaining a transit house deemed to be a guest house are not deductible under S.37.\nReferenced Cases: M.B. Brothers v. CIT (1985).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C.P. Nos. 311 and 312 of 1998, decision dated: 9-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND, J.B. KOSHY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Messrs Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "SALEM COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 497 = 2001 SLD 497 = 2001 PTD 3243 = (1999) 240 ITR 924", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViQg", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust – Exemption and Leave to Appeal\nThe trust, aimed at the educational, social, and economic upliftment of Muslims, sought exemption under S.11. Due to the absence of a binding Supreme Court decision on Explanation 2 to S.13(1)(b), leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted.\nReferenced Case: CIT v. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust (1999).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.M.P. No. 1189 of 1999 in I.T.R. No. 34 of 1996, decision dated: 9-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y. R. MEENA AND R. K. MAZUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nPALGHAT SHADI MAHAL TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 498 = 2001 SLD 498 = 2001 PTD 3244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRw", + "Key Words:": "Annual Value Determination – Let-Out Properties\nThe annual value of a property for income tax purposes must align with the rateable value determined under municipal laws if unchallenged.\nReferenced Cases: Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 99 of 1993, decision dated: 4-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bajoria for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nPODDAR BROS. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 499 = 2001 SLD 499 = 2001 PTD 3247 = (1999) 240 ITR 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSA", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos. 494 and 495 of 1985 (References Nos. 332 and 333 of 1985), decision dated: 21st July, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "BRIJESH KUMAR, C.J. AND P. C. PHUKAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Ranjan for the Commissioner. Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGUJARATHI MANDAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 500 = 2001 SLD 500 = 2001 PTD 3252 = (1999) 240 ITR 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Definition of Entertainment Expenditure\nRewards such as foreign trips for dealers are not entertainment expenditure under S.37(2A) as they lack elements of hospitality.\nReferenced Case: CIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd. (1995).\n(b) Application of Legal Provisions\nQuestions about the applicability of statutory provisions based on facts are considered questions of law.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-Tax Reference No. 13 of 1996, decision dated: 17-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nASSAM ASBESTOS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 501 = 2001 SLD 501 = 2001 PTD 3263 = (1999) 240 ITR 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViRg", + "Key Words:": "Government Advances Converted to Grants\nAdvances by the government, later converted to grants for specific purposes, are capital receipts and not taxable as income.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 1153 of 1986 (Reference No.741 of 1986), decision dated: 14-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONED OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nTAMIL NADU TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 502 = 2001 SLD 502 = 2001 PTD 3265 = (1999) 240 ITR 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViSw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Remuneration Paid to Holding Company Staff\nGenuine agreements for managerial services rendered by a holding company are deductible expenses and not restricted by S.40(c).\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. (1990).\n(b) Gratuity Contributions\nContributions to approved gratuity funds are deductible under S.37.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1739 of 1986 (Reference No. 1172 of 1986), decision dated: 24-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "AJOY NATH RAY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "SN. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSUDARSAN CHITS (I.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 503 = 2001 SLD 503 = 2001 PTD 3270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEViTA", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Refunds\nThe Revenue must provide prior intimation to the assessee before adjusting refunds against dues under S.245.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1017 of 1999, decision dated: 10-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.N. Bajoria, Senior Advocate, J.P. Khaitan and C.M. Ghorawat for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 504 = 2001 SLD 504 = 2001 PTD 3274 = (1999) 240 ITR 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Club Subscriptions Paid for Directors\nSubscriptions paid to clubs on behalf of directors are deductible if incurred for business promotion under S.37.\n(b) Entertainment Expenditure Before 1976\nProviding tea and coffee to customers before the insertion of Explanation 2 to S.37(2A) (effective April 1, 1976) is deductible.\n(c) Maintenance of Cars for Directors\nExpenses on directors' cars are perquisites and subject to the ceiling under S.40.\n(d) Bonus Shares and Capital Gains\nThe cost of original shares must be proportionally spread across bonus and original shares for capital gains computation.\n(e) Capital Employed for Deduction Under S.80J\nThe value of machinery awaiting installation and buildings under construction must be included in the capital employed for computing S.80J deductions.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 219 of 1986 (Reference No. 109 of 1986), decision dated: 23rd April, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "BRIJESH KUMAR, CJ AND P. G. AGARWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 505 = 2001 SLD 505 = 2001 PTD 3280 = (1999) 240 ITR 378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Cost of Construction – Powers of Assessing Officer\nAssessing Authorities can request a Valuation Officer’s report under Sections 131, 133(6), and 142(2) of the Income Tax Act for assessing the cost of constructing a house. Mentioning an incorrect section, such as 55A, does not invalidate the authority's actions.\nReferenced Cases: Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1981).\n(b) Wrong Provision Reference – Validity of Orders\nThe reference to a wrong statutory provision does not invalidate an otherwise lawful order.\n(c) Charging vs. Machinery Provisions\nCharging provisions are strictly construed, while machinery provisions are broadly interpreted to achieve legislative intent.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 6 of 1996, decision dated: 25-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALSUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSmt. AMIYA BALA PAUL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 506 = 2001 SLD 506 = 2001 PTD 3289 = (1999) 240 ITR 402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQQ", + "Key Words:": "Lottery Winnings – Status of Taxable Entity\nWhen multiple individuals collectively purchase lottery tickets and agree to share winnings, the prize money is taxed as a body of individuals (BOI). Individual assessments on some members do not preclude BOI assessment.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. A.U. Chandrasekharan (1998).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 809 of 1987 (Reference No.512 of 1987), decision dated: 21st April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nABDUL RASHEED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 507 = 2001 SLD 507 = 2001 PTD 3292 = (1999) 240 ITR 406", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIQg", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Power to Remand Cases\nThe Tribunal is justified in remanding cases to the Assessing Officer when genuineness or other material aspects of payments, such as breach of contract compensations, need further verification.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 86 of 1991 (Reference No.28 of 1991), decision dated: 23rd April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. P. CHAPALGAONKARANDR.K. BATTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar and Padmanaghan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "WARDEX PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 508 = 2001 SLD 508 = 2001 PTD 3296 = (1999) 240 ITR 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Reassessment Notices and Validity\nNotices for reassessment under S.147 need not specify whether issued under clauses (a) or (b) or contain reasons. Reassessment is invalid if no new information or omission justifies reopening the case.\nReferenced Cases: A.L.A Firm v. CIT (1991).\n(b) Strict Interpretation of Statutes\nTax laws must be strictly construed, especially when determining the validity of assessment or reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 209 of 1991, decision dated: 30-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Bodke for Petitioners. S.R. Rivonkar, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Smt. LAXMIBAI A. WAGLE through Legal Representatives\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 509 = 2001 SLD 509 = 2001 PTD 3303 = (1999) 240 ITR 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISA", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains – Bonus Shares\nThe cost of bonus shares should be determined by spreading the cost of the original shares across both the original and bonus shares for capital gains computation.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (1964).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.489 of 1985 (Reference No.327 of 1985), decision dated: 24-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIQNER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSmt. KJUSALYA SETHURAMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 510 = 2001 SLD 510 = 2001 PTD 3305 = (1999) 240 ITR 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRQ", + "Key Words:": "(a) Capital Gains on Liquidation Proceeds\nUnder S.46(2), assets (including agricultural lands) distributed to shareholders upon liquidation are taxable under capital gains despite exclusions in the definition of capital assets. \nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (1973).\n(b) Deemed Dividends\nAmounts distributed on liquidation are not deemed dividends if they were written off or already taxed earlier.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(6A) ", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos.292 and 293 of 1988 (References Nos.225 and 226 of 1988), decision dated: 25-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. T.N. Seetharaman for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nN. BHAGAVATHY AMMAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 511 = 2001 SLD 511 = 2001 PTD 3314 = (1999) 240 ITR 460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVIRg", + "Key Words:": "Appeals Against Interest Denial\nWhile direct appeals against interest denials under S.214 are not permitted, they can be challenged as part of an appeal against the assessment order.\nReferenced Cases: Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1941 of 1986 (Reference No. 1362 of 1.986), decision dated: 29-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "SHOLINGUR TEXTILES LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 512 = 2001 SLD 512 = 2001 PTD 3317 = (1999) 240 ITR 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVISw", + "Key Words:": "Amnesty Scheme – Scope of Benefits\nBenefits under the Amnesty Scheme apply only to additional income voluntarily disclosed in revised returns, not to corrections of excessive deductions claimed earlier.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 107 of 1994, decision dated: 18-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Poddar, Senior Advocate, P. Ganguly and M.K. Mukherjee for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "BORMAH JAN TEA CO. (1936) LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 513 = 2001 SLD 513 = 2001 PTD 3324 = (1999) 240 ITR 483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVITA", + "Key Words:": "Repair Expenditure – Revenue Nature\nExpenditures on repairs, such as replacing a ceiling with better material, are deductible as revenue expenses since they do not create new assets.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Binny Ltd. (1995).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 1234 of 1984 (Reference No.1053 of 1984), decision dated: 11-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. K.K. USHA AND R. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Sivaraman for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nASHER TEXTILES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 514 = 2001 SLD 514 = 2001 PTD 3326 = (1999) 240 ITR 484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Deductibility of Purchase Tax Liability\nProvisions for purchase tax liability are deductible under S.37.\nReferenced Cases: Abad Fisheries v. CIT (1995).\n(b) Presumption of Accounting Method\nWhen the Assessing Officer does not question the accounting method, it is presumed the mercantile system is followed.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 29 of 1992, decision dated: 15-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.G.K Wariyar and P. Balakrishnan for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon Senior Advocate and George K. George", + "Party Name:": "SEA MATES INDIA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 515 = 2001 SLD 515 = 2001 PTD 3329 = (1999) 240 ITR 828", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Depreciation – Extra Shift Allowance\nExtra shift allowance is calculated based on the number of days a concern operated, not individual machinery use.\nReferenced Cases: South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1997).\n(b) Sales Tax Liability\nFor mercantile accounting, sales tax liability accrues when the transaction occurs, not when the demand is raised.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 698 of 1984 (Reference No.613 of 1984), decision dated: 10-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nAMBUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 516 = 2001 SLD 516 = 2001 PTD 3332 = (1999) 240 ITR 863", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQQ", + "Key Words:": "Chit Fund Business and Trust Exemption\nIncome from chit fund businesses does not qualify for exemption under S.11 if the business is not integral to the trust's primary purpose.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1521 and 1522 of 1986 (Reference Nos.1000 and 1001 of 1986), decision dated: 30-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "DASA BALINJIKA SEVA SANGAM\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 517 = 2001 SLD 517 = 2001 PTD 3334 = (1999) 240 ITR 880", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVEQg", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nSurrendering income due to an inability to produce creditors does not constitute concealment. The Tribunal is justified in canceling penalties where no evidence of concealment exists.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. K.P. Sampath Reddy (1992).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 35 of 1998, decision dated: 27-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for the Department. N.S. Bhatnagar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nAGGARWAL PIPE CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 518 = 2001 SLD 518 = 2001 PTD 3337 = (1999) 240 ITR 785", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERw", + "Key Words:": "Trusts for Unborn Beneficiaries\nTrusts created for future beneficiaries (e.g., children-in-law) are valid if beneficiaries are identifiable. Section 164(1) does not apply.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. M.K. Chandrakanth (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.62 to 65 of 1984 (References Nos.30 to 33 of 1984), decision dated: 16-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "Y. VENKATACHALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nM.K. KANNAN MARRIAGE BENEFIT TRUST and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 519 = 2001 SLD 519 = 2001 PTD 3340 = (1999) 240 ITR 788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESA", + "Key Words:": "Property Attachment – Validity\nTax Recovery Officers cannot attach properties held by third parties unless proven to be owned by the defaulter. Long-term possession with supporting documents invalidates such attachment.\nReferenced Cases: TRO v. Gangadhar Viswanath Ranade (1998).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3023 of 1996 and W.M.P. Nos.4848 of 1996 and 8315 of 1998, decision dated: 20-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Sampathkumar and R. Natarajan for Petitioner. C.V. Rajan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "CHROMPET EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY\nVs.\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and another (and Vice Versa)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 520 = 2001 SLD 520 = 2001 PTD 3348 = (1999) 240 ITR 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERQ", + "Key Words:": "Excessive Payments to Relatives\nPayments to relatives that exceed reasonable limits, based on fair market value and business needs, can be partially disallowed under S.40A(2).\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Kundan Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case (Reference) No.214 of 1981, decision dated: 27-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. K. K. USHA, K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND R. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Maya J. Nichani for Petitioner. C.V. Rajan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "K.R. MOTILAL\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 521 = 2001 SLD 521 = 2001 PTD 3355 = (1999) 240 ITR 916", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVERg", + "Key Words:": "Repair Expenditures on Motor Cars\nExpenditures for motor car repairs fall under S.31 and are not subject to the ceiling on entertainment expenditure under S.37(3A).\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Navodaya (1997) (overruled).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 12 of 1996, decision dated: 22-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "V. S. SIRPURKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. Joseph Markos and Thomas Vellapally for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nTRAVANCORE CEMENT LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 522 = 2001 SLD 522 = 2001 PTD 3364 = (1999) 240 ITR 850", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVESw", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nNotices based on judicial precedents, such as High Court decisions, are valid grounds for rectification under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. (1978).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Indian Company (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964=13 & Sched.II. ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1455 of 1989, decision dated: 27-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Petitioner. S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "M.R.F. LIMITED\nVs.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 523 = 2001 SLD 523 = 2001 PTD 3366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVETA", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge on Retained Income\nSurcharge can be applied to taxes payable as part of retained income.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 301 of 1991, decision dated: 26-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue, Mirza Anwar Baig for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs SCHAZOO LABORATORIES LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 524 = 2001 SLD 524 = 2001 PTD 3367 = (2002) 85 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appeal Fee – Applicability of Amendments\nAmendments increasing appeal fees apply only to assessments in years following the amendment.\n(b) Right to Appeal\nThe right to appeal accrues when a return is filed or a notice is served.\n(c) Appeal Fee Disputes\nAppeals dismissed for incorrect fee payments must be reconsidered when statutory requirements are misunderstood.\nLet me know if further clarification is required!", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 60 - A/LB and 61 - A/LB of 1996, decision dated: 30-04-2001, hearing DATE : 20-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Anwar Baig for Appellant and Muhammad Aslam, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 525 = 2001 SLD 525 = 2001 PTD 3369 = (2001) 84 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRA", + "Key Words:": "(a) Eligibility for Fixed Tax Scheme\nThe Fixed Tax Scheme requires taxpayers to meet conditions including taxpayer status, place of business, business capital, and prior income levels. Successors in business are also eligible if they meet these conditions.\nReferenced Circulars: C.B.R. Circular No.16 of 1993 and C.B.R. Circular No.8 of 1994.\n(b) Treatment of Successor in Business\nA successor in business wrongly excluded from the scheme can appeal. Receipt of token tax payment is deemed an assessment order under S.59-C of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n(c) Predecessor’s Eligibility Extended to Successor\nA successor can continue enjoying the scheme if the predecessor availed it.\n(d) & (e) Inspector’s Report—Credibility and Relevance\nReports with contradictions or prepared years after the relevant period lack credibility and cannot be relied upon for sales estimation.\n(f) Estimation of Sales and Expenses\nEstimates must be based on credible, contemporaneous evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 340/LB to 342/LB of 2001, decision dated: 20-06-2001, hearing DATE : 18-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s),", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azhar Ehsan Sheikh for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 526 = 2001 SLD 526 = 2001 PTD 3376 = (2001) 84 TAX 507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQQ", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax as Deduction\nWealth tax liability is deductible under the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922.\nReferenced Cases: C.I.T., Karachi v. Zakia Siddiqui (1989).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.43 of 1993, decision dated: 6-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. C. SEN AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Safdar Mehmood for Counsel for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE A, LAHORE\nVs.\nMessrs RAZA ALI KHAN QAZILBASH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 527 = 2001 SLD 527 = 2001 PTD 3377 = (2001) 249 ITR 793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQQg", + "Key Words:": "Priority Industry Relief\nLosses from non-priority industries should not be deducted when calculating relief for priority industries under S.80E.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Canara Workshops (P.) Ltd. (1986).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3050 of 1982, decision dated: 24-07-1997. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated December 13, 1979 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No.277 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.V. Rangam, Advocate for Appellant and B.K. Prasad", + "Party Name:": "ENGLISH ELECTRIC CO. LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 528 = 2001 SLD 528 = 2001 PTD 3378 = (2001) 249 ITR 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRw", + "Key Words:": "(a) Consistency in Department’s Appeals\nThe Department cannot accept a High Court decision for one assessee and challenge it for another without justification.\n(b) Immovable Property Transactions\nDiscounting considerations like shared expenses during valuation is invalid.\nReferenced Cases: Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.7333 of 1996, decision dated: 6-12-2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 21, 1993 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.7888 of 1990)", + "Judge Name:": "S. C. SEN AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Shashi Kiran, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellants", + "Party Name:": "UNION OF INDIA and others\nVs.\nKAUMUDINI NARAYAN DALAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 529 = 2001 SLD 529 = 2001 PTD 3380 = (2001) 249 ITR 749", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSA", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation Avoidance\nInterest earned from money-lending transactions used in Pakistan qualifies for relief under clause 5(f) of the Double Taxation Agreement between India and Pakistan.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Soorajmull Nagarmull (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 370 of 1979, decision dated: 28-01-1997. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated March 10, 1978 of the Calcutta High Court in I. T. R. No. 102 of 1971)", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (B.Krishna Prasad, Advocate with him) for Appellant. J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate. Amicus curiae for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSOORAJMAILL NAGARMULL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 530 = 2001 SLD 530 = 2001 PTD 3382 = (2001) 249 ITR 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRQ", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Ownership\nDepreciation and development rebates require legal ownership. Possession without executed sale deeds does not confer ownership for tax purposes.\nReferenced Cases: Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 1998, decision dated: 5-12-2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 10, 1997 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No.316 of 1982).", + "Judge Name:": "B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Ganguli, Senior Advocate (V. Krishnamurhty, Advocate with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 531 = 2001 SLD 531 = 2001 PTD 3384 = (2001) 249 ITR 797", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQRg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Penalty Proceedings—Transfer Between Officers\nA successor officer may impose a penalty without issuing a new notice if the taxpayer has already responded.\n(b) Late Filing Penalties\nThe provision allowing returns before assessment does not negate penalties for late filing.\n(c) Registered Firms—Penalty Quantum\nTax paid by partners individually cannot offset penalties on the firm.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 911 of 1977 with Civil Appeal No.913 of 1977, decision dated: 27-09-1995. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated April 28, 1976 of the Calcutta High Court in I.T.R. Cases Nos.698 of 1972 and 233 of 1973)", + "Judge Name:": "S.C. AGRAWAL, K. T. THOMAS AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.B. Rohtagi, Advocate for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "PRADIP LAMPS WORKS\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 532 = 2001 SLD 532 = 2001 PTD 3387 = (2001) 249 ITR 517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQSw", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Requisitioned Assets\nIncome assessed under Other Sources during requisition cannot later be treated as business income for depreciation benefits.\nReferenced Cases: Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(vi),12 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2972 to 2975 of 1981, decision dated: 23rd April, 1997. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated July 3, 4, 1978 of the Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No.37 of 1969)", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shri J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, B.K. Prasad and C. Radha Krishna, Advocates. with him) for AppellantS. Ganesh, Advocate and P.D. Tyagi, Advocate for J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nWESTERN INDIA OIL DISTRIBUTING CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 533 = 2001 SLD 533 = 2001 PTD 3389 = (2001) 249 ITR 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVQTA", + "Key Words:": "Opportunity to Be Heard\nIf an assessee is not given a fair hearing, the case must be remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, even if subsequent authorities provide opportunities.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 6517 and 6518 of 1997, decision dated: 27-02-2001. (Civil Appeal No.6517 of 1997 is by special leave from the judgment and order, dated May 9, 1997 of the Delhi High Court; in I.T.R. No. 106 of 1991)", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHARUCHA AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Kevin Gulati and Nandini Gore., Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "TIN BOX COMPANY\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 534 = 2001 SLD 534 = 2001 PTD 3392 = (2001) 249 ITR 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQw", + "Key Words:": "Appeals on Identical Issues\nWhen a High Court has previously identified substantial questions of law on a similar issue, appeals for subsequent years must also be heard on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1344 of 2001, decision dated: 19-02-2001. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 11, 1999 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in I.T.A. No.7 of 1999)", + "Judge Name:": "S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Raval, Additional Solicitor General of India (Ashok Shrivastava, B.V. Balarani Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nRELIABLE CARRIERS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 535 = 2001 SLD 535 = 2001 PTD 3395 = (2001) 249 ITR 786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRA", + "Key Words:": "Acquisition of Property—Separate Transactions\nA single deed transferring distinct shares of land to multiple individuals constitutes separate transactions, not a sale to an association of persons.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. T.V. Suresh Chandran (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1500 to 1505 of 1982, decision dated: 30-04-1997. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated March 29, 1979, of the Kerala High Court in M.F.As. Nos.78 to 83 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (C. Ramesh and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nT. V. S. TRESH CHANDRA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 536 = 2001 SLD 536 = 2001 PTD 3397 = (2001) 249 ITR 213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQQ", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment—Limitation Period\nThe extended time for completing draft orders under S.144B applies to both original assessments and reassessments.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Sundaram Spinning Mills (1997) (reversed).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 1998, decision dated: 5-12-2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 23, 1996 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No.573 of 1983)", + "Judge Name:": "S. C. AGRAWAL, K. T. THOMAS AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (S. Wasim A. Quadri and S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSUNDARAM SPINNING MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 537 = 2001 SLD 537 = 2001 PTD 3399 = (2001) 249 ITR 3399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMQg", + "Key Words:": "Findings from Prior Years\nNew provisions under the 1961 Act apply to findings in earlier proceedings under the 1922 Act for reassessment and limitation purposes.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. T.P. Asrani (1980) (reversed).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2971 of 1981, decision dated: 23rd April, 1997. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated January 16, 1979 of the Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No.25 of 1970)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, B.K. Prasad and C. Radha Krishna, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nT.P. ASRANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 538 = 2001 SLD 538 = 2001 PTD 3401 = (2001) 249 ITR 413", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRw", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains—Agricultural Land\nTaxpayers can opt to substitute the value of agricultural land as of February 28, 1970, for its cost of acquisition when computing capital gains.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4103 to 4105 of 1995, decision dated: 6-12-2000. (Appeals by special leave from the orders, dated August 24, 1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.C. Nos.53, 73 and 72 of 1984)", + "Judge Name:": "B. N. KIRPAL, U. C. BANERJEE AND BRIJESH KUMAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Asha G. Nair, Shankar Divali and S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGURJIT SINGH MANSAHIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 539 = 2001 SLD 539 = 2001 PTD 3402 = (2001) 249 ITR 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSA", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure—Disallowed Claims\nDemurrage and wharfage claims pending arbitration can raise questions of law about their allowability.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 7353 of 2000, decision dated: 12-12-2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 3, 1998 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.C. No.41 of 1988)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D. P. MOHAPARRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. N. Krishnamani, Senior Advocate (Rajesh K. Sharma and Goodwill Indeevar, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 540 = 2001 SLD 540 = 2001 PTD 3404 = (2001) 249 ITR 302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRQ", + "Key Words:": "Relief for New Industrial Undertakings\nAmounts owed for machinery purchases settled through equity share issuance should be included in capital computation for S.80J relief.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd. (1985).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 6097 and 6098 of 1990, decision dated: 10-12-1998. (Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 20, 1983 of the Madras High Court in T.C. Nos. 1662 and 1666 of 1997)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Anil Srivastava, S. Rajappa and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) fop Appellant.\nMrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nLUCAST T.V.S. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 541 = 2001 SLD 541 = 2001 PTD 3406 = (2001) 249 ITR 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMRg", + "Key Words:": "Diamond Processing—Manufacture\nCutting and polishing uncut diamonds do not constitute manufacturing or production of a new article for S.80I benefits.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. London Star Diamond Co. (1995).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 180 of 1999, decision dated: 5-12-2000. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 4, 1997 of the Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No.90 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D. P. MOHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Navin Chawla, Prateek, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGEM INDIA MANUFACTURING CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 542 = 2001 SLD 542 = 2001 PTD 3408 = (2001) 249 ITR 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMSw", + "Key Words:": "Cooperative Societies—Credit Facilities\nPurchasing and reselling auto-rickshaws on hire-purchase terms is not a credit facility for S.80P exemption.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. Madras Autorickshaw Drivers' Cooperative Society Ltd. (1983).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 5651 and 5652 of 1990, decision dated: 10-12-1998. (Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 14, 1982 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos. 1234 and 1246 of 1977)", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "MADRAS AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 543 = 2001 SLD 543 = 2001 PTD 3410 = (2000) 242 ITR 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEVMTA", + "Key Words:": "Goodwill—Capital Receipt\nGoodwill is a self-generated asset and is treated as a capital receipt, not taxable as revenue under earlier tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 66 of 1987 (Reference No. 6 of 1987), decision dated: 14-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nR. K. PARASURAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 544 = 2001 SLD 544 = 2001 PTD 3412 = (2001) 249 ITR 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQw", + "Key Words:": "Book Entries and Ownership Transfer\nWhether ownership of immovable property can be transferred by passing book entries is a legal question.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "(By Legal Representative) Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2001, decision dated: 5-01-2001. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 23, 1999 of the Allahabad High Court in I.T.A. No.42 of 1997)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General of India (Ranbir Chandra, Rekha Pandey and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nHIRALAL MITTAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 545 = 2001 SLD 545 = 2001 PTD 3413 = (2001) 249 ITR 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRA", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Securities—Rectification\nInterest payments for broken periods allowed as business expenditure cannot be rectified as a mistake when the issue is debatable.\nReferenced Cases: CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2000).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 5995 and 5996 of 1999, decision dated: 5-12-2000. (Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated March 1, 1999 of the High Court, Kerala in I.T.Rs. Nos.52 and 53 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (R.N. Verma and Ms. Sttshma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSOUTH INDIA BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 546 = 2001 SLD 546 = 2001 PTD 3415 = (2002) 85 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQQ", + "Key Words:": "(a-d) Professional Tax\nSubstitution of tax rates based on paid-up capital is valid and does not violate constitutional principles of equality or reasonableness.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Finance Act, 1977=3,Sched. ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18187 of 1999, decision dated: 20-10-1999", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ejaz Ahmad Awan for Petitioners. A.A.G. for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS LTD.\nVs.\nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 547 = 2001 SLD 547 = 2001 PTD 3420", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzQg", + "Key Words:": "(a) Factory Rent\nRent is properly accounted for under manufacturing expenses.\n(b) Revision by Commissioner\nInaccurate claims for deductions must be addressed under concealment provisions (S.65).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),66,66A,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2536/LB of 2000, decision dated: 27-02-2001, hearing DATE 4-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "R. BALIA AND A. R DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Anwar Baig, A.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 548 = 2001 SLD 548 = 2001 PTD 3425 = (1999) 240 ITR 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRw", + "Key Words:": "Initial Depreciation—Textile Manufacturing\nBleaching, dyeing, and finishing grey cloth qualify as textile manufacturing, entitling businesses to initial depreciation.\nReferenced Cases: Ujagar Prints v. Union of India (1989).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 206 of 1984, decision dated: 17-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nKASHIRAM TEXTILES MILLS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 549 = 2001 SLD 549 = 2001 PTD 3427 = (1999) 240 ITR 499", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSA", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Payments\nPayments exceeding prescribed limits must be clearly justified under specific clauses of Rule 6DD to avoid disallowance.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 74 to 76 of 1997, decision dated: 1st December, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "M.S., JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nA.M. ZAINALABDEEN MUSALIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 550 = 2001 SLD 550 = 2001 PTD 3431 = (1999) 240 ITR 503", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRQ", + "Key Words:": "Statutory Reserve Fund - Allowable Deduction\n•\nKey Issue: An electricity company created a statutory consumers' rebate reserve fund for past years and claimed deductions.\n•\nHeld: Only contributions made for the accounting year 1972-73 were deductible. Contributions for prior years (1950-51 to 1964-65) were not allowable as they did not pertain to the relevant accounting year.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. (1978), Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 234 of 1988 (Reference No. 167 of 1988), decision dated: 27-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.H. Aravind Pandian for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "SOUTH MADRAS ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 551 = 2001 SLD 551 = 2001 PTD 3440 = (1999) 240 ITR 291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzRg", + "Key Words:": "Ownership for Tax Purposes\n•\nKey Issue: Whether vendees in possession of flats without registration could be taxed as owners under S.22.\n•\nHeld: Vendees in possession were deemed owners for tax purposes, and the question could not be referred, aligning with CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997).\n•\nPrinciple: Registration of the sale deed is not required under S.22 for income-tax purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos.81; 82 and 91 of 1996, decision dated: 15-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir Joshi for the Commissioner. J.P. Shah for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSURESH AMICHAND SHAH (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 552 = 2001 SLD 552 = 2001 PTD 3442 = (1999) 240 ITR 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzSw", + "Key Words:": "Travel Expenditure on Spouses\n•\nKey Issue: Deductibility of expenses on spouses of directors during business trips.\n•\nHeld: Expenses were allowable as they enhanced goodwill between collaborating companies.\n•\nPrinciple: Business realities can justify broader interpretations of allowable expenditure.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T.C No. 1953 of 1986 (Reference No. 1370 of 1986), decision dated: 1st April 1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSUNDARAM.CLAYTON LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 553 = 2001 SLD 553 = 2001 PTD 3446 = (1999) 240 ITR 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEUzTA", + "Key Words:": "Salary and Profits in Lieu of Salary\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of compensation for employment termination and leave encashment.\n•\nHeld: Both compensation under a voluntary separation program and leave encashment were taxable as profits in lieu of salary under S.17(3).\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Ajit Kumar Bose (1987), CIT v. N.B. Tendolkar (1996).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1007 and 1008 of 1982 (References Nos.641 and 642 of 1982), decision dated: 21st October, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "ANIN KUMAR,AND D.K., JOIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Balasubramanian for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "G.N. BADAMI\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Qw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 554 = 2001 SLD 554 = 2001 PTD 3454 = (1999) 240 ITR 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Qw", + "Key Words:": "Stock Valuation and Business Loss\n•\nKey Issue: Change in valuation method for slow-moving stock items.\n•\nHeld: Change in valuation method was permissible if bona fide and followed consistently. Losses on revaluation were deductible.\n•\nPrinciple: High Court cannot disturb factual findings unless challenged specifically.\n•\nCited Cases: Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 136 to 138 of 1978, decision dated: 30-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Pandey with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for the Commissioner. Satyen Sethi with T.V. Mallikarjun for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nBHARAT COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 555 = 2001 SLD 555 = 2001 PTD 3459 = (1999) 240 ITR 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RA", + "Key Words:": "Employee Welfare Contributions\n•\nKey Issue: Contributions to a death relief fund and housing society roads.\n•\nHeld: Both contributions were allowable as business expenditures, promoting employee welfare.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P.) Ltd. (1990).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1905 of 1996 (Reference No.1326 of 1996), decision dated: 1st April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND SNIT. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nE. I. D. PARRY INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 556 = 2001 SLD 556 = 2001 PTD 3463 = (1999) 240 ITR 528", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6QQ", + "Key Words:": "Entertainment Expenditure - Retrospective Effect\n•\nKey Issue: Inclusion of tea, coffee, and meals as entertainment expenditure after retrospective amendment.\n•\nHeld: Such expenditure constituted entertainment under S.37(2A) post-retrospective amendment.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd. (1995).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.3 of 1990, decision dated: 2-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "M. JAVED BUTTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner. J. Jain, instructed by Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nINDIAN PLASTICS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Qg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 557 = 2001 SLD 557 = 2001 PTD 3466", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Qg", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of C.B.R.\n•\nKey Issue: Binding nature of C.B.R. interpretations on adjudicating authorities.\n•\nHeld: C.B.R.'s interpretations are not judicial decisions and cannot bind adjudicating authorities.\n•\nCited Cases: Central Board of Revenue v. Sheikh Spinning Mills (1999).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8,19,SRO554(1)/98,13,199,84,85, ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 2153 to 2158 of 2001, decision dated: 20-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nauman Akram Raja for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nVs.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Rw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 558 = 2001 SLD 558 = 2001 PTD 3475 = (1999) 240 ITR 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Rw", + "Key Words:": "Violation of Natural Justice by Tribunal\n•\nKey Issue: Tribunal raising new issues without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal’s order violated principles of natural justice and was quashed.\n•\nPrinciple: Writ jurisdiction is maintainable despite alternate remedies if natural justice is violated.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13872 of 1998 and W.M.P. No. 21069 of 1998, decision dated: 19-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "J. KANAKARAJ AND R. R., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Natarajan for N. Inbarajan and S.Shanmugham for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "SRI BALASUBRAMANIA TRADERS\nVs.\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 559 = 2001 SLD 559 = 2001 PTD 3483 = (1999) 240 ITR 531", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6SA", + "Key Words:": "Bar on Revision of Appealed Orders\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a Commissioner can revise aspects of an order already appealed.\n•\nHeld: S.264(4)(c) bars revisions of orders made the subject of an appeal, even partially.\n•\nPrinciple: Constructive res judicata prevents piecemeal litigation.\n•\nCited Cases: Reiter Machine Works Ltd. v. CIT (1995).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.As. Nos. 780 and 921 of 1994, decision dated: 30-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BAHU AND N. V. BALASUHRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for Appellants", + "Party Name:": "REITER MACHINE WORKS LTD. and another\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 560 = 2001 SLD 560 = 2001 PTD 3488 = (1999) 240 ITR 552", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6RQ", + "Key Words:": "Loss from Wound-up Company\n•\nKey Issue: Non-recovery of a deposit as capital loss.\n•\nHeld: Loss did not arise from the transfer of a capital asset and could not be offset against capital gains.\n•\nCited Cases: Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1991).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 2118 of 1984 (Reference No. 1574 of 1984), decision dated: 28-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nR. CHIDAMBARANATHA MUDALIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Rg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 561 = 2001 SLD 561 = 2001 PTD 3493 = (1999) 240 ITR 556", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Rg", + "Key Words:": "New Source of Income in Appeals\n•\nKey Issue: Powers of appellate authorities to consider new sources of income.\n•\nHeld: AAC cannot introduce a new source of income not addressed by the assessing officer.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 400 of 1979, decision dated: 23rd September, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "AJOY NATH RAY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Pandey with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nUNION TYRES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Sw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 562 = 2001 SLD 562 = 2001 PTD 3498 = (1999) 240 ITR 579", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6Sw", + "Key Words:": "Power of Tribunal to Rectify Orders\n•\nKey Issue: Tribunal’s jurisdiction to recall and rehear an order.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal cannot recall an order entirely; rectification is limited to errors apparent on record.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. ITAT (1992).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11038 (W) of 1999, decision dated: 28-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "E. PADMANABHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "SHAW WALLACE & CO. LTD, \nVs.\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 563 = 2001 SLD 563 = 2001 PTD 3505 = (1999) 240 ITR 592", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cEV6TA", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Attachment and Registration\n•\nKey Issue: Registration of sale deeds subject to tax prohibitory orders.\n•\nHeld: Sub-Registrar can release sale deeds if transferee undertakes to deposit them with tax authorities.\n•\nPrinciple: Protects revenue interests while allowing registration processes to complete.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.Ps. Nos. 16771 and 16772 of 1993 and W.M.Ps. Nos. 26102 and 26103 of 1993, decision dated: 23rd October, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND SM. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Sampath Kumar for Sampathkumar Associates for Petitioners", + "Party Name:": "PARANJOTHI SHANMUGHAM and another\nVs.\nMOHAN BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 564 = 2001 SLD 564 = 2001 PTD 3510 = (1999) 240 ITR 597", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQw", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation - Extra-Shift Allowance\n•\nKey Issue: Whether extra-shift allowance is allowable for computers.\n•\nHeld: Computers are explicitly excluded from extra-shift allowance in depreciation rules.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Paresh S. Shah (1999).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=5 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 127 of 1989, decision dated: 9-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND. P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nUNITED COMPUTERS CERVICES (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 565 = 2001 SLD 565 = 2001 PTD 3512 = (1999) 240 ITR 599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRA", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration - Specification of Losses\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a partnership deed specifying equal profit and loss sharing among partners, including a minor, invalidates firm registration.\n•\nHeld: The term partner referred only to adult partners, and the minor was not liable for losses. A defect in Form No. 11A was curable, and registration was allowed upon rectification.\n•\nCited Cases: Mandyala Govindu & Co. v. CIT (1976), Sri Ramamohan Motor Service v. CIT (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C: No. 652 of 1983 (Reference No. 353 of 1983), decision dated: 16-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "P. SHANMUGAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nTAMIL PUT HAKALAYAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 566 = 2001 SLD 566 = 2001 PTD 3520 = (1999) 240 ITR 617", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQQ", + "Key Words:": "Revision Powers and Interest under S.234B\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the CIT can revise interest levied under S.234B after appellate decisions.\n•\nHeld: Interest is part of the assessment order, and revision under S.264 is barred if the assessment has been appealed.\n•\nPrinciple: Revision cannot override appellate decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 25695 of 1998-H, decision dated: 22-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND B. PRAKASH RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.M. Sreedharan and N. Unnikrishnan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "G. K. NAIR\nVs.\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 567 = 2001 SLD 567 = 2001 PTD 3522 = (1999) 240 ITR 852", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYQg", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment - Piecemeal Proceedings\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of re-assessment on the same facts multiple times.\n•\nHeld: Fresh notice for re-assessment based on the same material was invalid, violating finality principles.\n•\nPrinciple: Re-assessment proceedings cannot be initiated piecemeal.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8196 of 1988, decision dated: 16-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF ARID SM. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Dwarakanath for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "ANAND SAMRAT & CO.\nVs.\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 568 = 2001 SLD 568 = 2001 PTD 3524 = (1999) 240 ITR 762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRw", + "Key Words:": "Excessive Interest - Commercial Considerations\n•\nKey Issue: Disallowance of excessive interest paid on borrowed capital for non-commercial reasons.\n•\nHeld: Only interest justified by commercial necessity is deductible. Excess amounts paid for non-commercial considerations are disallowed.\n•\nCited Cases: Dharamvir Dhir v. CIT (1961).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1987, decision dated: 13-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with P. S. Jetley for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nHINDUSTAN CONDUCTORS (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 569 = 2001 SLD 569 = 2001 PTD 3533 = (1999) 240 ITR 773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSA", + "Key Words:": "Clubbing of Spousal Income\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a spouse's income from employment is includible in the assessee's income under S.64(1)(ii).\n•\nHeld: Spouse’s income was not includible as it resulted from genuine services rendered and experience in the business.\n•\nPrinciple: Bona fide employment with professional or technical qualifications prevents income clubbing.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1211 and 1212 of 1998 (References Nos. 955 and 956 of 1998), decision dated: 13-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SHIVRAJ V. PATIL, C.J. AND V.S. KOKJE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 570 = 2001 SLD 570 = 2001 PTD 3538 = (1999) 240 ITR 778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRQ", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nKey Issue: Imposition of penalty when income was added on estimation.\n•\nHeld: Penalty was canceled as the addition was based on estimates, and there was no concealment.\n•\nPrinciple: Penalty requires clear evidence of income concealment.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 23 of 1995. decided on 26th March 1999", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nS. RAHAMA F KHAN BIRBALKHAN BADRUDDIN AND PARTY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 571 = 2001 SLD 571 = 2001 PTD 3542 = (1999) 240 ITR 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYRg", + "Key Words:": "Annual Letting Value Determination\n•\nKey Issue: Declining annual letting value declared by the assessee.\n•\nHeld: Assessing Officer was correct to adopt the value declared by the assessee for 1983-84, as subsequent lower declarations were unsupported.\n•\nPrinciple: Annual letting value should reflect consistent trends unless justified.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 24, 25 and 26 of 1997, decision dated: 16-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND D. K. DESHMUKH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nJOHNY JOSEPH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 572 = 2001 SLD 572 = 2001 PTD 3545 = (1999) 240 ITR 688", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYSw", + "Key Words:": "Quashing Re-assessment Notices\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of re-assessment notice after ten years with no response from the revenue.\n•\nHeld: Notice quashed due to lack of counter-affidavits and non-appearance of the revenue.\n•\nPrinciple: Revenue must substantiate the basis for re-assessment when challenged.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5034 of 1990, decision dated: 31st August, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "M. S., JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.J. Pardiwala instructed by Rustamji and Ginwala for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SABLE WAGHIRE TRUST and another\nVs\nS.R. ACHYUTA RAO and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 573 = 2001 SLD 573 = 2001 PTD 3549 = (1999) 240 ITR 908", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVYTA", + "Key Words:": "Driver's Salary in Motor Car Maintenance\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a driver’s salary qualifies as car maintenance expense under S.37(3A).\n•\nHeld: Driver’s salary is classified as wages and not maintenance expense.\n•\nPrinciple: Salaries are distinct from maintenance costs.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petition No. 576 of 1997, decision dated: 15-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkatarman for the Commissioner. Mrs. Asha Vijayaraghavan for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanab", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSHOLINGER TEXTILES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 574 = 2001 SLD 574 = 2001 PTD 3552 = (1999) 240 ITR 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQw", + "Key Words:": "Technical Qualification in Spousal Income Exclusion\n•\nKey Issue: Interpretation of technical or professional qualification for spousal income exclusion.\n•\nHeld: Skills and experience qualify as technical qualifications. Spousal salary was not includible in the assessee's income.\n•\nCited Cases: Batta Kalyani v. CIT (1985), Dr. J.M. Mokashi v. CIT (1994).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 864 of 1987 (Reference No.567 of 1987), decision dated: 10-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "Y. VENKATACHALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Philip George for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nSmt. R. BHARATHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 575 = 2001 SLD 575 = 2001 PTD 3557 = (1999) 240 ITR 648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURA", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Interest Without Opportunity\n•\nKey Issue: Levy of interest without giving the assessee a hearing.\n•\nHeld: The matter was remanded for a fresh decision with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.\n•\nPrinciple: Interest levies must follow natural justice.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. P. No. 9043 and W. M. P. No. 12960 of 1989, decision dated: 17-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for PetitionerS.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ORIENTAL HOTELS LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 576 = 2001 SLD 576 = 2001 PTD 3560 = (1999) 240 ITR 702", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQQ", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Powers to Admit New Grounds\n•\nKey Issue: Tribunal allowing a new ground regarding the treatment of grants as capital receipts.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal acted within jurisdiction, as the new ground was linked to depreciation computation.\n•\nPrinciple: Tribunal can admit new grounds that directly impact adjudicated issues.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.887 of, 1987 (Reference No.590 of 1987), decision dated: 18-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarathana Raja for the Assessee C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RAVI LEATHERS (P.) LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 577 = 2001 SLD 577 = 2001 PTD 3566 = (1999) 240 ITR 707", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUQg", + "Key Words:": "Validity of S.201 on TDS Defaults\n•\nKey Issue: Constitutionality of S.201 penalizing TDS defaults.\n•\nHeld: S.201 is valid and provides sufficient safeguards for taxpayers.\n•\nPrinciple: Penal provisions with due process are constitutional.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 32477 to 32481 of 1995, decision dated: 16-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajesh Chander Kumar for Petitioner. M.V. Seshachala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MITTAL STEEL LTD.\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 578 = 2001 SLD 578 = 2001 PTD 3569 = (1999) 240 ITR 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURw", + "Key Words:": "Stock Valuation on Firm Dissolution\n•\nKey Issue: Valuation of stock at market price on dissolution due to a partner's death.\n•\nHeld: Stock must be valued at market price as on the dissolution date.\n•\nCited Cases: A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 947 of 1992 (Reference No. 493 of 1992), decision dated: 1st December, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "CHOUDHARY S. N. MISHRA AND ANIL KUMAR SINHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nPARANJOTHI NADAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 579 = 2001 SLD 579 = 2001 PTD 3573 = (1999) 240 ITR 728", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSA", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment for Non-Existent Assets\n•\nKey Issue: Reopening assessments based on false asset claims.\n•\nHeld: Valid reassessment as underassessment resulted from the assessee's failure to disclose true facts.\n•\nCited Cases: Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.J.C. No. 1893 of 1999(R), decision dated: 26-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debi Pal and M.S. Mittal for Petitioners. K.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "USHA BELTRON LTD. and another\nVs\nJOINT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 580 = 2001 SLD 580 = 2001 PTD 3584 = (1999) 240 ITR 740", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURQ", + "Key Words:": "TDS on Gross vs. Net Interest\n•\nKey Issue: Whether TDS should be deducted on gross or net interest after set-off.\n•\nHeld: TDS must be deducted on gross interest.\n•\nPrinciple: Statutory TDS obligations apply to gross income.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 405 of 1982, decision dated: 27-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "Y. R. MEENA AND R. K. MAZUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Ms. Maya J. Niclanui for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nS.K. SUNDARARAMIER & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 581 = 2001 SLD 581 = 2001 PTD 3593 = (1999) 240 ITR 889", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVURg", + "Key Words:": "BOI Status for Inherited Business\n•\nKey Issue: Status of income from a business inherited by a widow for heirs.\n•\nHeld: Income assessable as Body of Individuals (BOI).\n•\nCited Cases: Meera & Co. v. CIT (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 107 of 1992, decision dated: 23rd August, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSm. RENUKA GANGULY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 582 = 2001 SLD 582 = 2001 PTD 3596 = (1999) 240 ITR 748", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUSw", + "Key Words:": "Constitutionality of Additional Tax under S.143(IA)\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of additional tax provisions for inaccurate returns.\n•\nHeld: S.143(IA) is valid as it ensures compliance without discrimination.\n•\nCited Cases: Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India (1994).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7231 and W.M.P. No.11090 of 1991. decided on 10-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Philip, George for PetitionerMrs. Chitra Venkataraman for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "STERLING COMPUTERS LTD.\nVs.\nUNION OF INDIA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 583 = 2001 SLD 583 = 2001 PTD 3598 = (1999) 240 ITR 758", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVUTA", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Loans in Amalgamation\n•\nKey Issue: Whether debenture interest qualifies as a deposit under S.40A(8).\n•\nHeld: Interest paid was not a deposit and thus not disallowed under S.40A(8).\n•\nPrinciple: Amalgamation transactions are distinct from regular deposits.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T.Rs. Nos. 127 of 1995, 135 and 136 of 1996, decision dated: 16-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND MRS. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate. N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P. Balachandran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nCOMMONWEALTH TRUST INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 584 = 2001 SLD 584 = 2001 PTD 3602 = (1999) 240 ITR 624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQw", + "Key Words:": "Travel Expenses Exclusions under R.6D\n•\nKey Issue: Whether miscellaneous and conveyance expenses qualify as travel expenses under R.6D.\n•\nHeld: Such expenses are not travel expenses and are excluded from R.6D computations.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 144 of 1989, decision dated: 26-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner. S.M. Lala for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nCHEMET" + }, + { + "Case No.": "921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 585 = 2001 SLD 585 = 2001 PTD 3604 = (1999) 240 ITR 625", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRA", + "Key Words:": "Subsidy in Film Production - Revenue or Capital Receipt\n•\nKey Issue: Whether cash subsidy received post-certification of a film is a capital or revenue receipt.\n•\nHeld: The subsidy was a supplementary trade receipt, taxable as revenue income, as it was paid after production for encouraging production in Andhra Pradesh.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Chitra Kalpa (1989), Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 1235 of 1985 (Reference No.741 of 1985), decision dated: 15-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASINAHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JAGAPATHY ART PICTURES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 586 = 2001 SLD 586 = 2001 PTD 3607 = (2000) 241 ITR 187 = (2000) 82 TAX 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQQ", + "Key Words:": "Balancing Charge and Sale in Firm Dissolution\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of the excess value of assets distributed during firm dissolution.\n•\nHeld: Adjustment of mutual rights among partners does not constitute a sale under S.41(2). Excess value of buses allotted was not taxable as balancing charge.\n•\nCited Cases: Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (1979), CIT v. Dewas Cine Corporation (1968).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 648 of 1984 (Reference No. 574 of 1984), decision dated: 13-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "V .K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Aparna Nandakumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs.\nPALANIAPPA TRANSPORT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 587 = 2001 SLD 587 = 2001 PTD 3610 = (2000) 82 TAX 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmQg", + "Key Words:": "Garnishee Proceedings and Fixed Deposits\n•\nKey Issue: Attachment of fixed deposits under garnishee proceedings.\n•\nHeld: Fixed deposits can be attached as they establish a debtor-creditor relationship from the time of issuance.\n•\nCited Cases: Adam (K.M.) v. ITO (1958), Buddha Pictures v. Fourth ITO (1964).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 34820, 34919, 34920, 35026 and 35027 of 1998, decision dated: 2-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. Khetty for Petitioners and E.R. Indra Kumar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "VYSYA BANK LTD. and another\nvs\nJOINT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 588 = 2001 SLD 588 = 2001 PTD 3618 = (2000) 241 ITR 186 = (2000) 82 TAX 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRw", + "Key Words:": "Compensation and Interest as Revenue Receipts\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of compensation for non-supply of tippers and delayed payments.\n•\nHeld: Compensation and interest were revenue receipts as they pertained to the contractor’s work.\n•\nPrinciple: Receipts directly linked to business activities are taxable as revenue income.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case. No. 1616 of 1986 (Reference No. 1086 of 1986), decision dated: 2-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "K.S. KRISHNAMURTHY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 589 = 2000 SLD 589 = 2000 PTD 1784 = (1998) 234 ITR 503", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSA", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income in Disputed Claims\n•\nKey Issue: Whether disputed claims against the State accrued as income.\n•\nHeld: Disputed claims did not accrue as income until acceptance or adjudication.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Gajapathy Naidu (1964).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.751 and 752 of 1982 (References Nos.488 and 489 of 1982), decision dated: 8-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": "ARJIT PASAYAT, C.J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPIONEER ENGINEERING SYNDICATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 590 = 2001 SLD 590 = 2001 PTD 3620 = (2000) 241 ITR 175 = (2000) 82 TAX 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRQ", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Interest on Established Loans\n•\nKey Issue: Legitimacy of disallowing interest on longstanding loans.\n•\nHeld: Interest on genuine loans accepted in prior years cannot be disallowed.\n•\nPrinciple: Continuity of treatment in earlier assessments matters.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 16428 of 1999-S, decision dated: 4-10-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and George K. George for Petitioner. S. Ananthakrishnan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nP.K. NARAYANAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 591 = 2001 SLD 591 = 2001 PTD 3622 = (2000) 241 ITR 172 = (2000) 82 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmRg", + "Key Words:": "Profession vs. Business - Tax Rates\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a clearing and shipping agency qualifies as a profession for lower tax rates.\n•\nHeld: Such activities are not professions as they lack intellectual and specialized skill requirements.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Jivanlal Lalloobhai & Co. (1994).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 2091 to 2094 of 1984 (References Nos. 1549 to 1552 of 1984), decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nINTERNATIONAL CLEARING AND SHIPPING AGENCY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 592 = 2001 SLD 592 = 2001 PTD 3625 = (2000) 241 ITR 152 = (2000) 82 TAX 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmSw", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Delayed Writ Petitions\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of re-assessment notices issued by a new jurisdictional officer.\n•\nHeld: Notices were valid as jurisdiction followed the taxpayer’s shifted residence. Delayed petitions were dismissed.\n•\nCited Cases: Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India (1956).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.P. Nos. 3710, 2983 of 1997, Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 7138 and 5877 of 1998, decision dated: 30-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA AND LOKNATH PRASAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.S. Aggarwal with Salil Aggarwal and Anil Sharma for Petitioners. Sanjeev Khanna with Ms. Premlata Bansal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "K.K. LOOMBA and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 593 = 2001 SLD 593 = 2001 PTD 3636 = (2000) 241 ITR 148 = (2000) 82 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVmTA", + "Key Words:": "Existence of Genuine Firm\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a firm was genuinely operational.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal’s factual finding that no genuine firm existed precluded legal questions.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Agra Wines (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No.2 of 1997(R), decision dated: 26-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ARJIT PASAYAT, C.J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Binod Poddar and Pradeep Modi for Petitioner. K.K. Vidhyarthi and K.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MUNSHI HUSSAIN\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 594 = 2001 SLD 594 = 2001 PTD 3640 = (2000) 241 ITR 168 = (2000) 82 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQw", + "Key Words:": "Carry Forward of Losses and Timely Returns\n•\nKey Issue: Whether late-filed loss returns can be carried forward.\n•\nHeld: Losses cannot be carried forward if returns are filed after the prescribed deadline under S.80.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Manmohan Das (1966).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 37 of 1997, decision dated: 25-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R.K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSmt. GUNAVATHY DHARMASY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 595 = 2001 SLD 595 = 2001 PTD 3644 = (2000) 241 ITR 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRA", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Pre-Business Borrowings\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of interest earned from pre-business investments.\n•\nHeld: Such interest is taxable as income from other sources. \n•\nCited Cases: Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.295 of 1983, decision dated: 16-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir Joshi with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nPETROFILS COOPERATIVE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 596 = 2001 SLD 596 = 2001 PTD 3646 = (2000) 241 ITR 137 = (2000) 82 TAX 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQQ", + "Key Words:": "Labour Welfare and Deductible Expenses\n•\nKey Issue: Deductibility of interest and welfare-related expenses.\n•\nHeld: Labour welfare contributions and interest paid for nationalization compensation are deductible as business expenses.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (1990).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 141 of 1988 (Reference No.80 of 1988), decision dated: 2-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCHERAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 597 = 2001 SLD 597 = 2001 PTD 3649 = (2000) 241 ITR 166 = (2000) 82 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViQg", + "Key Words:": "Business Loss Without Final Product Sale\n•\nKey Issue: Loss computation when no sale of final product occurred.\n•\nHeld: Losses from failed production are deductible as business had commenced.\n•\nCited Cases: CWT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (1967).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1909 of 1984 (Reference No. 1392 of 1984), decision dated: 17-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "G. C. GARG AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the CommissionerR. Gangadharan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nELECTRON INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 598 = 2001 SLD 598 = 2001 PTD 3654 = (2000) 241 ITR 126 = (2000) 82 TAX 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRw", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Travel Expense Ceilings\n•\nKey Issue: Computation of ceilings for employee travel expenses and depreciation on technical know-how.\n•\nHeld: Travel expenses must be computed per trip, and depreciation on capitalized know-how is allowable.\n•\nCited Cases: Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. CIT (1989).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=3,6,6D,3(c)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 32 of 1983, decision dated: 30-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J., J.B. KOSHY AND S. MARIMUTHU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Swahney, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner. Santosh K. Aggarwal, Viney Vash and A.C. Jain for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nPORRITTS & SPENCER (ASIA) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 599 = 2001 SLD 599 = 2001 PTD 3659 = (2000) 241 ITR 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSA", + "Key Words:": "Theatre Building as Plant\n•\nKey Issue: Classification of a theatre building for depreciation purposes.\n•\nHeld: Theatre buildings qualify as plant and are eligible for higher depreciation rates.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Hotel Luciya (1998).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.85 of 1996, decision dated: 11-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "P. VINKATARAMA REDDI AND A. HANUMANTHU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. Pathrose Mathai for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nANAND THEATRES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 600 = 2001 SLD 600 = 2001 PTD 3660 = (2000) 241 ITR 107 = (2000) 82 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRQ", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital for Partner Obligations\n•\nKey Issue: Deductibility of interest on loans taken to settle firm obligations.\n•\nHeld: Interest is not deductible as loans were not linked to income-generating activities.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) (distinguished).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.46 of 1995, 2 of 1906 and 23 of 1999, decision dated: 8-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kodandaram for the Petitioners. S.R. Ashok for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "K. MAMA MOHAN RAO and 2 others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 601 = 2001 SLD 601 = 2001 PTD 3664 = (2000) 241 ITR 76 = (2000) 82 TAX 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViRg", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts Without Specified Purposes\n•\nKey Issue: Exemption eligibility for a trust without specified charitable purposes.\n•\nHeld: The trust was ineligible as income use was unspecified in the deed.\n•\nCited Cases: Gangabai Charities v. CIT (1992).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.854 of 1985 (Reference No.435 of 1985), decision dated: 24-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "ASSEMBLY ROOMS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 602 = 2001 SLD 602 = 2001 PTD 3670 = (2000) 241 ITR 273 = (2000) 82 TAX 331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViSw", + "Key Words:": "Hotel Building as Plant\n•\nKey Issue: Depreciation rate for a hotel building.\n•\nHeld: Hotels qualify as plant and are eligible for higher depreciation.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel (1971).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.37 of 1989, decision dated: 15-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nHOTEL ENTERPRISES. CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 603 = 2001 SLD 603 = 2001 PTD 3672 = (2000) 241 ITR 284 = (2000) 82 TAX 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFViTA", + "Key Words:": "Writ Jurisdiction and Salary TDS\n•\nKey Issue: Use of writ petitions to dispute TDS on salary allowances.\n•\nHeld: Such disputes should be resolved under the Income Tax Act, not through writ petitions.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of India=226 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 198 of 1997, decision dated: 16-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND B. PRAKASH RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for Petitioners. S.K. Mukherjee for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. V.K. Tankha for Respondent No. 5.", + "Party Name:": "B. CHOUDHRY and others\nVs.\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 604 = 2001 SLD 604 = 2001 PTD 3674 = (2000) 241 ITR 287 = (2000) 82 TAX 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQw", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme - Tax Refund\n•\nKey Issue: Refundability of tax paid under an invalid declaration.\n•\nHeld: Revenue must refund or adjust tax if the declaration is void under the scheme.\n•\nCited Cases: Shankarlal v. ITO (1998).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Writ PetitionNo.13506 of 1999, decision dated: 8-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ravi for Petitioner. J.V. Prasad for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PATCHALA SEETHARAMAIAH\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 605 = 2001 SLD 605 = 2001 PTD 3678 = (2000) 241 ITR 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRA", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Investment Allowance\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nCalculation of extra-shift allowance.\no\nEligibility for investment allowance.\n•\nHeld:\no\nExtra-shift allowance is based on the actual days the concern operates double or triple shifts, not machinery use alone.\no\nAssessee not entitled to investment allowance as it was not manufacturing articles.\n•\nCited Cases: South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1997), CIT v. United Bleachers Ltd. (2000).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.654 of 1985 (Reference No.354 of 1985), decision dated: 24-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Balasubrmanian for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "UNITED BLEACHERS LTD.\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (No.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 606 = 2001 SLD 606 = 2001 PTD 3680 = (2000) 241 ITR 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQQ", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration and Inclusion of Other Income\n•\nKey Issue: Refusal to renew firm registration due to inclusion of another firm's income.\n•\nHeld: Inclusion of another firm's income does not affect registration if partners and profit-sharing ratios remain unchanged.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Nitya Nand Devkinandan (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1449 to 1451 of 1986 (References Nos.928 to 930 of 1986), on 27-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nRAMRAJ FINANCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 607 = 2001 SLD 607 = 2001 PTD 3683 = (2000) 241 ITR 305 = (2000) 82 TAX 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIQg", + "Key Words:": "Powers of High Court in Tax References\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the High Court can frame new questions in tax references.\n•\nHeld: High Court cannot raise new questions not addressed by the Tribunal; must adhere to findings of fact.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.83 of 1995, decision dated: 13-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "S. SANKARASUBBAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly and Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner. C.S. Aggarwal, Salil Aggarwal and Partap Srivastava for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nPEACOCK CHEMICALS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 608 = 2001 SLD 608 = 2001 PTD 3686 = (2000) 241 ITR 333 = (2000) 82 TAX 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRw", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal and Full Bench Decision\n•\nKey Issue: Tribunal's obligation to follow Full Bench decisions in unrelated cases.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal must adhere to earlier High Court decisions in the same case, even if a subsequent Full Bench ruling exists.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Hotel Luciya (1998).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No.4134 of 1999, decision dated: 25-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.G.K. Wariyar, P. Balakrishnan and K.S. Menon for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "SASIDHARA SHENOY & BROS.\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT) and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 609 = 2001 SLD 609 = 2001 PTD 3691 = (2000) 241 ITR 327 = (2000) 82 TAX 356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISA", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Delayed Returns\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a registered firm is liable for interest under S.139(8) if advance tax covers assessed tax.\n•\nHeld: Interest is compensatory. No interest is chargeable if advance tax covers the entire assessed tax.\n•\nCited Cases: Ganesh Dass Sreeram v. ITO (1988).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.846 of 1986 (Reference No.543 of 1986), decision dated: 18-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "RAJOO BROTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 610 = 2001 SLD 610 = 2001 PTD 3693 = (2000) 241 ITR 337 = (2000) 82 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRQ", + "Key Words:": "Set-Off of Losses Across Activities\n•\nKey Issue: Treatment of losses from separate activities under a single business.\n•\nHeld: Studio and hospital activities were a single business due to common accounts, finance, and control. Losses were set off.\n•\nCited Cases: B.R. Ltd. v. V.P. Gupta, CIT (1978).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1121 of 1984 (Reference No.978 of 1984), decision dated: 31st August, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "KANAKARAJ AND K. NATARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. M. Uttam Reddy for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nVIJAYA PRODUCTIONS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 611 = 2001 SLD 611 = 2001 PTD 3696 = (2000) 241 ITR 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVIRg", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Reassessment\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDeductibility of surtax and exchange rate losses.\no\nReassessment based on audit party's findings.\n•\nHeld:\no\nSurtax is not deductible. Exchange rate differences are capital expenses.\no\nAudit observations constitute information for reopening assessments.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Elgi Rubber Products Ltd. (1996).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases .Nos.709 and 710 of 1982 (References Nos.447 and 448 of 1982), decision dated: 10-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND D.K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Janakiraman for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "KUNAL ENGINEERING CO. LTD, \nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 612 = 2001 SLD 612 = 2001 PTD 3701 = (2000) 241 ITR 656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVISw", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Tax at Source\n•\nKey Issue: Liability for failing to deduct tax on salaries paid outside India.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal upheld deletion of penal interest due to bona fide belief that such salaries were non-taxable.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 31 of 1998, decision dated: 16-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata. Bansal for the Commissioner. A.K. Mata for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nAIR FRANCE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 613 = 2001 SLD 613 = 2001 PTD 3703 = (2000) 241 ITR 645", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVITA", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure Limits and Gratuity\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLimits on director remuneration and gratuity deductibility.\n•\nHeld:\no\nGratuity and insurance premium payments were not subject to limits under S.40(c). Gratuity paid post-amalgamation was deductible.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. (1994).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 398 of 1986 (Reference No. 246 of 1986), decision dated: 24-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nFENNER (INDIA) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 614 = 2001 SLD 614 = 2001 PTD 3715 = (2000) 241 ITR 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQw", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance in Hotel Business\n•\nKey Issue: Eligibility of hotel equipment for investment allowance.\n•\nHeld: Hotels are service industries, not industrial undertakings. Machinery in hotels does not qualify for investment allowance.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Buhari Sons (P.) Ltd. (1983).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1365 of 1987 (Reference No.873 of 1987), decision dated: 23rd April, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Philip George for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "ADAYAR GATE HOTELS LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER. OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 615 = 2001 SLD 615 = 2001 PTD 3720 = (2000) 241 ITR 665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERA", + "Key Words:": "Revision After Reassessment\n•\nKey Issue: Can original assessments be revised after reassessment?\n•\nHeld: Reassessment does not nullify the original assessment. CIT may revise original orders if erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.78 of 1994, decision dated: 14-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "B.A. KHAN AND SHAMBHOO SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKANUBHAI ENGINEERS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 616 = 2001 SLD 616 = 2001 PTD 3724 = (2000) 241 ITR 558 = (2000) 82 TAX 513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQQ", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure on Advertisement\n•\nKey Issue: Allowability of advertisement expenses incurred by sub-agents.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal to examine whether expenses were incurred wholly for business purposes.\n•\nCited Cases: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.68 of 1997, decision dated: 12-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. K. SODHI AND N. K. SUD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaphekar for the Assessee. Pawnekar for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "PINKY AGENCIES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 617 = 2001 SLD 617 = 2001 PTD 3726 = (2000) 241 ITR 567", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVEQg", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Delay\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme with delayed tax payment.\n•\nHeld: Delay, even by one day, invalidates the declaration. Commissioner has no power to condone delays.\n•\nCited Cases: Smt. Laxmi Mittal v. CIT (1999) (dissented).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1887 and 2195 of 1999, decision dated: 26-10-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALOSUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harpawan Kumar for Petitioner. R.P.Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Bendal for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "KAMAL SOOD\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 618 = 2001 SLD 618 = 2001 PTD 3730 = (2000) 241 ITR 564", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERw", + "Key Words:": "Bonus Payments Under Settlement\n•\nKey Issue: Deductibility of bonus exceeding statutory limits under a labor settlement.\n•\nHeld: Additional bonus paid under commercial expediency is deductible under S.37.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. (1999).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1146 of 1985 (Reference No.653 of 1985), decision dated: 4-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "KUMARAN MILLS LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 619 = 2001 SLD 619 = 2001 PTD 3734 = (2000) 241 ITR 560 = (2000) 82 TAX 601", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESA", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Mortgage Payments\n•\nKey Issue: Whether amounts paid for discharging mortgages are deductible for capital gains computation.\n•\nHeld: Mortgage payments are not deductible as they are not expenses wholly for the transfer.\n•\nCited Cases: RM. Arunchalam v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 170 of 1990 (Reference No.93 of 1990), decision dated: 13-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "P.J. EAPEN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 620 = 2001 SLD 620 = 2001 PTD 3737 = (2000) 241 ITR 572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERQ", + "Key Words:": "Rental Income and Annual Value\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of rental income for less than a year.\n•\nHeld: Income from a newly constructed property for part of the year is taxable as income from other sources. \n•\nCited Cases: Emil Webber v. CIT (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 168 of 1995, decision dated: 30-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair and M.C. Madhavan for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "P.J. EAPEN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 621 = 2001 SLD 621 = 2001 PTD 3744 = (2000) 241 ITR 593", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVERg", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Cost of Acquisition\n•\nKey Issue: Determination of cost of acquisition for property received on share capital reduction.\n•\nHeld: Cost of acquisition is the reduction in share capital, not the property's market value.\n•\nCited Cases: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1086 of 1981 (Reference No.578 of 1981), decision dated: 13-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SATYABRATA SINHA AND DEBI PRASAD SIRCARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Ramakrishnan for T. Raghavan for the Assessee. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "S. RANGARAJAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 622 = 2001 SLD 622 = 2001 PTD 3747 = (2000) 241 ITR 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVESw", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Before Registration of Conveyance\n•\nKey Issue: Entitlement to depreciation before registration of assets.\n•\nHeld: Assessee is entitled to depreciation from the effective date of asset transfer, even before conveyance deed registration.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 124 of 1995. decided on 15-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SATYABRATA SINHA AND DEBI PRASAD SIRCARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Khaitan and Anil Chowdhury for the Assessee. P.K. Mallick and J.C. Saha for the Commissioner.\nJ.P. Khaitan and Anil Chowdhury for the Assessee. P.K. Mallick and J.C. Saha for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "LEDO TEA CO. LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LEDO TEA CO. LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 623 = 2001 SLD 623 = 2001 PTD 3759 = (2000) 241 ITR 658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVETA", + "Key Words:": "Stock Valuation in Firm Formation\n•\nKey Issue: Valuation of stock-in-trade transferred from a proprietorship to a firm.\n•\nHeld: Stock should be valued at cost price unless market price is lower.\n•\nCited Cases: A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1464 of 1985 (Reference No. 930 of 1985), decision dated: 16-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nR. VENKATACHARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 624 = 2001 SLD 624 = 2001 PTD 3762 = (2000) 241 ITR 636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQw", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Disclosure of Material Facts\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of reassessment due to alleged non-disclosure of material facts.\n•\nHeld: Reassessment is invalid if all primary facts were disclosed in the original assessment.\n•\nCited Cases: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Appeal No. 186 of 1996 in C.R. No. 1278 of 1989, decision dated: 20-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "BRIJESH KUMAR, C.J. AND D. N. CHOWDHURY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi, U. Bhuyan and U. Chakravarty for Appellants. R. Gogoi, S. Saikia and A. Dutta for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT) and others\nvs\nNAGINIMARA VENEER AND SAW MILLS (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 625 = 2001 SLD 625 = 2001 PTD 3771 = (2000) 241 ITR 626", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRA", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Loan Repayment\n•\nKey Issue: Deductibility of loan repayment in computing capital gains.\n•\nHeld: Loan repayment is not considered an expense incurred wholly and exclusively for the transfer of property and is thus not deductible under S.48.\n•\nCited Cases: Rm. Arunchalam v. CIT (1997), V.S.M.R. Jagadishchandran v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 141 of 1996, decision dated: 30-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair and M.C. Madhavan for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nS.R.V. PRESS AND PUBLICATIONS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 626 = 2001 SLD 626 = 2001 PTD 3776 = (2000) 241 ITR 537 = (2000) 82 TAX 503", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQQ", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Capital Gains\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDepreciation cannot be allowed without a claim and necessary particulars.\no\nWithdrawal of unclaimed depreciation affects capital gains computation.\n•\nHeld: Depreciation should not be allowed without evidence; capital gains are recalculated using the original cost or adjusted written down value.\n•\nCited Cases: Ascharajlal Ram Parkash v. CIT (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=5,5AA ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 108 of 1993, decision dated: 8-07-1999", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R MEENA AND RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.P. Agarwal and Nizam-ud-Din for the Commissioner. Dr.D. Pal, Senior Advocate and R.K. Biswas for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nJ.K. INDUSTRIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 627 = 2001 SLD 627 = 2001 PTD 3782 = (2000) 241 ITR 431 = (2001) 83 TAX 92 = 2002 PTD 1220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQQg", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts and Corpus Donations\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of income from assigned copyrights used as corpus for charitable purposes.\n•\nHeld: Monies assigned for trust corpus and used for charitable purposes are not taxable as income. The trust was not engaged in business.\n•\nCited Cases: None specifically applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.292 to 294 of 1986, decision dated: 15-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Uttan Reddy for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nNAGI REDDI CHARITIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 628 = 2001 SLD 628 = 2001 PTD 3788 = (2000) 241 ITR 546 = (2000) 82 TAX 509", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRw", + "Key Words:": "Non-Resident Consultancy Fees\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of consultancy fees for field studies in India and reports prepared abroad.\n•\nHeld: The taxability of such fees under S.9 is a question of law and requires further examination.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 268 of 1993 -decided on 9-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "B.A. KHAN AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. K. Pawnekar for the Commissioner. G.M. Chaphekar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nJAKKO POYRY ENQINEERING" + }, + { + "Case No.": "965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 629 = 2001 SLD 629 = 2001 PTD 3790 = (2000) 241 ITR 548 = (2000) 82 TAX 614", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSA", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Change in Accounting Year\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of restricting depreciation after a change in accounting year.\no\nNo estoppel against statutory provisions.\n•\nHeld: Depreciation must be calculated for the entire 15-month period after the change in accounting year. Invalid conditions can be challenged.\n•\nCited Cases: J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. O.S. Bajpai, ITO (1976).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1071 of 1985, decision dated: 27-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nD.P.F. TEXTILES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 630 = 2001 SLD 630 = 2001 PTD 3796 = (2000) 241 ITR 554", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRQ", + "Key Words:": "Firm Dissolution and Partner's Death\n•\nKey Issue: Tax treatment of a firm after a partner's death.\n•\nHeld: Death of a partner dissolves the firm; a new firm is treated separately for tax purposes.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 129 of 1985 (Reference No.804 of 1985), decision dated: 21st September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHANALAKSHMI FINANCE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 631 = 2001 SLD 631 = 2001 PTD 3798 = (2000) 241 ITR 556 = (2000) 82 TAX 511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQRg", + "Key Words:": "Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure\n•\nKey Issue: Nature of expenses on replacement of machinery components.\n•\nHeld: Replacement costs that do not enhance machinery capacity are revenue expenditures.\n•\nCited Cases: Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.18 of 1999, decision dated: 18-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR ANAL D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly with Ajay K. Jha for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF TNCOMETAX\nVs\nJAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 632 = 2001 SLD 632 = 2001 PTD 3800 = (2000) 241 ITR 636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQSw", + "Key Words:": "Association of Persons (AOP)\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of lottery prize winnings shared by a group.\n•\nHeld: The prize money is taxable as income of an AOP since it was a joint venture with an income-earning objective.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. A.U. Chandrasekharan (1998).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "1996 (Reference No.90 of 1996), decision dated: 23rd", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo of the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nGEORGE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 633 = 2001 SLD 633 = 2001 PTD 3802 = (2000) 241 ITR 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVQTA", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Rules and Applicability of Amendments\n•\nKey Issue: Whether depreciation rates in amended rules apply retrospectively.\n•\nHeld: Law applicable is the one in force at the start of the assessment year. Amendments effective post-commencement do not apply retroactively.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.801, 802 and 923 of 1992 (References Nos.365, 366 and 470 of 1992), decision dated: 23rd April, 1998.", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for T.K. Ramkumar for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "AYYAPPAN TEXTILES LTD. and 2 others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME, TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 634 = 2001 SLD 634 = 2001 PTD 3803 = (2000) 241 ITR 984", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQw", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Provision and Business Expenditure\n•\nKey Issue: Deductibility of gratuity provision under mercantile accounting.\n•\nHeld: Gratuity liability computed on an actuarial basis is allowable as business expenditure.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. (1985).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.58 of 1979, decision dated: 7-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND I3. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Pandey with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner. S.K. Aggarwal for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nRAJDEV SINGH & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 635 = 2001 SLD 635 = 2001 PTD 3805 = (2000) 241 ITR 778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRA", + "Key Words:": "Surtax and Advertisement Expenses\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDeductibility of surtax as business expenditure.\no\nApplicability of S.37(2B) to advertisement expenses.\n•\nHeld: Surtax is not deductible. Advertisement expenses incurred before April 1, 1979, but assessed under S.37(2B), are disallowed.\n•\nCited Cases: Smith Kline & French (I) Ltd. v. CIT (1996).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.2083 and 2084 of 1984 (References Nos. 1541 and 1542 of 1984), decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUPRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Raviraja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "TEA ESTATE INDIA LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 636 = 2001 SLD 636 = 2001 PTD 3808 = (2000) 241 ITR 733", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQQ", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Investment Allowance\n•\nKey Issue: Whether rectification under S.154 can withdraw an investment allowance.\n•\nHeld: Withdrawal of investment allowance under S.154 raises a debatable question of law.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.92 of 1998, decision dated: 27-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND B.A. KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pawnekar for the Commissioner Goyal for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMAHAVEER DRILLING CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 637 = 2001 SLD 637 = 2001 PTD 3821 = (2000) 241 ITR 793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMQg", + "Key Words:": "Notice to Legal Representatives\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of assessment without notice to all legal representatives of a deceased assessee.\n•\nHeld: Non-service of notice to all legal representatives raises a question of law regarding assessment validity.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case 96.35 of 1984, decision dated: 27-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "G. C. GARG AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nNARINDER KUMAR (Legal Heir of Roshan Lal deceased)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 638 = 2001 SLD 638 = 2001 PTD 3822 = (2000) 241 ITR 790", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRw", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Agricultural Land\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of agricultural land sale proceeds within municipal limits.\n•\nHeld: Assessment must be redone to determine the location of the land before applying capital gains tax.\n•\nCited Cases: Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.124 and 125 of 1988 (References Nos.63 and 64 of 1988), decision dated: 3rd April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "S., JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Sivaraman for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.H. Aravindh Pandian for Subbaraya Aiyar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nP. BALASVBRAMANIAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 639 = 2001 SLD 639 = 2001 PTD 3825 = (2000) 241 ITR 877", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSA", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Tax Demand and Constitutional Validity\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of S.220(2) interest provisions under Articles 14 and 19.\n•\nHeld: Interest is compensatory, not punitive, and S.220(2) is constitutionally valid.\n•\nCited Cases: Achamma Kuriakose v. State of Kerala (1988).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6231 of 1997, decision dated: 3rd August, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "V. K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vasan Associates for Petitioner indra Kumar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BIYAR RUBBER (P.) LTD.\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 640 = 2001 SLD 640 = 2001 PTD 3828 = (2000) 241 ITR 525 = (2000) 82 TAX 496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRQ", + "Key Words:": "Sales Promotion Expenses\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of sales promotion expenses.\n•\nHeld: Expenses like chit incentives are factual matters; Tribunal findings of non-taxability are final.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petition No. 314 of 1997, decision dated: 12th February 1998", + "Judge Name:": "REF ORE, JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY., Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nTHANGAMALIGAI & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 641 = 2001 SLD 641 = 2001 PTD 3831 = (2000) 241 ITR 833", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMRg", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal Powers to Recall Orders\n•\nKey Issue: Tribunal's power to recall orders for factual errors.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal can recall orders for factual errors; no question of law arises.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No. 337 of 1992, decision dated: 16-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "B.A. KHAN AND SHAMBHOO SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Pawnekar for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nTIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 642 = 2001 SLD 642 = 2001 PTD 3833 = (2000) 241 ITR 827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMSw", + "Key Words:": "Compensation as Salary\n•\nKey Issue: Taxability of termination compensation as salary.\n•\nHeld: Compensation under a voluntary separation scheme qualifies as profit in lieu of salary under S.17(3)(i).\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 857 of 1985 (Reference No.438 of 1985), decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.N. Badami v. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 263 (Mad.) applied. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "P. ARUNACHALAM\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 643 = 2001 SLD 643 = 2001 PTD 3835 = (2000) 241 ITR 865", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFVMTA", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Income Reduction\n•\nKey Issue: Whether reassessment can reduce income below the originally assessed amount.\n•\nHeld: Reassessment is for Revenue benefit and cannot reduce assessed income below the original amount.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1150 of 1994, decision dated: 30-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND D. K. DESHMUKH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atul K. Jasani and Pramod Vaidya for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "K. SUDHAKAR S. SHANBHAG\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 644 = 2001 SLD 644 = 2001 PTD 3843 = (2000) 241 ITR 856", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQw", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Disclosure of Facts\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of reassessment notices for failure to disclose facts.\n•\nHeld: Notices are valid when primary facts for deductions were not disclosed during the original assessment.\n•\nCited Cases: A.L.A Firm v. CIT (1991).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. Nos. 11394 to 11398 of 1992 and W.M.P. Nos.16253 to 16257 of 1992, decision dated: 23rd October, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Ramachandran for K. Mani, Mallika Srinivasan and N. Balasubramaniam for Petitioner. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "REVATHY CP EQUIPMENT LTD.\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 645 = 2001 SLD 645 = 2001 PTD 3849 = (2000) 241 ITR 845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRA", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Cases for Coordinated Investigation\n•\nKey Issue: Legality of transferring cases for coordinated tax investigations.\n•\nHeld:\no\nDirectors-General, Chief Commissioners, and Commissioners are authorized under S.127 to transfer cases.\no\nTransfer to facilitate investigation, such as when search operations reveal connections between individuals assessed in different locations, is valid.\n•\nCited Cases: Ajantha Industries v. CBDT (1976), Sameer Leasing Co. Ltd. v. CBDT (1990).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17332 of 1997 and W.M.P. No.27432 of 1997, decision dated: 19-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "E. PADMANABHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mohan Parasaran for Petitioner. S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "GENERAL EXPORTERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 644 = 2001 SLD 644 = 2001 PTD 3860 = (2000) 241 ITR 695", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQQ", + "Key Words:": "Underestimation of Advance Tax\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWhether there was evidence for underestimation of advance tax.\no\nTribunal's reliance on unsupported sales figures.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal's finding of underestimation lacked material support; no justification for the imposition of interest.\n•\nCited Cases: Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1972), CIT v. Namdang Tea Co. India Ltd. (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 12 of 1991, decision dated: 20-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "D. N. BARUAH, S.L. SARAF, A. K. PATNAIK AND B. N. SINGH NEELAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Goenka and R.K. Joshi for the Assessee. Dr. A.K. Saraf for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "STEELSWORTH (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 645 = 2001 SLD 645 = 2001 PTD 3877 = (2000) 241 ITR 682", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzQg", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Customs Duty under Mercantile Accounting\n•\nKey Issue: Timing of liability for customs duty in mercantile accounting.\n•\nHeld: Liability accrues in the year of valid demand. Deduction for customs duty was valid in AY 1983-84 as the demand was issued that year.\n•\nCited Cases: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 99 of 1996, decision dated: 30-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R Menon, Senior Advocate and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. C.N. Ramachandran Nair for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nO.E.N. INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 646 = 2001 SLD 646 = 2001 PTD 3881 = (2000) 241 ITR 672", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRw", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Beyond Four Years\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of reassessment notices issued after four years.\n•\nHeld: A notice under S.147 must establish failure to disclose material facts; absence of such recording invalidates the notice.\n•\nCited Cases: Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Assistant CIT (1995).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. P. No. 18664 of 1997 and W. M. P. No. 29418 of 1997, decision dated: 27-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Srinivasan for Petitioner. C.V. Rajan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "FENNER (INDIA) LTD.\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 647 = 2001 SLD 647 = 2001 PTD 3892 = (2000) 241 ITR 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSA", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Immovable Property by Firm\n•\nKey Issue: Tax implications of an unregistered transfer of immovable property by a firm to its partners.\n•\nHeld: Without a registered transfer deed, no balancing charge or capital gains arise under S.41(2) or S.54.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Dadha & Co. (1983).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1183 of 1984 (Reference No. 1002 of 1984), decision dated: 8-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nS. RAJAMANI AND THANGARAJAN INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 648 = 2001 SLD 648 = 2001 PTD 3895 = (2000) 241 ITR 807", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRQ", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Case Transfers\n•\nKey Issue: Compliance with S.127(2) and procedural fairness in transferring cases.\n•\nHeld: Transfers without adequate reasons or opportunities to be heard are invalid; internal transfers within the same city require no hearing.\n•\nCited Cases: Ajantha Industries v. CBDT (1976), Saptagiri Enterprises v. CIT (1991).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 4849 of 1999, decision dated: 7-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ARUN KUMAR AND D. K., JOIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "O.S. Bajpai for Petitioners. R.C. Pandey with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "POWER CONTROLS and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 649 = 2001 SLD 649 = 2001 PTD 3907", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzRg", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Extended Deadlines\n•\nKey Issue: Eligibility of returns filed under extended deadlines for the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nHeld:\no\nReturns filed within validly extended deadlines are eligible for the scheme.\no\nC.B.R. instructions limiting eligibility were held invalid as they conflicted with statutory provisions.\n•\nCited Cases: Messrs Mehran Associates v. CIT (1993).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=54,55,55(2)(3),59,34,35,36,37,38,50,53,2 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 320-K of 2001, decision dated: 21st May, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZULFIQAR F. HAJI, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSAL AGRO(PVT.) LTD., KARACHI, \nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 650 = 2001 SLD 650 = 2001 PTD 3916 = (2001) 84 TAX 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzSw", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Allowance for Cold Storage\n•\nKey Issue: Whether cold storage qualifies as a workshop for depreciation purposes.\n•\nHeld: Cold storage meets the definition of workshop due to its manufacturing-like processes (e.g., gas generation for cooling) and is eligible for higher depreciation.\n•\nCited Resources: Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4287/LB and 4288/LB of 2000, decision dated: 6-06-2001, hearing DATE : 13-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Nazeer, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 651 = 2000 SLD 651 = 2000 PTD 1790 = (1998) 234 ITR 535", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFUzTA", + "Key Words:": "Revisions and Appeals—Merger Doctrine\n•\nKey Issue: Applicability of S.263 when the assessment order is subject to appellate proceedings.\n•\nHeld: Without evidence that the appellate authority excluded certain issues, the Commissioner’s revision under S.263 is invalid.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1988).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 108 of 1995, decision dated: 10-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN AND S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "E.R. Indrakumar for the Commissioner.King and Patridge for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBHARATH EARTH MOVERS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Qw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 652 = 2000 SLD 652 = 2000 PTD 1793 = (1998) 234 ITR 538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Qw", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Industrial Dispute Settlement Payments\n•\nKey Issue: Classification of payments under a settlement agreement as business expenditure.\n•\nHeld: Payments made out of commercial expediency, distinct from statutory bonus, are deductible under S.37.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.453 of 1985 (Reference No.291 of 1985), decision dated: 24-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": "A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Ranjan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKASTURI MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 653 = 2001 SLD 653 = 2001 PTD 3939 = (2001) 84 TAX 497", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RA", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Revising Authorities and Retrospective Application of Valuation Rules\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the Inspecting Additional Commissioner could revise an assessment order based on rules not in effect at the time of the original assessment.\n•\nHeld: The introduction of Rule 207A of the Income Tax Rules in 1997 could not be applied retrospectively to the assessment for 1994-95. The revisions based on this rule were invalid.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,66,66A,136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 25 of 2000, decision dated: 11-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Farooqi for Appellant. Ali Akbar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nSAFDAR PERWAIZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 654 = 2007 SLD 654 = 2007 PTD 1425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6QQ", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Lack of Opportunity for Hearing\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing and addressing grievances in a case transfer request constitutes maladministration.\n•\nHeld: The Regional Commissioner of Income Tax’s failure to consider the complainant’s request for transfer and to provide an opportunity for hearing was considered maladministration.\n•\nRecommendation: The Taxation Officer must provide the complainant with a breakdown of assessments within 15 days.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Preamble ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-912-K of 2006, decision dated: 17-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "ISLAMUDDIN SHAIKH through Tahir Law Associates, Sukkur\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Qg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 655 = 2001 SLD 655 = 2001 PTD 3956 = (2002) 85 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Qg", + "Key Words:": "Refund and the Administration of Taxation\n•\nKey Issue: Timeliness and administrative responsibility regarding tax refunds.\n•\nHeld: Refunds that become due should be paid immediately, regardless of whether the taxpayer claims them. Emphasis was placed on the need for proper administration to build taxpayer confidence.\n•\nCited Cases: Mushtaq Ali v. Government of Sindh (1998), Elahi Cotton v. Federation of Pakistan (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,100,102 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1674 of 1999, decision dated: 23rd December, 1999, hearing DATE : 17-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD AND ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque Memon for Petitioner. Nasrullah Awan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "GULF EDIBLE OILS (PVT.) LTD.\nVs.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Rw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 40 = 2000 SLD 40 = 2000 PTD 3580 = (1999) 238 ITR 683", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Rw", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Commissioner to Revise Assessment Orders\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nThe Commissioner’s jurisdiction to revise orders not subject to appeal.\no\nEntitlement to extra shift allowance for machinery based on the operational hours of the entire concern.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Commissioner had the authority to revise parts of the assessment order under S.263, even if not under appeal.\no\nExtra shift allowance should be based on the total operational hours of the concern, not individual machinery.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. V.V.A. Shanmugham (1999), South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.2043 and 2044 of 1984 (References Nos. 1501 and 1502 of 1984), decision dated: 3rd March, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Balasubramaniam for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SESHASAYEE PAPER AND BOARDS LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 1 = 2014 SLD 1 = 2014 SCMR 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6SA", + "Key Words:": "Non-Delegable Duty of Care in Schools\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a school can be held vicariously liable for negligence in an independent contractor’s actions.\n•\nHeld: Schools owe a non-delegable duty of care to their students, including when an independent contractor conducts activities like swimming lessons. The school remains responsible for any negligence.\n•\nCited Cases: Majrowski v. Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust (2007), Various Claimants v. Catholic Child Welfare Society (2013).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of UK", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "On appeal from 2012 EWCA Civ 239, decision dated: 23rd October, 2013.", + "Judge Name:": "LADY HALE, DEPUTY PRESIDENT, LORD CLARKE, LORD WILSON, LORD SUMPTION AND LORD TOULSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Christopher Melton QC and Ian Little (Instructed by Pannone LLP) for Appellant. Steven Ford QC and Adam Weitzman (Instructed by Essex County Council Legal Services) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "WOODLAND\nvs\nESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RQ", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 656 = 2001 SLD 656 = 2001 PTD 2534 = (2001) 247 ITR 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6RQ", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Business Expenditure for Deposit\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a deposit in a firm was made by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or an individual partner, impacting tax deductions.\n•\nHeld: This was a factual matter; the Tribunal’s decision on whether the deposit was made by the HUF, and its subsequent treatment, was final.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 4035 and 4036 with 4630 of 1994, decision dated: 26-07-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, R. C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Mrs. Sushma Sari, Advocates with him) for Appellant. B. Sen, Senior Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nGORDHANBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Rg", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 41 = 2000 SLD 41 = 2000 PTD 3587 = (1999) 238 ITR 676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Rg", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Based on Income Additions\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWhether penalty could be imposed when the additions to income (on which the penalty is based) were set aside during appeal.\no\nIf the fact of a pending reference was not disclosed, can the penalty be canceled?\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal was correct in canceling the penalty, as the additions were set aside, and no legal question arose for reference.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. Moti Lal Sharma (1995).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "LT.C. No. 11 of 1996, decision dated: 2-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for the Commissioner. Salil Aggarwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPOPULAR JEWELLERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Sw", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 42 = 2000 SLD 42 = 2000 PTD 3591 = (1999) 238 ITR 674", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6Sw", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Investment Allowance Set-Off\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the Income-tax Officer could use rectification under S.154 to withdraw set-off of unabsorbed investment allowance based on a Supreme Court ruling.\n•\nHeld: The rectification was invalid as it was not correcting a mistake but making a merits-based decision; the Tribunal was correct in disallowing it.\n•\nCited Cases: CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.49 of 1998, decision dated: 21st September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " PRESENTAUTHOR(S):MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND R. BAYAPU REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHOORATNAM & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TA", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 43 = 2000 SLD 43 = 2000 PTD 1796", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cFV6TA", + "Key Words:": "Liability for Failure to Deduct Tax at Source\n•\nKey Issue: The liability of an assessee who failed to deduct tax from commission payments to agents.\n•\nHeld: The Assessing Officer should have carefully examined the distinction between commission and trade discount before declaring the assessee in default. The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s order.\n•\nCited Cases: None explicitly applied.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,52 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. No. 1490/LB to 1494/LB of 1999, decision dated: 14-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javaid Iqbal Rana, D.R. for Appellant. Irfan Ilyas, A.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 44 = 2000 SLD 44 = 2000 PTD 1811", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Assessment for Partner in an Association of Persons (AOP)\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the Inspecting Additional Commissioner could cancel the assessment of a partner in an AOP based on discrepancies in rental income, property details, and bank imports.\n•\nHeld: The revision was unjustified as the objections raised were administrative, and the assessee successfully refuted them. The original assessment was restored.\n•\nCited Cases: 1997 PTD (Trib.) 902, 1999 PTD (Trib.) 700.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2968/LB of 1999, decision dated: 16-02-2000, hearing DATE : 11-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Mutee Babri, ITP and Nadeem Saeed, ITP for AppellantShahid Zaheer, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1 = 2007 SLD 1 = 2007 PTD 163 = (2006) 94 TAX 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Sales, Profit and Loss Expenses, Workers' Welfare Fund\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal reduced the estimated sales after accepting the assessee's explanation of a decline in business, which was acknowledged by the Taxation Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\n•\nDisallowances on profit and loss expenses were invalid as no specific justification was provided by the Taxation Officer.\n•\nWorkers' Welfare Fund was not validly charged as the required order in writing was not passed, violating the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971.\nCitation: 1990 PTD (Trib.) 1014 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Preamble,4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 293/LB and 2312/LB of 2005, decision dated: 12-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Abdul Jaleel for Appellant and Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2 = 2007 SLD 2 = 2007 PTCL 527 = 2007 PTD 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Deeming of Income, Business Loan\nConclusion:\n•\nThe addition to income based on a sum not claimed as a loan was unjustified. The explanation from the assessee regarding the use of the sum in the business as capital was not properly considered, and no finding was made that the sum was injected into business.\nCitation: Messrs Micropak (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others 2001 PTD 1180 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.119 of 1999, heard on 3rd October, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwar ul Haq for Appellant and Ch. Jan Muhammad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DREAMLAND TRAVEL SERVICES (PVT.) LTD.\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 3 = 2007 SLD 3 = 2007 PTD 181 = (2006) 93 TAX 353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Precedent-Rectification of Mistakes, Finality of Orders\nConclusion:\n•\nThe ratio decidendi of a case serves as binding precedent, and mistakes made in orders, whether of law or fact, must be rectified under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nThe finality of an order is relevant only when the appellate order is not assailed further through legal channels.\nCitation: AIR 1961 Raj. 250 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=64,64(1),135,135(5)(9),135(9),136,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3934/LB, 717/LB, 4208/LB of 2002 and 1167/LB of 2004, decision dated: 29-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Hashmi, Naseem Akbar, F.C.A. and Shahbaz Butt (amicus curie) for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.3934/LB and 717/LB of 2002). Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.3934/LB and 717/LB of 2002). Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.4208/LB of 2002 and 1167/LB of 2004). Iqbal Hashmi, Naseem Akbar, FCA for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos.4208/LB of 2002 and 1167/LB of 2004). Shahbaz Butt (amicus curie).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 4 = 2007 SLD 4 = 2007 PTD 213 = (2006) 94 TAX 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Revised Return, Procedural Compliance\nConclusion:\n•\nThe rejection of a revised return under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was justified. The revised return could not be accepted under the old ordinance as the new provisions came into force in 2002.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal reduced the sales estimate and changed the GP rate in light of similar cases.\nCitation: No specific citation mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=57,61,62,114,114(6),122,122(3)(b),239,239(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5156/LB of 2004, decision dated: 6-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yawar Mehdi Naqvi for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 5 = 2007 SLD 5 = 2007 PTD 290 = (2007) 95 TAX 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Employee Definition, Statutory Interpretation\nConclusion:\n•\nThe definition of employee in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is broader than the restrictive meaning in the Income Tax Rules, 1982, especially in cases of directors receiving remuneration from multiple companies.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal rightly interpreted employee under the Ordinance, applying it to remuneration received from multiple companies.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Mazhar Hussain 1988, PTD 563 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,16(2),16(2)(a),16(2)(e),30,136,136(2) Income Tax Rules, 1982=3,(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 134 of 1994, decision dated: 20-09-2006.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FASIAL ARAB, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Sardar M. Ejaz Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-II, KARACHI\nVs.\nTARIQ MOHSIN SIDDIQUI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 6 = 2007 SLD 6 = 2007 PTD 307 = (2007) 95 TAX 60 = 2006 PTR 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Repeal and Savings, Enforcement of Rights\nConclusion:\n•\nRights, liabilities, and obligations incurred under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) were enforceable under the old law, while procedural aspects could be addressed under the new law (Income Tax Ordinance XLIX of 2001).\nCitation: 2005 PTD (Trib.) 490 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(4),238,239,239(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,61,62,63,166 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1418/IB, 1419/1B of 2005, 152/IB, 153/IB, 351/IB, 352/IB, 491/IB to 493/IB of 2006, decision dated: 22-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahina Akbar, L.A. and Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R. for Applicants (in I.T.As. Nos.1418/IB and 1419/IB of 2005). None for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos.1418/IB, 1419/IB or 2005). Shahina Akbar, L.A. and Muhammad Ali Shah, D.Rs. for Applicants (in I.T.As. Nos.152/IB, 153/lB of 2006). None for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos.152/IB and 153/IB of 2006). Shahina Akbar, L.A., Muhammad Ali Shah, Zia Ahmed Butt, Assessing Officer D.Rs., Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq and Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, Advocates as Amicus curiae for Applicants (in I.T.As. Nos.351/IB to 352/IB of 2006). C.A. Habib, FCA for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.351/IB to 352/IB of 2006). Shahina Akbar, L.A. and Muhammad Ali Shah, D.Rs. for Applicants (in I.T.As. Nos.491/IB to 493/IB of 2006). None for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.491/IB to 493/IB of 2006).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 7 = 2007 SLD 7 = 2007 PTD 322 = (2006) 94 TAX 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Rectification of Mistakes, Assessment\nConclusion:\n•\nThe rectification of a 90% rebate withdrawal order was done in error, and the First Appellate Authority's cancellation of the rectified order was valid, considering the provisions of the Finance Act, 2003.\nCitation: Vol. 8 No.4 Tax Forum 49; 2001 PTD 1525; Vol.9 No.3 Tax Forum 27 and 2005 PTD (Trib.) 1697 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),221,339 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,80,80CC,14,14(1),FirstSched.,SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2480/LB to 2482/LB of 2005, decision dated: 2-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal Rana and Dr. Ishtiaq, IAC for AppellantsZaeem-ul-Farooq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 8 = 2007 SLD 8 = 2007 PTD 333 = (2007) 95 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Reference to High Court, Evidence Admission\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to entertain documentary evidence even if the material had not been presented earlier, especially when the evidence was supported by an oath from the receiving official.\n•\nThe Revenue's appeal to refer questions to the High Court was dismissed as the questions raised were not substantial legal controversies.\nCitation: CIT v. Messrs Imminan International Lahore; The Lungla (Sylhet), Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Dacca Circle Dacca 1970 SCMR 872 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=128,128(5),133,133(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1)(2),136(2) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 53 of 2004, heard on 11-10-2006.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Saghir Ahmed for Appellant and Mirza Muhammad Waheed Baig for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, MULTAN ZONE\nvs\nMUHAMMAD RAFI, MEDICAL OFFICER, D.H.Q. KHANEWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 9 = 2007 SLD 9 = 2007 PTD 345 = (2006) 94 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Rejection of Accounts, Financial Charges\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the Taxation Officer on financial charges and the purchase rate of sugarcane, as no defects were pointed out during the proceedings.\nCitation: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3478 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=25,25(c),62,62(1),54,55,80,80D,88 ", + "Case #": "LT.As. Nos. 4222/LB, 4752/LB of 2004 and 296/LB, 5203/LB, 5204/LB, 6233/LB to 6235/LB of 2005, decision dated: 18-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BLRATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervaiz Jami for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.4222/LB of 2004 and 296/LB, 5203/LB, 5204/LB of 2005). Mehmood Aslam, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.4222/LB of 2004 and 296/LB, 5203/LB, 5204/LB of 2005). Mehmood Aslam, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 4752/LB of 2004 and 6233/LB to 6235/LB of 2005). Shahid Pervaiz Jami for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 4752/LB of 2004 and 6233/LB to 6235/LB of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 10 = 2007 SLD 10 = 2007 PTD 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Rejection of Accounts, Profit and Loss Expenses\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly canceled the assessment, as the mandatory statutory requirement under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not followed.\n•\nThe additions made to the profit and loss account were deleted due to failure in fulfilling legal requirements.\nCitation: 2005 PTD 1157 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(c),134 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No. 562/LB of 2006 and I.T.A. No.3350/LB of 2005, decision dated: 26-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant AND S. Ashraf Ahmad Ali for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 11 = 2007 SLD 11 = 2007 PTD 386 = (2006) 94 TAX 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Rectification of Orders, Jurisdiction of Appellate Authorities\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Additional Commissioner/Taxation Officer and First Appellate Authority exceeded their jurisdiction by interfering in the decisions made by the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nThe decisions of the Appellate Tribunal have binding legal force and cannot be interfered with unless a procedural error is of grave consequence.\n•\nThe orders of the Additional Commissioner/Taxation Officer and First Appellate Authority were annulled by the Appellate Tribunal.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=65,221,11 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 209/KB and 210/KB of 2005, decision dated: 29-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi and Miss Lubna Pervez for Appellant And Rehmatullah Khan Wazir, D.R., for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 12 = 2007 SLD 12 = 2007 PTD 406 = (2006) 94 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Set off of Losses, Rectification of Mistakes\nConclusion:\n•\nThe provisions of S.34 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for set-off of losses were substantive and could not be restricted by departmental convention.\n•\nThe set-off of business losses against dividend income was found to be against the principles of equity, and it was directed to be applied only against interest income, not dividend income.\n•\nRectification under S.156 and S.122 of the Income Tax Ordinance was found to be barred by time, as the limitation period had expired.\nCitation: 2005 PTD 1621; 1998 PTD 3866 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5767/LB and 5768/LB of 2004 and 4944/LB to 4948/LB and 4954/LB of 2005, decision dated: 27-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "EHSANUR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 13 = 2007 SLD 13 = 2007 PTD 453 = (2007) 95 TAX 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Change in Status of Assessee, Intimation to Department\nConclusion:\n•\nThe failure to inform the department about a change in the status of an assessee did not justify the cancellation of assessment.\n•\nIntimation under S.72 regarding the discontinuation of business applies only when the business is ceased, not when there is a change in the constitution of a firm.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=70,71,73,108 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4531/LB of 1997, 504 to 507 of 1998, decision dated: 25-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shehbaz Butt for Appellants. Waqar Azeem for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA\nVs.\nMessrs PAKISTAN ELECTRONICS, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 14 = 2007 SLD 14 = 2007 PTCL 543 = 2007 PTD 463 = (2007) 95 TAX 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Depreciation During Tax Holiday, Written Down Value\nConclusion:\n•\nDepreciation during a tax holiday period could not be deducted from the actual cost of assets when calculating the written-down value as per Rule 1(3A) of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nThe provision did not have retrospective effect, and the depreciation could only be calculated based on the prescribed formula.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 260 of 1999, decision dated: 13-10-2006.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqui for Appellant. Iqbal Salman Pasha for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES ZONE I, KARACHI\nVs.\nGLOBE TEXTILE MILLS (OE) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 15 = 2007 SLD 15 = 2007 PTD 490 = (2007) 95 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Assessment Under Two Different Enactments\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority's annulment of the assessment, which was formulated under both the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was ruled invalid.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal vacated the annulment and instructed that the case be adjudicated on its merits.\nCitation: I.T.A. No.301/LB of 2004, dated 9-9-2004 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(4),132,132(2) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2005=20(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5258/LB to 5260/LB of 2005, decision dated: 1st November, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 16 = 2007 SLD 16 = 2007 PTD 493 = (2007) 95 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Additional Tax, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions\nConclusion:\n•\nThe words or any other amount in S.239(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were not meant to include additional tax. \n•\nThe amended provisions of S.239(3) did not apply to assessments for the year 2001-2002, and the pre-amended provisions were applicable.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=205,239,239(3),88,205(88),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2675/LB and 4360/LB of 2005, decision dated: 19-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Anwar Baig for Appellant And S. Ashraf Ahmad Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 17 = 2007 SLD 17 = 2007 PTCL 326 = 2007 PTD 512 = (2007) 95 TAX 294 = 2007 PTR 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Valuation of Property, Under-statement of Investment\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer's enhancement of the plot's value was erroneous as it lacked direct evidence to support an under-statement of the investment.\n•\nThe provisions of S.13(1)(d) could not apply unless there was evidence of active connivance between the assessee and officials in fixing the price.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 92 of 2001, decision dated: 15-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Munir Hussain for Petitioner. Sajjad Ali Jafri for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAN TRADERS, LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 18 = 2007 SLD 18 = 2007 PTD 578 = (2006) 94 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Loss of Books of Accounts, Payments on Behalf of Doctors\nConclusion:\n•\nPayments received on behalf of doctors or pharmacies by the assessee could not be treated as income.\n•\nThe indefinite retention of books by tax authorities violated legal norms, and the addition made based on these circumstances was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.\nCitation: Zam Zam Traders v. I.T.O. 1997 PTD 40; CIT v. Moon Mills Ltd. (S.C.) 1966 I.T.R. 574 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4,62,13(1)(aa),13(1)(c),23,4A,112(2)(b),19(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 684/KB of 2003, decision dated: 29-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Jalal-ud-Din, C.A. and Agha Faqir Muhammad for Appellant And Rehmatullah Khan Wazir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 19 = 2007 SLD 19 = 2007 PTD 1034 = (2007) 95 TAX 296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Notice for Assessment, Jurisdiction of Taxation Officer\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority was correct in setting aside the assessment because statutory notices under Ss.61/62 were not issued before completing the assessment.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal vacated the First Appellate Authority’s order and canceled the assessment.\nCitation: 1971 SCMR 681 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(A),61,62,129,156,156(3),61/62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 4294/LB of 2005, decision dated: 24-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Iqbal Chughtai for Appellant And Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 20 = 2007 SLD 20 = 2007 PTD 1217 = (2004) 90 TAX 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Refund, Deduction by Withholding Agent\nConclusion:\n•\nThe department was found to have delayed the refund despite the required certificates being provided, and it was directed to issue the refund after verifying the withholding agent's deposit of deducted tax.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,59,59(1),96 Income Tax Rules, 2002=71 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=164,164(2),168,170,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 488-L of 2004, decision dated: 16-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ashraf Saqib for the Complainant And Muzammil Hussain, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "HAKEEMUDDIN MUJAHID\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 21 = 2007 SLD 21 = 2007 PTD 927", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Self-Assessment, Condonation of Delay\nConclusion:\n•\nThe delay of two days in submitting documents for self-assessment was found to be minor and was a case of maladministration.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended accepting the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nCitation: Novitas International v. Income Tax Officers and others 1991 PTD 968 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,9(2)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 82 of 2004, decision dated: 17-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Sheikh for the Complainant And Sultan Iftikhar, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD IMRAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 22 = 2007 SLD 22 = 2007 PTD 624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Profit and Loss Account Additions, Capital Expenditure\nConclusion:\n•\nThe additions to the profit and loss account were found to be unjustified as no specific defects were pointed out, and the addition was not based on evidence.\n•\nCapital expenditure was also incorrectly classified, and the expenses were rightly treated as revenue by the Appellate Tribunal.\nCitation: 1971 SCMR 681; 87 Tax 162 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1),ThirdSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5627/LB, 5626/LB, 5625/LB, 5793/LB of 2005 and 4150/LB of 2003 decided on 3rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Awais, A.C.A. for Appellant (in 1.T.As. Nos.5625/LB to 2627/LB of 2005 and 4150/LB of 2003). Mehmood Aslam Lillah, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.5625/LB to 2627/LB of 2005 and 4150/LB of 2003). Mehmood Aslam Lillah, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 5793/LB of 2005). M. Awais, A.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 5793/LB of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 23 = 2007 SLD 23 = 2007 PTD 651 = (2007) 95 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Re-opening of Assessment, Gift Rejection\nConclusion:\n•\nThe reopening of the assessment based on undervaluation of construction costs was found unjustified, as no new material was discovered.\n•\nGifts were wrongly rejected by the Assessing Officer, and the Appellate Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition.\nCitation: 1993 PTD 1108 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),59,59(A),65,65(2),59(4),148 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5441/LB, 5862/LB, 5861/LB of 2002, decision dated: 31st August, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurshid Ahmed for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 5441/LB of 2002). Nemo for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 5441/LB of 2002)Nemo for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.5862/LB and 5861/LB of 2002). Khurshid Ahmed for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.5862/LB and 5861/LB of 2002)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 24 = 2000 SLD 24 = 2000 PTD 1821", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to Revise Deputy Commissioner's Order\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer’s error in accepting certain receipts from the Departmental patients was found to be the result of contributory negligence.\n•\nThe revisionary authority's cancellation of the assessment was deemed inappropriate; instead, the assessment should have been modified to correct the discrepancies.\nCitation: 1983 PTD 246 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66,66A,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.430/LB of 1999, decision dated: 31st May, 1999, hearing DATE : 1st May, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CH. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain, A.R. for Appellant. Farooq Tahir, D.R. for Respondent. Mian Ashiq Hussain, A.R. for Appelant. Farooq Tahir, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 25 = 2007 SLD 25 = 2007 PTD 666 = (2006) 94 TAX 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Issuance of Notices, Jurisdiction Post-Repeal of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusion:\n•\nThe issuance of notices under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 after the promulgation of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was found to be without jurisdiction, as proceedings had to follow the new law after the repeal.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the annulment of the proceedings and dismissed the departmental appeal.\nCitation: 2004 PTD 1173 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=239,239(1)(2)(4),239(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,56,58,58(1),61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1481/LB to 1483/LB of 2005, decision dated: 13-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Wajahat Mehdi Hashmi, D.R. for Appellant. Sh. Zafar ul Islam for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 26 = 2007 SLD 26 = 2007 PTD 673 = (2006) 94 TAX 386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Amalgamation Expenses and Exemption for Modaraba\nConclusion:\n•\nAmalgamation expenses, which were for the merger of three Modarabas, were not capital or preliminary expenses but operational costs, and hence should be allowed as revenue deductions.\n•\nModaraba was exempt from minimum tax on income under Clause (32F) of Part-IV of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitation: 1997 PTD 390 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(xviii),80,80D,SecondSched.,Cl.32 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 636/KB of 2005, decision dated: 26-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akbar G. Merchant, F.C.A. and Ms. Yasmin Ajani, F.C.A. for Appellant. Dr. Nauman Ikram, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 45 = 2000 SLD 45 = 2000 PTD 3593 = (1999) 238 ITR 672", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Depreciation, Business Expenditure, Capitalization of Pre-Production Expenses\nConclusion:\n•\nRoads and bridges were not considered part of plant and machinery for depreciation purposes.\n•\nAdvertisement expenses were allowed under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nPre-production expenses were correctly capitalized.\nCitation: CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd: (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1520 of 1986 (Reference No.999 of 1986), decision dated: 3rd March, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Ratan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMADRAS FERTILIZERS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 27 = 2007 SLD 27 = 2007 PTD 676 = (2006) 94 TAX 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Notice for Assessment and Limitation\nConclusion:\n•\nNotice under Section 65 could only be issued in case of escaped or under-assessed income.\n•\nAssessments made without proper notice under Section 56 were invalid.\n•\nAssessment proceedings initiated without the correct jurisdiction were annulled.\nCitation: 2001 PTD 1998 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(14),2(16)(b),2(24),9,11,15,56,62,65,SecondSched.,Cl.56,Cl.93,Cl.94 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4316/LB to 4319/LB, 5957/LB, 5958/LB of 2004, 513/KB to 518/KB of 2003, decision dated: 19-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. PER KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haroon Mirza, Rana Hammad Aslam and Zia Haider Rizvi for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.4316/LB to 4319/LB, 5957/LB and 5958/LB of 2004). Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R. and Shahid Jamil Khan, L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.4316/LB to 4319/L13, 5957/LB and 5958/LB of 2004). Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R. and Jawaid Farooqi, L.A. for Appellants (in LT.As. Nos. 513/KB to 518/KB of 2003). Khalid Majid, F.C.A., Kaleem Ashraf, A.C.A. and Sardar Rahat Azeem, A.C.M.A. for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos. 513/KB to 518/KB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 28 = 2007 SLD 28 = 2007 PTD 741 = (2007) 95 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Assessment on Deceased Assessee\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessment made in the name of a deceased person without including legal heirs was invalid.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal annulled the assessment made without proper jurisdiction and representation from the legal heirs.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3294/LB of 2005, decision dated: 31st August, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed, ITP for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 29 = 2007 SLD 29 = 2007 PTD 745 = (2006) 94 TAX 389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Self-Assessment Scheme and Income from House Property\nConclusion:\n•\nConditions regarding income from house property were clarified, and the tax authorities were instructed to accept the declared income under the Self-Assessment Scheme without imposing additional requirements.\nCitation: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 1470 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.868/IB of 2005, decision dated: 14-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees and Aurangzeb LT.P., for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Shah D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 30 = 2007 SLD 30 = 2007 PTD 769 = (2007) 95 TAX 233 = 2007 PTR 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Oral Gift and Property Ownership\nConclusion:\n•\nOral gifts were valid under Islamic law but required tangible evidence to support the transaction.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal restored the assessment that included the income from property under the original owner's name.\nCitation: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 1523; 2006 PTD 529 and 2006 PTD 590 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1020/IB to 1022/IB of 2006, decision dated: 20-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riaz Muhammad D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 31 = 2007 SLD 31 = 2007 PTCL 532 = 2007 PTD 774 = (2007) 95 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Service of Notice and High Court Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\n•\nThe service of notice under Section 65 was a factual matter that could not be addressed by the High Court under its appellate jurisdiction.\n•\nThe appeal was dismissed as no legal question arose from the case.\nCitation: 1998 (78) Tax 179 (Trib.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 165 of 2000, decision dated: 9-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZAMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Ali Jafri for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES Zone-III, LAHORE\nvs\nMian IJAZ AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 32 = 2007 SLD 32 = 2007 PTD 776 = (2007) 95 TAX 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Disallowance of Expenses and Rejection of Accounts\nConclusion:\n•\nDisallowances based on vague terms such as unverifiable or personal use were not valid without specific evidence.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal directed the acceptance of the declared expenses and adjusted sales using a formula based on previous history.\nCitation: 2002 PTD 1496; 2004 PTD 2231; 2002 PTD 407 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "M.As. (AG) Nos. 600/LB to 602/LB of 2006 and I.T.As. Nos.7393/LB to 7395/LB of 2005, decision dated: 6-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for Applicant. Rana Javed Iqbal, CIT (LTU) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 33 = 2007 SLD 33 = 2007 PTD 787", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Clarifications and Instructions from CBR\nConclusion:\n•\nClarifications from the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) were not legally binding unless explicitly incorporated in the assessment process.\n•\nThe case was reviewed with a direction to proceed judiciously without reliance on unverified instructions.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=122,122(5A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Review Application No.76 in Complaint No.734-K of 2006, decision dated: 13-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAR OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Hakim Ali Soomro, Law Officer for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUMTAZ GOODS TRANSPORT, SUKKUR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 34 = 2007 SLD 34 = 2007 PTD 795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Restoration of Appeal for Adjudication\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal restored an appeal for adjudication on merit after a rejected adjournment application for lack of a Vakalatnama.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect.) No. 212/KB of 2006, decision dated: 17 October, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, ITP for Applicant. Shafqat Hussain Kohar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 35 = 2007 SLD 35 = 2007 PTD 796 = (2007) 95 TAX 1245 = (2007) 95 TAX 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Tax Deduction from Contracts and Rate Dispute\nConclusion:\n•\nThe rate of tax deduction on contracts was determined to be 6% as per the amended provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nThe department's demand for a 6% tax deduction was validated, and the contract execution's relevance to tax rate was clarified.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,153(1)(c,FirstSched. ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1532/BWP of 2006, decision dated: 18-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SH. HAKIM ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioner. Muhammad Akhtar Qureshi for Respondents. Ch. Shafi Muhammad Tariq A.A.G.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUBHAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 36 = 2007 SLD 36 = 2007 PTD 827 = (2007) 95 TAX 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Rejection of Final Tax Regime Election\nConclusion:\n•\nThe rejection of an election for the final tax regime was found to be unlawful, as no proper order was issued, and the right to appeal was incorrectly denied.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,SecondSched.,Cl.41 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1440/LB of 2006, decision dated: 31st August, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, A.C.A. for Appellant. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 37 = 2007 SLD 37 = 2007 PTCL 444 = 2007 PTD 833 = (2007) 95 TAX 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Appeal to High Court on Director’s Salary\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court dismissed an appeal regarding a director's salary as the factual findings by the Appellate Tribunal were not open to re-examination.\nCitation: 1998 (78) Tax 179 (Trib.) and C.I.T., Faisalabad v. Waseem Ashfaq C/o Ashfaq Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.) I.T.A. No.427 of 1999 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,3(2)(c) Income Tax Rules, 1982=3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.103, 106 and 107 of 1999, heard 16-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khadim Hussain Zahid for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMUSHTAQ ALI CHEEMA C/o M.S.C. TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 38 = 2007 SLD 38 = 2007 PTD 835 = (2007) 95 TAX 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Estimation of Sales and Disallowances\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that sales estimation and disallowances based on general assumptions or without evidence were invalid.\n•\nThe Tribunal directed a more reasonable adjustment based on past performance.\nCitation: 1994 PTD (Trib.) 47; 2001 MLD 1257 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,23,23(1)(v) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4009/LB and 4010/LB of 2003, decision dated: 19-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Abbas for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 39 = 2007 SLD 39 = 2007 PTD 886", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Failure to Deduct Tax and Re-assessment\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessment based on assumed non-deduction of tax was set aside, as the Taxation Officer failed to prove any default or discrepancy.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),52,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 994/LB of 2004, decision dated: 22-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz ul Hassan for Appellant. Rana Muhammad Luqman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 40 = 2007 SLD 40 = 2007 PTD 898", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Self-Assessment Scheme and Total Audit\nConclusion:\n•\nThe case was improperly taken outside the Self-Assessment Scheme due to unsupported reasons like high rent and salary expenses.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that the return should be accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nCitation: 2004 PTD 1719 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 284/LB of 2004, decision dated: 14-03-2006, hearing DATE 11-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Shahzad for Appellant. Muzammal Hussain, D.R. along with Taqui Qureshi, D.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 41 = 2007 SLD 41 = 2007 PTCL 613 = 2007 PTD 901 = (2007) 95 TAX 336 = 2007 PTR 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Penalty Provisions\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty provisions under the Income Tax Ordinance were considered quasi-criminal and required proof of mens rea.\n•\nThe Tribunal maintained that penalties could not be levied without establishing intent to conceal income.\nCitation: Syed Akhtar Ali v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad (1994) 69 Tax 38 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65,111,116,135,136,136(2),137 Income Tax Act, 1922=A(1)(v)ofPart-II,1stSchedule ", + "Case #": "I.T.Cs. Nos. 173 to 182 of 1993, decision dated: 21st December, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqui for Applicant. Iqbal Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nHABIB BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 42 = 2007 SLD 42 = 2007 PTD 932 = (2007) 95 TAX 205 = 2007 PTR 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Penalty for Failure to Furnish Return\nConclusion:\n•\nThe penalty for non-filing of returns was validly deleted by the First Appellate Authority as the original assessment was set aside.\nCitation: Messrs Muhammad Muslim v. C.I.T. (1980) 42 Tax 129; Spies v. United States 317 US 492 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=110,182,190,190(5) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5796/LB of 2005, decision dated: 24-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Samra Ashraf, D.R. for Appellant. Javaid Zakria for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 43 = 2007 SLD 43 = 2007 PTD 943", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Maladministration in Self-Assessment Scheme\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration in the handling of the Self-Assessment Scheme and recommended that the return be accepted without the Total Audit.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61,120 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),10,10(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1657 of 2003, decision dated: 15-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza M. Waheed Baig and Malik Amin for the Complainant. Qaiser Mahmood DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs A.K. TEX through Mirza M. Waheed Baig (Adv.)\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 44 = 2000 SLD 44 = 2000 PTD 1831 = (1998) 234 ITR 548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Appeal and Fresh Assessment\nConclusion:\n•\nIn the case of fresh assessments, only non-final issues could be reconsidered, and the legality of earlier proceedings could not be reexamined during such reviews.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.441 of 1984, decision dated: 1st July, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. S. Jetley with P. S. Jetley and A. S. Tungare instructed by S. H. Paralkar for the Assessee. Ms. Rajni-Iyer with R. V. Desai for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MURLIDHAR BHAGWANDAS\nvs, \nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 45 = 2007 SLD 45 = 2007 PTD 951", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Investigation of Malpractices by Tax Functionaries\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman’s office was competent to investigate allegations of maladministration or malpractices by tax officials, and necessary corrective actions were recommended.\nCitation: No citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,9(1),9(2),9(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Investigation and Disposal of Complaint Regulation, 2001=5(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1628-L of 2003, decision dated: 25-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant himself present. Zulqurnain Tirmizi, IAC for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "AAMIR HASSAN, Income Tax PRACTITIONER, BAHAWALPUR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 46 = 2007 SLD 46 = 2007 PTD 954 = (2007) 95 TAX 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Assessment and Limitation\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that assessments made after the expiry of the limitation period were invalid, and the correct procedures had to be followed for agricultural income and other deductions.\nCitation: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 2609 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,62,-SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched.PartI,item47 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1248/LB to 1252/LB and 1311 to 1315 of 2004, decision dated: 18-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azhar Ehsan Sheikh for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1248/LB to 1252/LB of 2004). Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1248/LB to 1252/LB of 2004). Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1311/LB to 1315/LB of 2004). Azhar Ehsan Sheikh for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.1311 /LB to 1315/LB of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 47 = 2007 SLD 47 = 2007 PTD 963", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Additional Tax and Limitation\nConclusion:\n•\nThe issuance of notices after a significant delay was deemed invalid, and action taken after the prescribed period was canceled.\nCitation: CIT v. Agha's Super Market, Karachi 2003 PTD 1571 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=50,52,86,122,156,122A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3)(1)(a),2(3)(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 975 of 2003, decision dated: 14-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aurangzeb, ITP for the Complainant. Khalid Javed, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUSSAIREE HOTEL (PVT.) LTD., MURREE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 48 = 2007 SLD 48 = 2007 PTD 967 = (2007) 95 TAX 353 = 2007 PLD 308 = 2007 PTR 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Re-opening of Assessments and Rectification\nConclusion:\n•\nThe re-opening of assessments under Section 65 and subsequent rectifications were deemed legal if properly executed. The Tribunal emphasized that such rectifications should only be based on errors apparent on record.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Food Lab.1992 SCMR 687 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,65,156 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 991 and 992 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd May, 2006. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 24-10-2001 passed by High Court of Sindh in I.T.As. Nos.226 and 227 of 1999)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.,", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Ali Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court and A.R. Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nVS\nABDUL GHANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 49 = 2007 SLD 49 = 2007 PTD 974", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax-Rectification and Rejection of Accounts\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal held that rejections of declared accounts without valid reasons were invalid, and the Taxation Officer was instructed to accept the accounts and apply proper disallowances.\nCitation: 2002 PTD 407; 2005 PTD 2417 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5048/LB, 6173/LB to 6176/LB of 2004 and 2045/LB of 2005, decision dated: 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 5048/LB of 2004). Younis Khalid for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 5048/LB of 2004). Younis Khalid for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.6173/LB to 6176/LB of 2004 and 2045/LB of 2005). Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.6173/LB to 6176/LB of 2004 and 2045/LB of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 50 = 2007 SLD 50 = 2007 PTD 988 = (2004) 90 TAX 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption and Delay in Filing Appeal under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the complainant’s appeal could be accepted despite the delay, considering special circumstances. The assessment made without proper notice was deemed unsustainable, and corrective measures were recommended.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: Multan v. Allahyar Cotton Ginning & Pressing Mills (Pvt.) Limited, 2000 PTD 2958", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,55,56,61,63,132,SecondSched.,Cl.86A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.511-L of 2004, decision dated: 14-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Complainant. Karamatullah, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 51 = 2007 SLD 51 = 2007 PTD 994", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation on Tax Deduction and Assessment under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal annulled the assessment as it was barred by time, citing the precedent where action should be taken within a limitation period of four years.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2003 PTD 1571", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3747/LB to 3749/LB of 2002, decision dated: 7-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Ali Ch., I.T.P. for Appellant. Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 52 = 2007 SLD 52 = 2007 PTD 1013", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Estimation and Assessment Procedure under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: Due to improper consideration of facts in the initial assessment, the Appellate Tribunal directed the reassessment with proper inquiry.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2001 PTD (Trib.) 1076", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(1)(c),62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,9(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 566-L of 2004, decision dated: 16-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Siraj Khalid for the Complainant. Behzad Anwar (DCIT) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD TANVIR ELAHI\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 53 = 2007 SLD 53 = 2007 PTCL 624 = 2007 PTD 1016 = (2007) 95 TAX 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1054\nTopic: Rejection of Accounts and Trading Results under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The rejection of declared trading results was deemed unjustified, as the Assessing Officer had no basis for rejecting the accounts. The Tribunal directed acceptance of the declared trading version.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: 1989 PTD 177; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 1480", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3276/LB to 3278/LB of 2005, decision dated: 2-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafeez-ur-Rehman Cheema, I.T.P. for Appellant. Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Dr. KHALID KAMAL, JACK AND JILL NURSERY SCHOOL LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 54 = 2007 SLD 54 = 2007 PTD 1044 = (2005) 91 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment and Audit Selection under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The selection for total audit was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, as it was confirmed that salary income alone did not qualify for exemption under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2004 PTD 1719", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),62 ", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 570-L of 2004, decided 14-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for the Complainant. Ms. Raana Mirza CIT (Appeals) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 55 = 2007 SLD 55 = 2007 PTD 1048 = (2007) 95 TAX 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ex Parte Assessment and Procedural Errors under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The assessment was made without proper documentation or process. The Tribunal annulled the order due to procedural errors and lack of confrontation with the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 1981 PTD 210", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=58,58(1),61,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 576/LB of 2005, decision dated: 16-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aamir Naseer Khan for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 56 = 2007 SLD 56 = 2007 PTD 1055 = (2007) 95 TAX 107 = 2007 PTR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Disallowed Deductions for Medical Expenses and Losses under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: Medical expenses, capital losses, and other deductions were disallowed without proper justification. The Appellate Tribunal ruled to delete the additions.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: Oxford Dictionary; Longman Dictionary; Black's Law Dictionary; 2001 PTD 964", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,16(2),23,23(1)(x),24,24(1),24(c),50,50(4),52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.206/LB to 209/LB of 2004, 569/LB to 572/LB of 2004, decision dated: 18-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikramul Haq and Masood Baig for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.206/LB to 209/LB of 2004). Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.206/LB to 209/LB of 2004). Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.569/LB to 572/LB of 2004). Dr. Ikramul Haq and Masood Baig for Respondent (in LT.As. Nos.569/LB to 572/LB of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 57 = 2007 SLD 57 = 2007 PTD 1085 = (2007) 95 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Loss Adjustments and Carry-forward of Business Losses under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the adjustments for business losses and the carry-forward provisions, directing a fresh assessment based on proper interpretation of relevant sections.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: Messrs Greys Leasing Limited v. IAC I.T.A. No.4814/LB of 1997", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,23,30,35 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4011/LB and 4012/LB of 2005, decision dated: 18-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Arshad, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 58 = 2007 SLD 58 = 2007 PTD 1088", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1059\nTopic: Ex Parte Assessment and Procedural Failures under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The ex parte assessment was flawed due to failure to provide proper notice or follow procedures. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended cancellation of the assessment.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: 1987 SCMR 1840", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,63 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3)(1)(a)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.182 of 2003, decision dated: 14-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tasawar Mufti for the Complainant. Muhammad Saleem, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BASHIR AHMAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 59 = 2000 SLD 59 = 2000 PTD 3595 = (1999) 238 ITR 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1060\nTopic: Capital Gain on Distribution of Assets and Income Tax Assessment under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that distributing assets as dividend-in-specie does not fall under capital gain provisions, and the assessment was cancelled.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: Messrs Ashiq Ali and others v. Messrs Mst. Zamir Fatima and others, PLD 2004 SC 10", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 209 of 1991, decision dated: 28-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND C.K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s),", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjiv Khanna for the Commissioner. B.B. Ahuja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDELHI AUTOMOBILES (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 60 = 2007 SLD 60 = 2007 PTD 1091", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1061\nTopic: Rejection of Gross Profit Rate and Additions to Income under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal directed acceptance of the assessee's gross profit rate, as the rejection was not based on any substantial evidence or proper confrontation.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 1987 SCMR 1840", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(ff),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4981/LB of 2004, decision dated: 30-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant. Ch. Mumtaz-ul-Hassan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 61 = 2007 SLD 61 = 2007 PTD 1107 = (2007) 95 TAX 78 = 2007 PTR 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gain on Distribution of Shares under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the distribution of shares as dividend-in-specie does not qualify for capital gain taxation, and the assessment was annulled.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: Sampath Lyengar's Book, Law of Income Tax, Volume-2", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(2)(20),2(20),22,27,29,29(5),30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6032/LB of 2004, decision dated: 1st September, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farooq Shahid, ITP and Abdul Khaliq, ITP for Appellant. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 61 = 2002 SLD 61 = 2002 PTD 2775", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal Dismissal Due to Procedural Violations under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The High Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal, directing that it be heard on merits despite violations of procedural rules.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: C.I.T. v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid, 2000 PTD 2165", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=10,11 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 128 of 1997, decision dated: 7-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "C. I. T., SIALKOT\nvs\nMessrs FAIR MOONT INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 62 = 2007 SLD 62 = 2007 PTD 1127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ex Parte Assessments and Maladministration under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The assessment was annulled due to improper handling of ex parte proceedings and failure to record the day's events. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the case be reconsidered.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 1981 PTD 210", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,63 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1497-K of 2003, decision dated: 16-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Faiq Rizvi for the Complainant. G.R. Mansoori (D CIT) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ABDUR REHMAN HAROON\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 63 = 2007 SLD 63 = 2007 PTD 1131 = (2007) 95 TAX 376 = 2007 PTR 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Valuation for Capital Gain under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) and Stamp Act (II of 1899)\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the use of valuation tables for determining property value for tax purposes, reaffirming that tax deductions are applicable on financial instruments as outlined in the law.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: 1991 PTD 488; 1993 SCMR 1108", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) Stamp Act, of 1899=27A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 5 of 1994 and I.T.C. No. 15 of 1995, decision dated: 28-02-2007. dates of hearing: 25th January and 2-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Faroagh Naseem for Applicant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BUILDING HARDWARE STORES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 64 = 2007 SLD 64 = 2007 PTD 1151 = (2007) 95 TAX 367 = 2007 PTR 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1066\nTopic: Interpretation of Financial Instruments under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis to clarify that tax deductions under Section 50(7D) apply only to negotiable financial instruments.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: Jamat-I-Islami Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2000 SC 111", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7D) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 772 of 2000, decision dated: 8-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MOHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqui for Appellant. Arshad Siraj for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 65 = 2007 SLD 65 = 2007 PTD 1158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1067\nTopic: Deduction of Tax and Refund Issues under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the department to pay the refund to the complainant after verifying the tax payments. The Ombudsman also advised revising the procedure for better compliance.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2004 PTD 1719", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,171 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,9(2)(a) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),62,80,80C,96 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 135 of 2004, decision dated: 17-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nusrat Ali Malik for the Complainant. Zar Khalil, IAC Range-I, Islamabad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ELECTROMECH ENGINEERING SERVICES, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 66 = 2007 SLD 66 = 2007 PTD 1179 = (2007) 96 TAX 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation and Condonation of Delay under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The appeal for condonation of delay was rejected, as the taxpayer failed to show reasonable diligence, and the delay was caused by the taxpayer’s inaction.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2002 PTD 2407", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,130,130(3),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1556/LB of 2005, decision dated: 6-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Iqbal Pasha for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 67 = 2007 SLD 67 = 2007 PTD 1184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund Claims and Legal Invalidity of Amended Assessment Orders under Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the amended assessment order was illegal under the applicable law, referencing prior High Court decisions.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: Kashmir Edible Oil Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, 2005 PTD 1621", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=22,22(9),122,122(1),137,137(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.11316 of 2005, decision dated: 14-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD HANIF\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AUDIT, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 93 = 2011 SLD 93 = 2011 PTD 1676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding Tax and Refund Issues under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration by the tax department for not issuing withholding tax certificates and recommended corrective action.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: 2000 PTD 1719", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,161,122,122B Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,10,11 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 538/LHR/I. Tax (455)960/2010, decision dated: 21st September, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "HASSAN EHSAN COTTON GINNER\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 68 = 2007 SLD 68 = 2007 PTD 1191 = (2007) 96 TAX 127 = 2007 PTR 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Tax for Failure to Pay Advance Tax under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal found that the amended provisions of Section 53 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 should be applied, resulting in a fresh assessment.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2002 PTD 214", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,87,53(a),53(b),53(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 620/KB of 2003, decision dated: 8-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Muhammad Gangat, FCA for Appellant. Riaz Ahmed, D.R", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 57 = 2002 SLD 57 = 2002 PTD 2776 = (2002) 86 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund Claims and Verification under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended verifying tax payments from all sources before issuing refunds.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2002 PTD 1189", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,96,102,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1748 of 2001, decision dated: 11-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Masood, F.C.A. for the Complainant. Muhammad Shahid Zaheer, Inspecting Additional Commissioner, Special Zone, Lahore for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHENAB FIBRES LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 2 = 2014 SLD 2 = 2014 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1073\nTopic: Mis-declaration and Fraudulent Refund/Rebate under Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nConclusion: The appellant was found guilty of mis-declaration to claim fraudulent rebates. The Customs authorities upheld the demand for recovery of the rebate with a penalty.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: West Pakistan Tanks Terminal (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 2007 SCMR 1318", + "Court Name:": "Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32A,131(i)(a),156(I),(14),(14A) Customs Rules, 2001=444.459,460 ", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. K-736 to K-740 of 2011. decided on 13-09-2013, hearing DATE : 10-09-2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Muhammad Ishaque (Advocate) for Appellant. Ghulam Yasin (P.A.) for Respondent No. 2 Faiz Mudassar (A.O.) for Respondent No. 3.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TAYIABA KHATOON and others\nVs\nThe COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 69 = 2007 SLD 69 = 2007 PTD 1203 = (2007) 95 TAX 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ex Parte Assessment and Procedural Failures under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the ex parte assessment was legally unsustainable, and the order was annulled.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 1981 PTD 210", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=58,58(1),61,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 936/LB of 2005, decision dated: 23rd February, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Malik, FCA for Appellant. Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 70 = 2007 SLD 70 = 2007 PTD 1206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Delay in Refund and Maladministration under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found significant delays in refund payments in the salary circle and recommended that refunds be processed promptly.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2004 PTD 1719", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,170 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 322 of 2004, decision dated: 17-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "None for the Complainant. Qaiser Iqbal, IAC Range-II, Islamabad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GULZAR AHMAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 71 = 2007 SLD 71 = 2007 PTD 1207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund, Delay in Refund, and Adjustment under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) and Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the complainant was entitled to additional payment for delayed refund, effective from 1-12-1999. It was recommended that the Central Board of Revenue direct the Taxation Officer to compute the delayed refund amount in accordance with Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and adjust it against the demand for 2002-2003, with any excess to be paid within 30 days.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Section 171", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=171 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,80,80C,96,100,102,132 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 185 of 2004, decision dated: 31st May, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Razzak for the Complainant. Ansar Ali, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CORNPAK LTD.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 72 = 2007 SLD 72 = 2007 PTD 1226 = (2007) 95 TAX 167 = 2007 PTR 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1077\nTopic: Amendment of Assessments and Jurisdiction under Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001) cannot apply retrospectively, and amendments to assessments could only be made by the Commissioner after personal review of case records. The Tribunal clarified the scope of jurisdiction for the Commissioner under Section 122(5A).\nCitations:\n•\nRel: I.T.A. Nos. 825/KB to 829/KB of 2003; 2005 PTD 1316", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),128(1),210,210(1A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66,66A,66A(1A),5,5(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5795/LB of 2005, decision DATE : 24-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Samra Ashraf, DCIT for Appellant Javaid Zakria for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 73 = 2007 SLD 73 = 2007 PTD 1266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Workers' Welfare Fund under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration by the Assessing Officer who improperly initiated assessment proceedings due to non-payment of the Workers' Welfare Fund, which did not disqualify the case from the Self-Assessment Scheme. The Ombudsman recommended revising the assessment order under Section 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance (XXXVI of 1971)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,59,59(1),2,2(43),61,54,55 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1422-L of 2003, decision dated: 23rd January, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mahmood for the Complainant. Muhammad Ilyas, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADIQ\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 74 = 2007 SLD 74 = 2007 PTD 1279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: High Court Appeals and Issues Not Raised Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\nConclusion: The High Court was justified in not addressing a third issue not raised before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court correctly refused leave to appeal, as the issue had not been adjudicated at the lower level.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: Nazar Muhammad's case PLD 1974 SC 22", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No. 2584-L of 2002, decision dated: 27-02-2007. (On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 15-5-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No.184 of 1994)", + "Judge Name:": "FALAK SHER AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pir Saeed Kaleem Khurshid, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Mahmood Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Mst. NASIR BIBI and others\nvs\nMUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AHMAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 75 = 2007 SLD 75 = 2007 PTD 1292 = (2007) 95 TAX 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1080\nTopic: Rejection of Accounts and Disallowances under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer had unjustly rejected the declared accounts and made disallowances without valid justification. The Tribunal directed acceptance of the trading results and confirmed deductions, including those for the provision of octroi expenses.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2231", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),24,24(ff),62,144,148 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5062/LB to 5064/LB, .4231/LB to 4233/LB of 1999, 3280/LB, 2880 of 2000 and 3989 of 2003, decision dated: 26-09-2006.I.T.As. Nos. 5062/LB to 5064/LB, .4231/LB to 4233/LB of 1999, 3280/LB, 2880 of 2000 and 3989 of 2003, decision dated: 26-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Javed Iqbal, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.5062/LB to 5064/LB of 1999, 3280/LB of 2000 and 3989 of 2003). Shahbaz Butt for Represented (in I.T.As. Nos.5062/LB to 5064/LB of 1999, 3280/LB of 2000 and 3989 of 2003). Shahbaz Butt for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.4231/LB to 4233/LB of 1999 and 2880 of 2000). Rana Javed Iqbal, D.R. for Represented (in I.T.As. Nos.4231/LB to 4233/LB of 1999 and 2880 of 2000).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 76 = 2007 SLD 76 = 2007 PTD 1325 = (2007) 96 TAX 57 = 2007 PTR 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Sales Enhancement and Audit under Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal annulled the assessment due to improper handling of the sales data and the unreasoned rejection of the reconciliation statement provided by the assessee. The Tribunal directed that the declared sales figures be accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2005 PTD 152", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,177,.24A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 934/IB of 2006, decision dated: 18-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aamir Ahmed, I.T.P. for Appellant. A.A. Sheikh, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 77 = 2007 SLD 77 = 2007 PTD 1347 = 2008 PTCL 123 = (2007) 96 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Show-Cause Notices under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) and Constitutional Petition under Art. 199\nConclusion: The Supreme Court found that the petitioner improperly bypassed the legal remedy available under the Income Tax Ordinance by filing a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: Al-Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1993 SCMR 29", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 956-L and 957-L of 2003, 12-07-2006. (On appeal from the Order dated 24-2-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.Ps. Nos.4408 and 4360 of 2002)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD and others\nVs\nMessrs PUNJAB BEVERAGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 78 = 2007 SLD 78 = 2007 PTD 1377 = 2008 PTCL 107 = (2007) 96 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Loan Scope and Cash Transactions under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal clarified that the term loan in Section 12(18) refers only to amounts received via crossed cheques or banking channels, excluding cash transactions.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 12(18)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1344 of 2003 and 1367-1370 of 2003, decision dated: 27-04-2006. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 26-7-2001 passed by Peshawar High Court, Pehawar in TR No. 33/1997 and F.A.O. Nos.24, 26 and 27 of 1997.and F.A.O. 192 of 1999)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record and Mumaz Ahmed Member (Legal) C.B.R. for Appellants. M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX\nvs\nMessrs USMAN GHEE, IDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 79 = 2007 SLD 79 = 2007 PTD 1387 = 2008 PTCL 112 = (2007) 96 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Delay in Appeal and Limitation under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Supreme Court held that the appeal was time-barred, as the petitioner did not file an application for condoning the delay before the Appellate Authority. The Court rejected the leave to appeal.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 1982 SCMR 489", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130,130(2)(3) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 440-L of 2001, decision dated: 10-07-2006. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 2-10-2000 passed in C.T.R. No.23 of 1989)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NIDA-EMILLAT, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 80 = 2007 SLD 80 = 2007 PTD 1428", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Return of Total Income and Validity of Acceptance under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal annulled the assessment due to improper acceptance of returns filed by an unauthorized person. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the return's legality.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 2(41)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(41),62,132 Income Tax Rules, 1982=190,190(1),190(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1271/KB to 1273/KB of 2005, decision dated: 17-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Akbar Depar, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 81 = 2007 SLD 81 = 2007 PTD 1436 = (2008) 97 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1086\nTopic: Depreciation Allowance and Income Year under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that depreciation should be computed based on the full 18-month income year, as per the Finance Act of 1995, without splitting it. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 838", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26,62,62B,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.1077 of 1999, decision dated: 16-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasarullah Awan for the Appellant. Arshad Siraj for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nLEVER BROTHERS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 82 = 2007 SLD 82 = 2007 PTD 1444 = (2007) 95 TAX 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1087\nTopic: Failure to Deduct or Pay Tax and Assessment under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the assessment made based on unverifiable sales figures. The Department's action was found to be legally unjustified as the assessee had complied with the tax payment requirements.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: 2002 PTD 407", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,59,59A,86,143,143B,144,144C,108 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 804/IB and 805/IB of 2006, decision dated: 22-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ali, ITP for Appellant. A.A. Sheikh, DR. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 83 = 2007 SLD 83 = 2007 PTD 1462 = (2007) 96 TAX 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1088\nTopic: Disallowance of Expenses and Rejection of Accounts under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the rejection of the assessee's accounts was unjustified, as specific defects were not pointed out. The Tribunal directed that the disallowed expenses be accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: 2006 PTD (Trib.) 838", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1),61,80,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6254/LB to 6260/LB and 7199 of 2005, decision dated: 22-01-2007, hearing DATE : 21st December, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Baig for Appellant. M. Aslam Lillah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 84 = 2007 SLD 84 = 2007 PTD 1509 = (2007) 96 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Amendment of Assessments under Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the amendment of the assessment made under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as it applied to assessments finalized before the introduction of the provision in 2003.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: I.T.A. Nos. 1379/KB of 1998-99", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66,66A,52,24,24(ff),50,50(4),19,20,20(a),22,24,24(1),66BB ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 577/KB and 880/KB of 2005, decision dated: 9-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Ali Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Abid Shaban for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 85 = 2007 SLD 85 = 2007 PTD 1529 = (2007) 96 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1090\nTopic: Remand of Order and Written-Off Bad Debts under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to ensure that the bad debts written off by the assessee were properly evaluated, as the Taxation Officer failed to follow the legal procedures for such claims.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: 277 ITR 338", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(x),23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1104/KB, 113/KB and 114/KB of 2005, decision dated: 27-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Sadaat for Appellant. Dr. M. Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 86 = 2007 SLD 86 = 2007 PTD 1533 = (2007) 96 TAX 75 = 2007 PTR 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) for Educational Institutions\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that a university engaged in business activities, rather than solely educational purposes, did not qualify for tax exemption under Clause 86 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: Oxford University Press v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2001 PTD 2484", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,14(1),SecondSched.,Cl.86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 228 of 1988, 453, 472, 534 of 1990, 4, 46 of 1996, 241, 398 of 1997, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253 of 1999, I.T.Cs. Nos. 280, 281, 282 of 2003, 486 and 487 of 2004, decision dated: 19-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazhar Jafri for Appellant. A.R. Akhtar, Nasrullah Awan and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 87 = 2007 SLD 87 = 2007 PTD 1550 = (2007) 96 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1092\nTopic: Burden of Proof and Reimbursement of Costs under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the assessment as the Department failed to prove that the payments received by the assessee constituted income or fees for technical services, ruling instead that the payments were reimbursements.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: Messrs Tapal Energy (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1997 PTD 1555", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(5),80,80AA ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1150/KB of 2005, decision dated: 9-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fahim-ul-Haq, D.R. for Appellant. Arshad Siraj for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 88 = 2007 SLD 88 = 2007 PTD 1553 = (2007) 96 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1093\nTopic: Tax Exemption for Charitable and Religious Trusts under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that a trust could still qualify for tax exemption even if it did not expend its entire income within the same year, as long as the income was set aside for future charitable purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nRef: 1979 PTD 612 (Lail.)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.93,Cl.94 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 336 to 343 of 1998, decision dated: 20-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-II, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SAMAD CHARITABLE TRUST, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 89 = 2007 SLD 89 = 2007 PTD 1560 = (2007) 96 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment under Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the re-opening of the assessment based on new and definite information was valid, as the Income Tax Officer had identified fresh facts that justified the reassessment.\nCitations:\n•\nRel: Messrs Central Insurance Co. v. Central Board of Revenue, 1993 PTD 766", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Cases Nos. 136 and 346 of 1990, decision dated: 5-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar for Applicant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CITIBANK N.A. through Resident VicEPresident\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 90 = 2007 SLD 90 = 2007 PTD 1570 = (2007) 96 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Legal Defects in Additional Assessment Process\n•\nConclusion: The assessments for multiple years were annulled due to the combined notice issued for various years and failure to follow the Self-Assessment Scheme (SAS) procedures. The Taxation Officer did not provide any finding that the returns did not qualify for the SAS. The process lacked the proper legal formalities, and thus the Appellate Tribunal was justified in annulling the assessments.\n•\nCitation: 2005 PTD 234; 2004 PTD 1391; 1997 PTD 47 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.77C,239(14) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=151,159,239 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2040 of 2004, heard on 14-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khali for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ELLCOT SPINNING MILLS LTD.\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 91 = 2007 SLD 91 = 2007 PTD 1577 = (2007) 96 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 136(2)-Reference to High Court-Questions proposed before Tribunal changed before High Court-Effect-After rejection of reference application by Tribunal, applicant was required to propose same questions before High Court and had no power to change same in any manner-Such change would render reference application before High Court non-maintainable-Principles. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 136(2)-Reference to High Court-Additional question, raising of-Scope-Additional question could not be raised after expiry of period of limitation for filing of reference application.\n \nMessrs Ahmad Karachi Halva Merchants and Ahmad Food Products v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, South Zone, Karachi 1982 SCMR 489 ref.\n \nMessrs Saifuddin Ghulam Ali and Sons v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad Zone 1989 PTD 1038; Messrs N.A. Industries, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1992 PTD 50 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faisalabad v. Messrs Rashid Textile 2005 PTD 1456 rel.\n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 13(1), second proviso-Chargeability of income to tax in cases referred to in S.13(1)(aa) to (e) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Pre-condition of obtaining second approval by Income Tax Officer in such cases stated.\n \nThe question for second approval only arises where the Income Tax Officer considers that the value of any investment or article referred to in clauses (aa), (b), (c) or (d), amount of expenditure referred to in clauses (e) of subsection (1) of section 13 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is too low and intends to determine a reasonable value or the amount thereof. \n \nThe Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies, Lahore v. Punjab Cooking Oil Ltd., Lahore 2001 PTD 2161; Commissioner of Income TO Zone-B, Lahore v. Messrs East Pakistan Chrome, Lahore 2002 PTD 2312; Income Tax Officer and another v. Chappal Builders 1993 SCMR 1108 = 1993 PTD 1108; Messrs Jennings Private School v. Income Tax Officer, Salary Circle-III, Central Zone-D and another 1990 PTD 873: Messrs National Beverages (Pvt.) v. Federation of Pakistan 2001 PTD 633; Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and other T 1993 SCMR 493; Messrs Pakistan Insurance Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pakistan State Oil Ltd. in I.T.As. Nos.60 and 61 of 1999 ref.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 136(2)-Reference to High Court-Question raised in reference based on finding of fact rendered by Tribunal-Validity-High Court in its advisory jurisdiction could not adjudicate such question-Principles. \n \nChief Secretary, Government of the Punjab v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore 1976 PTD 56 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),13(1)(b),13(1)(c),13(1)(d),13(1)(e),136,136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 3 of 1996, decision dated: 5-04-2007, hearing DATE : 8-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Applicant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUPERIOR STEEL, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONED, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 92 = 2007 SLD 92 = 2007 PTD 1585 = (2007) 96 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.65-Additional assessment-Issuance of show-cause notice-Approval of Inspecting Additional Commissioner for issuance of a show-cause notice was not required-Inspecting Additional Commissioner's approval was required for issuance of a statutory notice under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Since Assessing Officer had duly obtained approval from Inspecting Additional Commissioner before issuance of statutory notice under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for reopening of assessment, the objection of assessee for not obtaining approval for issuance of show-cause notice was not found as tenable. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.65-Additional assessment-Non-striking out the remaining clauses of notice-Effect-If the Assessing Officer had ticked specific clause of prescribed form of notice under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, it meant that remaining clauses of the said notice were not applicable and it was not necessary that the same should also be struck out. \n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.65, 66A & 12(18)-Additional assessment-While proceedings initiated in the shape of show-cause notice conveying intention for reopening of assessment were still in hand with the Assessing Officer, the .Inspecting Additional Commissioner took-over the control of proceedings by way of issuing notice under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and action under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was still pending with the Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income Tax while proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were again started at the level of Assessing Officer-Concurrent continuation of proceedings under Ss.65 and 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was legally not correct-Department had correctly started proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 but when these proceedings were still underway at the level of Assessing Officer, the Inspecting Additional Commissioner started action under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which meant that proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 at the level of assessment year had been closed-Inspecting Additional Commissioner admittedly himself dropped the proceedings under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-After the closure of proceedings under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 could not be re-started-Restarting of proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was totally illegal-Action under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 at the level of Assessing Officer and under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 at the level of Inspecting Additional Commissioner could not be concurrently continued-Department had to choose in a clear way between two options available under Ss.65 and 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and could not blow hot and cold in the same breath-.-Serious irregularity was committed because during pendency of proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 at the level of Assessing Officer, the Inspecting Additional Commissioner started action under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1.979-Once notice under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was issued it clearly meant that action under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 already initiated by the Assessing Officer had been closed-Proceedings under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 started by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner were dropped by himself-All the options available with the department were fully and finally closed-Issue had a touch of finality about it and fate of the case was completely sealed-After dropping proceedings under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the department could not re-start proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on the same points which were considered by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner for initiation of action under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Department was legally not correct to re-start these proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 when fate of the case had already been sealed by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner who dropped proceedings under S.66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 at his level-All the proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer based upon notice under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were absolutely illegal having no warrant of law-Assessment was annulled on such legal plane by the Appellate Tribunal-Since assessment had been annulled on legal points, the issue as to whether action under S.12(18) the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was or was not warranted was not dilated upon because the same had lost its significance-Orders of both the authorities below were vacated and assessment was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \n2000 PTD 3788 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),65,66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 66/LB of 2004; decided on 16-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abid Raza Kazmi for Appellant. Saadat Farooq Ahmad, C.I.T. Companies Zone, Islamabad/ Special D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 93 = 2007 SLD 93 = 2007 PTD 1596 = (2007) 96 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Second Schedule, Cl. (86-A)-Exemption-Expression `set up' occurring in Cl. (86-A) of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Connotation-Assessee, an Association of Persons deriving income from running Medical and Dental Colleges-Question involved in the reference was as to when the institutions were 'set up'-Assessee contended that the Institutions were set up before the target date i.e. 30th June, 1995 as such, it was entitled to claim exemption but such contention was rejected by the department-Appellate Tribunal on appeal, found that building was acquired on rent by the assessee before 30-6-1995 but the same was not a conclusive proof that the institutions were 'set up' by the said date; that the assets purchased at Rs.9,86,000 did not indicate that even a kindergarten school could be set up with the same and that the salary and wages claimed at Rs.26,500 was even not sufficient for one month salary of the staff-Validity-Held, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, had rightly found that the investment was not sufficient to bring into existence the two institutions and that as regards the recognition of the two institutions by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, though correspondence started with it before the target date, it was not a condition precedent-Principles. \n \nWord and phrases by John B. Saunders, London Butterworths 1970; 1979 PTD 612 (Lail.); 1999 PTD 1004 and 1999 PTD 1126 Pesh. ref.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.86A ", + "Case #": "Tax References Nos. 1 to 4 of 2005, decision dated: 22-12-2006, hearing DATE : 8-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN AND FAZL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Jarar Hussain for Appellant and Atif Ali for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KABIR MEDICAL COLLEGE, PESHAWAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 94 = 2007 SLD 94 = 2007 PTD 1609 = (2007) 96 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Fourth Sched., R.5(c)-Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss.1(3), 66, 168 & 170-Insurance Act, 1938 (IV of 1938), Preamble-Insurance Rules, 1958, R.40(c)-Insurance Rules, 2002-Computation of profits and gains of insurance business-Health insurance-Management expenses-Disallowance of excess management expenses-Validity-Insurance Rules, 1958 were protected by S.170 (Savings) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 for at least the intervening period from 19-8-2000 to 6-8-2002 and the disallowance made by the Taxation Officer was justified-Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and restored that of the Taxation Officer regarding disallowance of excess management of expenses. \n \n2005 PTD 474 and I.T.A. No.2172/KB of 2000 not applicable. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Fourth Sched., R.5(c)-Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), S.34(2)(d)-Insurance Act, 1938 (IV of 1938), S.27(2)(b)-Securities and Exchange Commission (Insurance) Rules, 2002, R.11-Computation of profits and gains of insurance business-Health insurance-Reserve for un-expired risk-Disallowance being excess of 40% limit-Validity-Section of the Insurance Act, 1938 provided limit of reserve in terms of percentage i.e. 40%-Section 34 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 read with R.11 of the Insurance Rules, 2002 providing the liability for expired risk shall not be valued at less than the sum of the unearned premium supported by the insurer's valuation performed as envisaged in R.11 of the Insurance Rules, 2002-Taxation Officer was not justified to restrict the claim of 40% since Insurance Act, 1938 was not applicable for the assessment year 2001-2002 onward-Since the assessee had also not provided the basis to determine quantum of reserve as laid down in S.34(2)(d) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and R.11 of the Insurance Rules, 2002, order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and the disallowance was set aside for de novo order by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \n1998 PTD (Trib.) 1103 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FourthSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1094/KB of 2005, decision dated: 26-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Ansari, D.R. for Appellant. Irshad Ansari, ITPAmir Anwar A.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 95 = 2007 SLD 95 = 2007 PTD 1626 = (2007) 96 TAX 233 = 2008 PTD 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 80-D, 50(2A) & 143-B-Minimum tax on income of certain persons-Turnover-Subsidies, donation and exchange gain-Inclusion of subsidies, donation and exchange gain to total turnover by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority-Validity-Assessing Officer included the receipts/gain in the turnover without discussing as to how these were included in turnover as defined in explanation to S.80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal for de novo order after confronting the taxpayer as to how the items of receipts/gain fell within the definition of turnover. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 50(2A) & 80-D-Deduction of tax at source-Credit of tax-Tax paid under S.50(2A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was final discharge of tax liability under S.80-B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and could not be allowed as a credit against any other tax liability under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(2A),80,80D,143,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 872/KB and 589/KB of 2005, decision dated: 26-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Ahmed for Applicant. Chaman Lal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 96 = 2007 SLD 96 = 2007 PTD 1651", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Legal Defects in Additional Assessment Process\n•\nConclusion: The assessments for multiple years were annulled due to the combined notice issued for various years and failure to follow the Self-Assessment Scheme (SAS) procedures. The Taxation Officer did not provide any finding that the returns did not qualify for the SAS. The process lacked the proper legal formalities, and thus the Appellate Tribunal was justified in annulling the assessments.\n•\nCitation: 2005 PTD 234; 2004 PTD 1391; 1997 PTD 47 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),62,65 ", + "Case #": "T.Rs. Nos.17 to 22 of 2006, decision dated: 11-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Asghar Bhutta for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nAHMAD YAR KHAN MENHAIS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 97 = 2007 SLD 97 = 2007 PTD 1665 = (2007) 96 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Sales Tax Amnesty Scheme and Disallowed Expenses\n•\nConclusion: Sales tax paid under the Amnesty Scheme was not considered a penalty, and thus it was a valid business expense. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision allowing the deduction.\n•\nCitation: 2005 PTD 165; I.T.A. No.1058/KB of 2003; 1998 PTD 1985 and 1973 PTD 442 held not relevant. I.T.A. No.1058/KB of 2003 and I.T.A. No.1299/KB of 2003 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1535/KB of 2005, decision dated: 26-01-2007, hearing DATE : 13-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fahimul Haq, D.R. for Appellant. A.H. Faridi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 98 = 2007 SLD 98 = 2007 PTD 1670 = (2007) 96 TAX 177 = 2007 PTR 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Profits from Sale of Securities by Banks\n•\nConclusion: The profits from the sale of government securities and treasury bills by the bank were considered as revenue income, not capital gains, as such securities remained part of the bank's circulating capital and were necessary for business operations.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Citibank N.A., Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1994 PTD 1271; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Emirates Bank International; Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1983) 6 ITR 355; (1940) 8 ITR 635; Bihar Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1960) 39 ITR 114 and Malabar Cooperative Bank Limited v. C.I.T. (1975) ITR 87 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=29 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 71 of 1993, decision dated: 2-06-2006. DATE of heating: 5-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqi holding brief for Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Applicant. Iqbal Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 99 = 2007 SLD 99 = 2007 PTD 1680 = (2007) 95 TAX 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Refund Rejection Due to Misclassification\n•\nConclusion: The Taxation Officer’s rejection of the refund due to incorrect classification of the taxpayer as a commercial importer was invalid. Time limitations prevented the modification of assessments. The Appellate Tribunal’s decision to annul the order was upheld.\n•\nCitation: 2005 PTD 234; 2004 PTD 1391; 1997 PTD 47 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,50(5),59,59(4),64,80,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1536/KB and 1537/KB of 2005, decision dated: 31st January, 2007 hearing DATE : 13-1-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fahim ul Haq, D.R. for Appellant. Saleem-ud-Din Qureshi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 100 = 2007 SLD 100 = 2007 PTD 1687 = (2007) 96 TAX 41 = 2007 PTR 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Non-Residents and Refund Process\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal refused to rectify the Taxation Officer’s order to deduct tax from payments to non-residents. The tax deduction was not supported by valid findings regarding the non-resident's status. The refund was processed without jurisdiction to assess the status of the foreign-based party.\n•\nCitation: 2002 PTD 570; 2002 PTD 1878 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=127,127,152,152(2),152(5),152(6),159,160,161,221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=87,129 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1613/KB of 2005, decision dated: 8-07-2006, hearing DATE : 15-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farogh Nasim with Fasihuz Zaman, Chartered Accountant for Appellants. Aqeel Abbasi, D.R. and Ayaz Mahmood D.R. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 101 = 2007 SLD 101 = 2007 PTD 1703 = (2007) 95 TAX 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rejection of Declared Sales & Expenses\n•\nConclusion: The Taxation Officer’s rejection of the declared sales rate and purchase rate of cane without specific, concrete objections was invalid. Similarly, disallowances in profit and loss expenses were unjustified without confronting the assessee on individual claims.\n•\nCitation: 1971 SCMR 681; (1994) 50 Tax 48 (Trib.); (1999) 79 Tax 76 (Trib.); 1999 PTD (Trib.) 3896; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 2938 and 2002 PTD (Trib.) 583 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=39,39(3),39(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),13,13(1)(a),13(1)(d),62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 228/LB to 231/LB of 2006, decision dated: 4-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moazzam Zafar for Appellant. Mehmood Aslam, DR. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 102 = 2007 SLD 102 = 2007 PTD 1720 = (2007) 96 TAX 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal and Reference to High Court\n•\nConclusion: The High Court could not intervene in questions based on the misreading of facts or distortion of evidence. Only questions of law could be referred. The Appellate Tribunal had exceeded its powers by vacating the Commissioner’s order without due notice to enhance assessments.\n•\nCitation: Commissioner Income Tax Companies-III, Karachi v. Krudd Sons Ltd. 1994 SCMR 224 = 1994 PTD 174; Messrs Ghazi Tanneries v. CIT Central Zone, Circumstances No.3 of 1995; I.T.R. No.235 of 1990; Star Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1974 PTD 2000; PIMPA (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-I, Karachi 1994 PTD 123 and COCA COLA Export Corporation v. IAC of Income Tax (I & C), Range II, Companies Zone-1, Lahore 2002 PTD 1496 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,32(3),135,136,136(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Cs. Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of 2006, decision dated: 2-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicant Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M/S INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-II, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 103 = 2007 SLD 103 = 2007 PTD 1740 = (2007) 96 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Non-Resident Assessment Notices\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the assessment orders because the notices to the non-resident were not served properly. The non-resident’s affidavit confirming non-receipt of notices was not rebutted by the Department.\n•\nCitation: 1995 PTD 1239; 1971 SCMR 618; 2002 PTD 102; PLD 1996 (West Pakistan) Lahore 126 and PLD 1995 Lah. 417; (1989) 6 Tax 1 (Trib.); I.T.As. Nos. 983 to 986/LB/1988-89; I.T.A. No.9830/LB of 1991-92 and (1999) 80 Tax 137 (Trib.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,63,65,56,87,87(4),154 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,121,114,176 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1870/LB to 1873/LB of 2006, decision dated: 8-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHEED BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Shuja for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 104 = 2007 SLD 104 = 2007 PTD 1763 = (2007) 96 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Invalid Notices and Jurisdiction Issues\n•\nConclusion: The notices for assessment issued before the changes in the Finance Act were invalid. The assessment order was not compliant with the required approval process for additions under the law.\n•\nCitation: 2000 MLD 357 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(4),115,115(5) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4425/LB to 4428/LB of 2005, decision dated: 7-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Munawar for Appellants. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 105 = 2007 SLD 105 = 2007 PTD 1770 = (2007) 95 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Tribunal’s Refusal to Rectify Orders\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal’s refusal to rectify its original order under S.135 of the Income Tax Ordinance was justified. An appeal to the High Court regarding rectification was not maintainable unless a fresh cause of action arose.\n•\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ateed Riaz 2002 PTD 570 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,136,156 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3730 of 2000, decision dated: 6-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Bashir Malik for Petitioner. Sajjad Ali Jaffrery for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ALI MEDICINE CO., FAISALABAD\nvs\nI.A.C. OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, RANGEV, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 106 = 2007 SLD 106 = 2007 PTD 1780 = (2007) 96 TAX 180 = 2007 PTR 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction of Refund Authority\n•\nConclusion: The refund authority could only verify the excess tax payment and not the correctness of the original assessment. The jurisdiction of refund authorities is limited to ensuring there is no other tax liability pending.\n•\nCitation: I.T.A. No.319/KB of 2006 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,170,170(1),170(4),171,171(1),122,221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 30/KB of 2006, decision dated: 11-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN AND CHAUDHRY NAZIR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajidullah Siddiqui, D.R. for Appellant. Amjad Jawed Hashmi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 107 = 2007 SLD 107 = 2007 PTD 1793 = (2007) 96 TAX 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nConclusion: The imposition of penalties for concealment of income without the prior approval of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was invalid. The assessment was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nCitation: AIR 1978 SC 1548; 1971 Jab. LJ. 62; AIR 1957 SC 444; PLD 1984 Lah. 332; 2006 PTR 154; (2006) 93 Tax 266; (2007) 95 Tax 41; 2005 PTD 1 and 2007 PTD (Trib.) 139 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=137,137(2),184,190,239,239(3),239(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,116,85 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5223/LB to 5225/LB of 2005, decision dated: 17-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHEED BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Nadeem Ahmad, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 108 = 2007 SLD 108 = 2007 PTD 1800 = (2007) 96 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption for Investments in Public Auctions\n•\nConclusion: The exemption for investments made in public auctions before the specified date was upheld. No additions could be made for investments made prior to the deadline, and the Tribunal deleted the additions.\n•\nCitation: Black's Law Dictionary Eighth Edition ref.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,13 ", + "Case #": "T. Rs. 27 to 29, 31 to 45, 48 to 53 of 2006, decision dated: 9-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL HASSAN KHAN AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Raza for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nvs\nAKHTAR MUNIR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 109 = 2007 SLD 109 = 2007 PTD 1806 = (2007) 95 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption on Poultry Farm Income\n•\nConclusion: The income from poultry farms was exempt from tax as the farm was established before the deadline, and no filing requirement applied for such farms in the earlier years. The First Appellate Authority’s decision to cancel assessments was upheld.\n•\nCitation: 2006 PTD 1 and 2007 PTD (Trib.) 139 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,Cl-99,Cl-102A Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(xx) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,111(1)(b),121 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 503/LB to 508/LB of 2006, decision dated: 21st November, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghanzafar Hussain, D.R. for Appellant. Syed Abid Raza Kazim for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 110 = 2007 SLD 110 = 2007 PTD 1810 = (2007) 96 TAX 171 = (2007) 95 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Wealth Statement and Revised Submission\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the interpretation of the law regarding revised wealth statements under Section 58(2). The interpretation provided a right for taxpayers to revise their wealth statements, and the Tribunal’s observations were found to be legally sound.\n•\nCitation: 2007 PTD 139 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=57,58,58(1),58(2),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 379 of 1997, decision dated: 31st January, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi and Miss Lubna Pervaiz for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Miss SABIRA B. NANJIANI, KARACHI\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALARY CIRCLE03, ZONED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 111 = 2007 SLD 111 = 2007 PTD 1815", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Self-Assessment and Inadmissible Claims\n•\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by processing the case under both the Self-Assessment Scheme and normal law. Since the returns qualified for the Self-Assessment Scheme, the Assessing Officer should have proceeded under the scheme and not issued notices under the provisions for normal law or audit. The assessment order was annulled due to procedural errors and exceeding jurisdiction.\n•\nCitation: PLD 2005 SC 842 and 1996 (73) Tax 2027 (Trib.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,24,24(ff),58,58(1),59,59(3),61,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3651/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant. Mian Ashiq Hussain for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 112 = 2007 SLD 112 = 2007 PTD 1840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Amendment of Assessment and Jurisdiction\n•\nConclusion: The amendment of assessments for years before 1st July 2003 was declared illegal, as the relevant provisions under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were not retrospective. The Revenue was not competent to initiate or pass the impugned orders for the years under discussion.\n•\nCitation: Honda Shahrah-e-Faisal v. RCIT 2005 PTD 1316 and Messrs Sarina Ind. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. C.I.T., Peshawar 2006 PTD 2474 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),137,137(2),59,59(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11481 of 2005, decision dated: 10-11-2006, hearing DATE : 10-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD HANIF\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AUDIT, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 113 = 2007 SLD 113 = 2007 PTD 1843 = (2007) 96 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rejection of Accounts and Disallowances\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to accept the Gross Profit rate and reject additions related to ‘other income.’ The Taxation Officer's disallowances were based on generalized remarks and improper procedures, leading to the deletion of the disallowed amounts.\n•\nCitation: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2668 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),39,39(3),39(4),62,30 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=114 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3506/LB of 2004 and 2549/LB of 2005, decision dated: 6-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHEED BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer-ud-Din Babar, C.A. for Respondent (I.T.A. No. 2549/LB of 2005). Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant (I.T.A. No. 3506/LB of 2004). Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant (I.T.A. No. 3506/LB of 2004). Zaheer-ud-Din Babar, C.A. for Respondent (I.T.A. No. 2549/LB of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 114 = 2007 SLD 114 = 2007 PTD 1860 = (2007) 96 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Levy of Workers' Welfare Fund\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal annulled the levy of the Workers' Welfare Fund under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as it was not provided for under the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance. The levy was not valid under the Income Tax Ordinance of 2001.\n•\nCitation: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 1185 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=138,239,239(4) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(f) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 7413/LB of 2005, decision dated: 7-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHEED BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed, I.T.P. for Appellant. Mrs Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 115 = 2007 SLD 115 = 2007 PTD 1869 = (2007) 96 TAX 25 = 2007 PTR 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Microfinance Business and Tax Exemption\n•\nConclusion: The microfinance business of Khushhali Bank was not eligible for tax exemptions as it did not meet the criteria for welfare activities. The profits generated were reinvested into the bank and did not qualify for tax-exempt status.\n•\nCitation: 80 Tax 98 and 2004 PTD 1304 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,2(11A),76,76(10),122,122(5A),Cl-58,Cl-59,Cl-60 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 971/IB to 973/IB and 911/IB to 913/IB of 2006, decision dated: 10-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. A. Sheikh, D.R. for Appellant (I.T.As. Nos.971/IB to 973/IB of 2006). Tariq Jamil, F.C.A. and Farrukh Jamil, ACA/AR for Respondent (I.T.As. Nos.971/IB to 973/IB of 2006). Tariq Jamil, F.C.A. and Farrukh Jamil, ACA/AR for Appellants (I.T.As. Nos.911/IB to 913/IB of 2006). A.A. Sheikh, D.R. for Respondent (I.T.As. Nos.911/IB to 913/IB of 2006).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 116 = 2007 SLD 116 = 2007 PTD 1885 = (2007) 96 TAX 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Set Off of Losses in Amalgamation\n•\nConclusion: The assessee company was entitled to set off the unabsorbed losses from the merged companies, as the merger was legally binding and approved by the High Court. The tax authorities were directed to allow the loss set-off in the assessments.\n•\nCitation: (1995) 51 Tax 223 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,2(1A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),34,34A,35,36,37,38,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5057/LB of 2004, decision dated: 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Saed, FCA for Appellant. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, DR along with Javed Iqbal Rana, DR for the LTU for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 117 = 2007 SLD 117 = 2007 PTD 1919 = (2007) 96 TAX 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Opportunity of Being Heard in Appeals\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal’s order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was recalled, and the case was fixed for a fresh hearing, as the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.\n•\nCitation: Writ Petition No.505 of 2004 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=132,132(2) ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos. 902/LB and 903/LB of 2006, decision dated: 2-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Applicant. Javed Altaf for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 118 = 2007 SLD 118 = 2007 PTD 1929 = (2007) 96 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Dividend-in-Specie and Taxability\n•\nConclusion: The shares received as dividend-in-specie were ruled to be taxable as dividend income under Section 80-B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and the assessment was upheld.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Nepak Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd.'s case I.T.A. No.6032/LB of 2004 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(20),12,12(12),27,30,50,50(4),50(7A),80,80B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1195/LB and 1246/LB of 2005, decision dated: 3rd March, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Khalaiq, ITP for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1195/LB of 2005). S.A. Masood Raza Qazalbash, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1195/LB of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 119 = 2007 SLD 119 = 2007 PTD 1933 = (2007) 96 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal Against Tribunal's Order\n•\nConclusion: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address whether the appeal to the High Court was time-barred and whether it was properly maintained. The matter was remitted for further examination.\n•\nCitation: 2002 PTD 237 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,156 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=20 ", + "Case #": "C.P.LA, No. 113-K of 2000, decision dated: 7-07-2000. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 23-12-1993/3-1-2000 of the High Court Sindh, Karachi, passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 158 of 1998)", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS AND, JAVED IQBAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-IV, KARACHI and others\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN ELECTRIC FITTINGS MANUFACTURING CO. LTD, through Directors" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 120 = 2007 SLD 120 = 2007 PTD 1936 = (2005) 91 TAX 432", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1125\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment and Refund\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Taxation Officer's rejection of the refund under the Self-Assessment Scheme was improper. The refund was to be processed without delay unless further verification was required.\n•\nCitation: Complaint No.845 of 2001 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),2(3)(1)(a) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7H),59,61,62 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A,122A(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1564 of 2003, decision dated: 10-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Marwat for the Complainant. Aurangzeb Khattak and Taza Khan, Taxation Officers, Bannu for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "FAQIR MUHAMMAD MASOOM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 121 = 2007 SLD 121 = 2007 PTD 1943 = (2007) 96 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Penalty for Failure to File Return\n•\nConclusion: Since the assessee was exempt from tax, the penalty for failure to file the return was not applicable, and the appeal by the Department was dismissed.\n•\nCitation: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 237 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,56,80,80D,108,108(a)(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5704/LB of 2005, decision dated: 21st March, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 122 = 2007 SLD 122 = 2007 PTD 1946 = 2007 PTR 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Disallowance of Purchases and Estimates\n•\nConclusion: The Taxation Officer’s decision to add the difference between the purchase price from associated companies under Section 79 was not valid. The matter was dismissed.\n•\nCitation: I.T.R.A. No.76 of 2002; I.T.O. v. Beecham Pakistan Ltd. 1988 PTD (Trib.) 447; Smith Kline and French of Pakistan Ltd. v. IAC Range-I, Companies-II, Karachi LT.A. No. 2202/KB of 1987-88 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=79 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 43 of 1996, decision dated: 16-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CYNAMID (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-II, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 123 = 2007 SLD 123 = 2007 PTD 1955 = (2005) 91 TAX 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Refund and Audit Procedures\n•\nConclusion: The refusal to issue the refund due to the audit process was deemed incorrect. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended immediate processing of the refund and a swift audit if required.\n•\nCitation: Complaint No.363 of 2004 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1),114,114(1),122,122(9),170,177 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 467 of 2004, decision dated: 13-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser. Z.H. Khawar for the Complainant. Faqir, Hussain, DCIT, Circle 17, Gujrat for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATES, GUJRAT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 124 = 2007 SLD 124 = 2007 PTD 1959 = (2007) 96 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Amendment of Assessment under Section 122(5)\n•\nConclusion: The amendment of assessments under Section 122(5) was invalid as there was no definite information provided in the order. The Appellate Tribunal annulled the amendment and restored the original assessments.\n•\nCitation: I.T.A. No.416/LB of 2000-01 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),122(5A),122(8) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5263/LB to 5265/LB of 2004 and 5986/LB, 7231/LB of 2005, decision dated: 3rd March, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulifqar, ACA for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.5263/LB to 5265/LB of 2004). Javaid Iqbal Rana, DR for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.5263/LB to 5265/LB of 2004). Javaid Iqbal Rana, DR for Appellant (in I.T. As. Nos.5986/LB and 7231/LB of 2005). Asim Zulifqar, ACA for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.5986/LB and 7231/LB of 2005)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 125 = 2007 SLD 125 = 2007 PTD 1981 = (2007) 96 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deeming Interest and Taxability\n•\nConclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that income tax on interest from loans would be charged prospectively under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nCitation: Respondents not represented in remaining cases.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1443-1447 of 1996 and 1009 of 2000, decision dated: 25-04-2006. (On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, dated 25-10-1994 in ITR Nos. 9/86, 29/87, 124/84, 45/88, 59/89, 290/88 and 4/89)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE \"\"A\"\" KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs COMBINED INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD. and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 126 = 2007 SLD 126 = 2007 PTD 1986 = (2007) 95 TAX 219 = 2007 PTR 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Capital Gain vs. Adventure in Nature of Trade\n•\nConclusion: The sale of factory land was not a business venture as the land was acquired for running a textile mill, not for speculation or development. The sale was primarily to pay off loans and the proceeds were deposited in a joint account with creditors. Therefore, the gain from the sale was not taxable as business income, but as a capital receipt.\n•\nCitation: Naseer A. Sheikh and 4 others v. CIT 1992 PTD 621; CIT v. Habib Bank Executors and Trustee Co. 1985 SCMR 284; Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. ITO 1990 PTD 155; Messrs Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation v. CIT 1980 PTD 322; 2006 PTD (Trib.) 447 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 1109/LB of 2004, 2655/LB, 2656/LB and 7106/LB of 2005, decision dated: 7-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikram ul Haq for Appellant. Ghazanfar Hussain; D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 127 = 2007 SLD 127 = 2007 PTD 1999 = (2007) 96 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption for Investment in Tax Exempted Area\n•\nConclusion: The entitlement of the assessee to exemption under the specified SRO was a factual matter for the concerned authority to determine, based on the provisions of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/.O Finance, Islamabad and 6 others PLD 1997 SC 582 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C,80CC,80D Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=2(1)(b),6 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1819 of 2000, 678 to 683 of 2003, decision dated: 26-04-2006. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 29-4-1999 and 1-11-2000 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Writ Petition No.1404 of 1999, 58, F.A.Os. Nos. 60, 63, 59, 62 and 64 of 2000)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A. No. 1819 of 2000). Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A. Nos. 678 to 683 of 2003) with Mumtaz Ahmed, Member (Legal (C.B.R). Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 1819 of 2000). M. Sardar Khan Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 678 to 683 of 2003)", + "Party Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Finance Division, Islamabad and others\nvs\nMessrs ZAMAN COTTON MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 128 = 2007 SLD 128 = 2007 PTD 2002 = (2005) 91 TAX 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Re-assessment and Procedural Errors\n•\nConclusion: The re-assessment was invalid as the demand notice was fabricated and no actual re-assessment order was issued. The Federal Tax Ombudsman found evidence of maladministration and recommended action against the concerned officials.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),66,66(1)(c) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 417 of 2004, decision dated: 10-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser. Sajid Rehman Malik, A.R. for the Complainant. Asif Haider Orakzai, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "QAISER SHEH2AD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 129 = 2007 SLD 129 = 2007 PTD 2010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer Under Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nConclusion: The assessment under Section 62 was invalid as the case was already covered under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The Appellate Tribunal restored the deemed assessment under Section 59(4).\n•\nCitation: 1993 PTD 332 and I.T.A. No.1321/LB of 2002 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(4),62,66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3691/LB and 3995/LB of 2003, decision dated: 20-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant (in I.T.A. 3691/LB of 2003). Muzammal Hussain, DR for Respondent (in I.T.A. 3691/LB of 2003). Muzammal Hussain, DR for Appellant (in I.T.A. 3995/LB of 2003). Mian Ashiq Hussain for Respondent (in I.T.A. 3995/LB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 130 = 2007 SLD 130 = 2007 PTD 2012 = (2007) 96 TAX 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Annual Letting Value and Taxation\n•\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer could not deviate from past practice without evidence to justify the higher Annual Letting Value. The Appellate Tribunal directed acceptance of the declared value.\n•\nCitation: 1992 PTD (Trib.) 161 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1498 to 1500 of 2005, decision dated: 22-05-2006. (On appeal against the judgment, dated 9-9-2001 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in F.A.O. Nos. 175-177 of 000)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.S. Krishna Rao v. Andhra Pradesh 1991 PTD 286 distinguished. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nvs\nSARHAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 131 = 2007 SLD 131 = 2007 PTD 2021", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Tax Audit\n•\nConclusion: The rejection of the assessee’s return from the Self-Assessment Scheme based on assumptions about capital employed was deemed unjustified. The Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the return under the scheme.\n•\nCitation: 2005 PTD 165; 2004 PTD 1719 and PLD 2006 SC 787 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),62 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No.13/LB of 2007 and I.T.A. No. 5071/LB of 2005, decision dated: 29-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Younis Khalid for Appellant. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 132 = 2007 SLD 132 = 2007 PTD 2027", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Defiance of Federal Tax Ombudsman Recommendations\n•\nConclusion: The assessee’s claim for refund was rejected by the Taxation Officer based on presumptive tax coverage. The Federal Tax Ombudsman dismissed the petition, finding no legal grounds for the contempt claim.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=120,12 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=12 ", + "Case #": "Review Application No. 7 of -2007 in Complaint No.884-K of 2006, decision dated: 29-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir Ansari for the Complainant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs STAR LINK, (GLAMOUR SHOPPING MALL), through Messrs Tahir Law Associates, Sukkur\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 133 = 2007 SLD 133 = 2007 PTD 2029 = (2007) 96 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption for Architects' Firms\n•\nConclusion: The exemption for architects' firms, under the relevant provisions, was upheld. The Appellate Tribunal found that architects’ firms could be registered as companies and should receive the exemption, rejecting the department’s new interpretation.\n•\nCitation: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 583 and Black's Law Dictionary Seventh Edition ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,Part-IV,para.2B, Companies Ordinance, 1984=14(3)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3932/LB of 2005, decision dated: 18-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant. Tanveer Aslam for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 134 = 2000 SLD 134 = 2000 PTD 3598 = (1999) 238 ITR 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Writ Petition and Alternative Remedy\n•\nConclusion: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner had an alternative remedy available through filing a reference application. The delay in filing the petition was also noted.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.2426 of 1999, decision dated: 29-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "P. SHANMUGAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.M. Sreedharan and N. Unnikrishnan for Petitioner.P.K.R. Menon and George K. George for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ATTUKAL JEWELLERY\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 135 = 2007 SLD 135 = 2007 PTD 2038 = (2005) 91 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Amendment of Assessments and Circulars\n•\nConclusion: The amendment to Section 122 under the Finance Ordinance, 2002, was applicable only for assessments from 2002 onward. The action taken for earlier assessments was void, and maladministration was identified.\n•\nCitation: 2001 PTD 1525 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1),122A,122(5),240 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 414 of 2004, decision dated: 2-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Saghir Tirmizey and Syed Hassan Askari for the Complainant. Sajjad Azhar, DCIT, for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "FAROOQ AHMED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 136 = 2007 SLD 136 = 2007 PTD 2051 = (2005) 91 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction and Invalidity of Amendments Under S.122(5A)\n•\nConclusion: The notice issued under S.122(5A) was invalid due to rescinded provisions. The Appellate Tribunal found maladministration and directed that the proceedings be dropped.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Monnoo Industries Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, Lahore 2001 PTD 1525 and 2001 PTD (Trib) 2902 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5A),122(9) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),2(3)(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 502 of 2004, decision dated: 4-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saghir Tirmizey for the Complainant. Khalid Farooque Mian, DCIT for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAFEEZ CLOTH HOUSE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 137 = 2007 SLD 137 = 2007 PTD 2061", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification of Mistakes in Assessment Orders\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the rejection of the rectification application as the issues raised had already been decided in appeals. The tribunal emphasized that the authority passing the final order must handle rectification.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),62,65,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1320/KB of 2005, decision dated: 23rd April, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID AZAM KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed Sangi, D.R. fot Appellant. Abdul Tahir Ansari, LT,P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 138 = 2007 SLD 138 = 2007 PTD 2069", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rejection of Accounts and Procedural Validity\n•\nConclusion: The rejection of accounts was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to point out any defects in the accounts. The assessment was cancelled, and the declared version was accepted.\n•\nCitation: 2001 PTD 3369; 2002 PTD 407 and 2001 PTD (Trib.) 3369 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 3964/LB, 3965/LB, 4821/LB and 4822/LB of 2002, decision dated: 6-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Younis Khalid for Appellant (I.T.As. Nos.3964/LB and 3965/LB of 2002). Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent (I.T.As. Nos.3964/LB and 3965/LB of 2002). Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant (I.T.As. Nos.4821/LB and 4822/LB of 2002). Muhammad Younis Khalid for Respondent (I.T.As. 4821/LB and 4822/LB of 2002).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 139 = 2007 SLD 139 = 2007 PTD 2073", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Addition to Declared Income and Appeal\n•\nConclusion: The addition to the income was based on factual findings from the evidence presented. The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding no legal question for further review.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122,131,133 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 166 of 2000, decision dated: 27-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Ali Qureshi for Appellant. Khadim Hussain Zahid for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHEIKH TRADERS\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 140 = 2007 SLD 140 = 2007 PTD 2075 = (2007) 96 TAX 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nConclusion: The imposition of penalty based on a notice that was issued beyond the prescribed limitation was invalid, and the penalty was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1422/LB of 2005, decision dated: 12-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Ahmad Shad for Appellant. S.A. Masood Raza Qazlabash, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 141 = 2007 SLD 141 = 2007 PTD 2079", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Export Proceeds and Tax Deduction in Tribal Areas\n•\nConclusion: The deduction of taxes from export proceeds in a Tribal Area was illegal, as the area was exempt under the Constitution. The Federal Tax Ombudsman identified maladministration in the delay in addressing the issue.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=246,247 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=SecondSched. ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 257 of 2004, decision dated: 6-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ahmed, Chartered Accountant Present. None present for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MCC RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 142 = 2007 SLD 142 = 2007 PTD 2084", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Annual Letting Value and Penalty\n•\nConclusion: The declared rental receipts were upheld, and the penalty imposed was deleted due to lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribunal directed the acceptance of the declared Annual Letting Value.\n•\nCitation: 1992 PTD (Trib.) 161 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=11,19,58,58(1),62,116,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3324/LB, 3325/LB of 2004, 5311 and 5312 of 2005, decision dated: 3rd March, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHAWAR KHURSHID BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Mutes Babri, I.T.P. for Appellant, (in I.T.As. Nos.3324/LB and 3325/LB of 2004). Manroor Hussain Shad, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.3324/LB and 3325/LB of 2004). Manzoor Hussain Shad, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.5311/LB quid 5312/LB of 2005). Sohail Mutee Babri, I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.5311/LB and 5312/LB of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 143 = 2007 SLD 143 = 2007 PTD 2087 = (2007) 96 TAX 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Condonation of Delay in Appeal\n•\nConclusion: The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, and the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Limitation Act, 1908=5 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1300 of 2003, decision dated: 22-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C, J, FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Dr. Babar Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nMiss NAHEED KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 144 = 2007 SLD 144 = 2007 PTD 2088 = (2007) 96 TAX 133 = 2007 PTR 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Withdrawal of Exemption and Appeal\n•\nConclusion: The First Appellate Authority’s rejection of an appeal against the withdrawal of exemption was found invalid. The Appellate Tribunal directed that the matter be reconsidered.\n•\nCitation: Pak Saudi Fertilizer Limited's case 1999 PTD 4061; Genertech Pakistan Limited v. ITAT 2004 PTD 2255 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 321/KB of 2005, decision dated: 12-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munib Akhtar for Appellant. Hanif Shaikh, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 145 = 2007 SLD 145 = 2007 PTD 2091 = (2007) 11 TAXFORUM 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Taxation of Membership Fees\n•\nConclusion: The amount forfeited from ceasing membership was income chargeable to tax, but only the portion left in the hands of the assessee was taxable. The matter was remanded for further verification.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1398/LB to 1404/LB of 2005, decision dated: 6-06-2007", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Haider Rizvi for Appellant. Raja Javed Iqbal, I.A.C. (L.T.U.) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 146 = 2007 SLD 146 = 2007 PTD 2105 = (2007) 96 TAX 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal Dismissal for Non-Prosecution\n•\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on a date not fixed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court found that the wrong date of hearing was entered and held it to be a valid reason for non-appearance. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merit.\n•\nCitation: Zahid Ahmad v. Deputy Director Adjudication PLD 2006 Kar. 252; Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi v. Raja Muhammad Sarwar Khan 1968 SCMR 917 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=132,132(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2005=20,20(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition. No.13488 of 2006, decision dated: 17-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq for Petitioner. Jan Muhammad Chaudry for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FOOD CONCEPT (PVT.) LTD, through Director\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN through Chairman" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 147 = 2007 SLD 147 = 2007 PTD 2109 = (2007) 96 TAX 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Carry Forward of Dry Hole Losses & Exchange Loss\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision to allow the carry forward of losses from dry holes after reviewing the concession agreement and re-assessing the losses. Regarding exchange loss, the Tribunal directed proper verification of the nature of losses and appropriate deductions.\n•\nCitation: DHP Petroleum Asia Pacific Islamabad's case LT.A. No.341 (IB) of 2002 ref.; 1989 PTD 582 rel", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(3),FifthSched.,Part-I,R.2(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 744/IB, 1255/IB of 200.5, I.T.A. No.768/IB of 2004, M.As.(R) Nos.22A/TB and 22B/IB of 2007, decision dated: 11-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN AND ISTATAAT ALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ayaz FCA/AR for Appellant (I.T.As. Nos.744/IB and 1255/IB of 2005). A.A. Sheikh, DR for Appellant (I.T.As. Nos.744/IB and 1255/IB of 2005). A. A. Sheikh, DR for Respondent (I.T.A. No. 768/IB of 2004). Nadeem Ayaz FCA/AR for Respondent (I.T.A. No. 768/IB of 2004). Nadeem Ayaz, FCA/AR for Appellant (M.As.(R). Nos.22A/IB and 22B/IB of 2007). A. A. Sheikh, DR for Respondent (M.As.(R). Nos.22A/IB and 22B/IB of 2007).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 148 = 2007 SLD 148 = 2007 PTD 2153 = (2007) 96 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Revised Return as an Amended Assessment Order\n•\nConclusion: The revised return filed under S.114(6) was treated as an amended assessment order under S.120. The Tribunal ruled that the assessment made before the amendment was void as it was not based on the revised return and should be cancelled.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(6),120,120(1),122,122(3)(b),77 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1276/LB of 2006, decision dated: 30-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant. Farooq Ahmed Khan, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 149 = 2007 SLD 149 = 2007 PTD 2165 = (2007) 96 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Unexplained Investment, Business Income, and Agricultural Land Sale\n•\nConclusion: The addition made on account of unexplained investment was deleted based on the assessee’s reasonable explanation. Business income was reassessed based on past records, and the addition due to agricultural land sale was also deleted due to sufficient evidence.\n•\nCitation: Vol.7 No.12 Tax Forum 58 of December 2003 rel.; 1989 PTD (Trib.) 460; 2001 PTD 1534 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2169, 0878 and 2477/LB of 2005, decision dated: Ist March, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Appellant. Abid Raza Kazmi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 150 = 2007 SLD 150 = 2007 PTD 2173 = (2008) 97 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal Effect Orders and Voluntary Separation Scheme\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer’s right to issue an appeal effect order based on a partly confirmed assessment. Regarding the Voluntary Separation Scheme, the Tribunal deleted the tax addition, ruling that the tax was not deductible during the appeal period based on High Court decisions.\n•\nCitation: 1994 PTD 730 rel.; Writ Petition No.2086 of 1999; I.C.A. No.241 of 2000 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,23,24,24(1),SecondSched,Cl-3,50,50(1),129,132,135 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 846(IB), 847(IB), 857(IB) and 858(IB) of 2006, decision dated: 5-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ISTATAAT ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Anwar Baig, A.R, for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nas.846(IB) and 847(IB) of 2006). Muhammad Mumtaz, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.846(IB) and 847(IB) of 2006). Muhammad Mumtaz, D.R, for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.857(IB) and 858(IB) of 2006).\nMizra Anwar Baig, A. R, for Respondent (in I.T. As. Nos.857(IB) and 858(IB) of 2006).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 151 = 2007 SLD 151 = 2007 PTD 2199 = (2007) 96 TAX 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Proportional Expenses and C.B.R. Circular\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal directed that expenses related to imports and local sales be proportioned strictly according to C.B.R. Circular No.12 of 1991. The Tribunal emphasized that expenses should not be left to the discretion of the Assessing Officer and must follow the prescribed formula.\n•\nCitation: Central Insurance Company's case 1993 PTD 766 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8,80,80C,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3391/LB of 2005, decision dated: 24-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed A. Andrabi for Appellant. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 152 = 2007 SLD 152 = 2007 PTD 2206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification of Mistakes in Order\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal rejected the revenue’s request for rectification of its order, as it found no mistake in the confirmation of deletion of sale promotion expenses.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 944/LB of 2006, decision dated: 11-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ashraf Ahmad Ali, D.R. for Appellant. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 153 = 2007 SLD 153 = 2007 PTD 2224 = (2007) 95 TAX 299 = (2008) 98 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal Adjournment by Clerk and Recall of Order\n•\nConclusion: Since the adjournment was not made by the Court itself, the case could not be considered dismissed for non-appearance. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the recall of the order, and the appeal was scheduled for a fresh hearing on merit.\n•\nCitation: PLD 1964 SC 97; 1983 SCMR 1092 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,135(2) ", + "Case #": "M.A. Nos. 443/LB to 447/LB of 2006, decision dated: 1st December, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND CH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for Appellant. Ghazaufar Hussain,. D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 154 = 2007 SLD 154 = 2007 PTD 986", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Processing of Return Under Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to process the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme as the conditions for special audit or non-compliance were not met. The return should be processed under the Self-Assessment Scheme as per the applicable laws.\n•\nCitation: 1990 PTD (Trib.) 296; 1996 PTD (Trib.) 740 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),59,59(1),62,65,66,66A,Cl-5 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1582/LB of 2002, decision dated: 20-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI TAHAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam for Appellant. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 3 = 2006 SLD 3 = 2006 PTCL 194 = 2006 PTD 1 = (2006) 93 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Reframed Questions for Reference to High Court\n•\nConclusion: The High Court allowed the counsel to argue reframed questions without formally admitting them. It emphasized that only the originally framed questions could be considered for decision.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(2),30,136,136(2),SecondSched,Cl-176 ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 134 and 135 of 2002, decision dated: 8-09-2005, hearing DATE : 4-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikramul Haq for Petitioner Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AES PAK GEN (PVT.) COMPANY, LAHORE\nVS\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 4 = 2006 SLD 4 = 2006 PTD 14 = (2006) 93 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Private Sector Power Projects and Exemption Clauses\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that exemptions under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act were only applicable to interest income earned on deposits maintained in Pakistan, and income from foreign bank deposits was not exempt. It clarified that exemption provisions must be strictly interpreted.\n•\nCitation: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 708; Genertech Pakistan Ltd. and others v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan 2004 PTD 2255 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),52,86,151 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 120 of 2003, decision dated: 19-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, CHIEF, JUSTICE JEHANZAIB RAHIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Atif Ali Khan\nRespondent(s) by: Hafiz Muhammad Idrees", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax ZONEB, PESHAWAR\nVS\nMessrs NEW CAPITAL DALL MILLS (PVT.) LTD., HATTAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 1 = 2005 SLD 1 = 2005 PTCL 588 = 2006 PTD 16 = (2005) 91 TAX 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Accounting Practices and Assessments\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer should respect the declared sales and the practices followed by the assessee, particularly in cases involving high raw material consumption or process loss. Any addition made based on incorrect assumptions was rejected.\n•\nCitation: 1987 PTD (Trib.) 402 rel.; 1994 PTD 730 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,24,24(c),50,50(4),50(5),52,62,80,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.177/KB, 921/KB and 103/KB of 2004, decision dated: 24-09-2004, hearing DATE : 15-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.A. MINAM, JAFARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal Rana, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Rahim Lakhany for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 5 = 2006 SLD 5 = 2006 PTD 42 = (2006) 93 TAX 348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption from Workers’ Welfare Fund\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption from the Workers’ Welfare Fund for a private limited company as it did not fall within the specified categories for exemption. The interpretation of exemption clauses was construed strictly in favor of the revenue.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIV,para.B(2) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(f) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos.134, 133, 135 and 136 of 2000, decision dated: 28-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Imtiaz Rashid Siddique and Imran Anjum\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "PAKARAB FERTILIZERS (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 6 = 2006 SLD 6 = 2006 PTD 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Annulment of Ex Parte Assessment\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the ex parte assessment due to a lack of proper evidence regarding the statutory notices and their compliance. The assessment was annulled for not meeting legal requirements.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1909/LB of 2005, decision dated: 30-07-2005, hearing DATE : 29-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zafar Abbas, D.R. for Appellant. Azhar Ehsan Sheikh for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 7 = 2006 SLD 7 = 2006 PTD 52 = (2006) 93 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Acceptance of Sales Tax Reports and Taxpayer’s Declarations\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal directed that the taxpayer’s declarations, supported by reports from governmental agencies, should be accepted in good faith, without further unnecessary scrutiny, as long as no direct evidence disproved them.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121,130,130(8),131 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 46/IB of 2005, decision dated: 24-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Aslam Anwar\nRespondent(s) by: Shahid Zaman, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 8 = 2006 SLD 8 = 2006 PTD 60 = (2006) 93 TAX 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Penalty and Discretion in Appeal\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal exercised its discretion by reducing the penalty to a nominal amount. The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that no legal grounds were raised regarding the Tribunal’s discretion.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 457 of 2000, decision dated: 16-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Nasir Gillani\nRespondent(s) by: Mian Yusuf Umar", + "Party Name:": "SH. ZAFAR IQBAL\nVS\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/ WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE01, SIALKOT and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 9 = 2006 SLD 9 = 2006 PTD 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification of Mistakes and Rejection of Book Version\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal’s failure to address key arguments and case-law led to the rectification of its order. The case was remanded to address incomplete adjudication. The book version could not be rejected merely due to historical context without specific defects being identified.\n•\nCitation: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 1583; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 3892 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,156 ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Rect.) Nos.307/KB and 308/KB of 2004, decision dated: 24-03-2005, hearing DATE : 16-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Perveaz Jami for Appellant. Shaikh Muhammad Hanif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 10 = 2006 SLD 10 = 2006 PTD 83 = (2006) 93 TAX 213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer and Question of Fact\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declined to address a question regarding jurisdiction under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance as it had not been raised before the Tribunal. Additionally, the High Court emphasized that issues of fact, such as the restoration of additions, are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and not subject to re-examination by the High Court.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(c),65,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 233 of 1998, decision dated: 24-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Mian Ashiq Hussain\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "SARDAR ALI BHATTI\nVS\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 11 = 2006 SLD 11 = 2006 PTD 103 = (2006) 93 TAX 363", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Investment in Bonds and Interest Deduction\n•\nConclusion: The allowance or disallowance of interest expenses on investments in Bearer National Fund Bonds depends on whether the investment was made using the assessee’s own capital or borrowed capital.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=17,17(1)(a),18,18(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 256 of 1998, decision dated: 13-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Nasrullah Awan\nRespondent(s) by: Iqbal Salman Pasha", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-III, KARACHI\nVS\nM/S COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 12 = 2006 SLD 12 = 2006 PTD 107 = (2005) 92 TAX 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Amendment of Assessment and Receipt of Money\n•\nConclusion: The amendment to the assessment order was valid, with the amount of Rs.9 lac being treated as a loan or gift rather than an investment. The High Court confirmed the adjustment based on the evidence available.\n•\nCitation: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 141; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 4534 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12(18),39(3),122,122(1),131 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,63,65,55,60,61,62,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2438/LB & 5597/LB of 2004, decision dated: 25-05-2005, hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: S.A. Masood Raza Qizalbash, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Sh. M. Akram", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 13 = 2006 SLD 13 = 2006 PTD 116 = (2006) 93 TAX 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Constitutional Petition Regarding Audit under Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nConclusion: The High Court ruled that the issuance of an audit notice under S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance after the assessee had filed a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme was unlawful. The Court reaffirmed that the notice was without authority.\n•\nCitation: Ch. Muhammad Hussain v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2005 PTD 152 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114(1),120(1)(b),120(3),177(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 5673, 8934, 8186, 8376, 9783 and 10850 of 2005, heard on 8-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Noor Ahmed Qureshi\nRespondent(s) by: Zahid Ferani Sheikh", + "Party Name:": "WELCON CHEMICALS (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND OTHERS\nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD THROUGH CHAIRMAN, C.B.R. AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 14 = 2006 SLD 14 = 2006 PTD 123 = (2006) 93 TAX 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Addition to Total Income and Approval by Commissioner\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had failed to obtain the necessary approval for the addition under S.13(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance. The Tribunal vacated the addition for the relevant years.\n•\nCitation: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1238; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 326 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),13(1)(c),59,62,65,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1606/KB to 1609/KB of 2003, decision dated: 9-03-2005, hearing DATE : 8-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Udha Ram Rajput\nRespondent(s) by: Ms. Farzana Jabeen, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 15 = 2006 SLD 15 = 2006 PTD 137 = (2006) 93 TAX 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption for Industrial Undertaking\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the company and industrial undertaking should be formed for the purpose of the undertaking’s objects. It clarified that not all multifarious objects are disqualified for exemption as long as the company’s formation is for the industrial purpose.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Part-I,Cl.(118A) ", + "Case #": "S.A.Os. Nos. 4 to 6 of 1999, decision dated: 14-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": " TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE SALIM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Eid Muhammad Khattak\nRespondent(s) by: Abdur Rauf Rohaila", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANIES ZONE, PESHAWAR\nVS\nFOAR ENGINEERING, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 16 = 2006 SLD 16 = 2006 PTD 140 = (2006) 93 TAX 373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification of Assessment Order\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declared the revenue’s notice invalid, as it sought to rectify an assessment from 1995 regarding business commencement in 1992-94, after the limitation period had passed.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,SecondSched.,Cl.(118C) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1198 of 2004, heard on 29-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Rana Muhammad Afzal\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS YAHYA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, MULTAN CANTT.\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 17 = 2006 SLD 17 = 2006 PTD 143 = (2006) 93 TAX 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Reopening of Assessment and Re-Auditing\n•\nConclusion: The High Court addressed the legality of reopening the assessment under S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance after returns had been filed under S.120. It referred the matter to the concerned authorities for compliance with established principles.\n•\nCitation: Ch. Muhammad Hussain and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2005 PTD 152 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,177 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. Nos. 9803, 9806, 9798 and 9812 of 2004, decision dated: 27-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Naeem Shah\nRespondent(s) by: Shahid Jamil Khan for Income Tax Department", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD UMAR\nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 19 = 2006 SLD 19 = 2006 PTD 288 = (2005) 91 TAX 517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Power Generation Exemption and Interest Income\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that interest income from unutilized balances in the bank was not exempt under the Power Policy, 1994, as the exemption applied only to profits from electricity generation.\n•\nCitation: Genertech Pakistan Ltd. v. ITAT 2004 PTD 2255 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(9A),14,22,30,31(1)(b),38(6),52,86,80C(2)(b),Second SchedulePart-ICl.(176), Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=Preamble ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1356/IB to 1358/IB of 1998-99, 343/IB of 2001-02, 823/IB of 2003, 1079/IB to 1081/IB, 1095/IB to 1097/IB of 2004; 1458/IB to 1460/IB of 1998-99, 295/IB of 2001-02 and 814/IB of 2003, decision dated: 1st January, 2005, hearing DATE : 27-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq\nRespondent(s) by: M. Arif Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 20 = 2006 SLD 20 = 2006 PTD 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Power Generation Exemption and Interest Income\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that interest income from unutilized balances in the bank was not exempt under the Power Policy, 1994, as the exemption applied only to profits from electricity generation.\n•\nCitation: Genertech Pakistan Ltd. v. ITAT 2004 PTD 2255 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 536 of 1998, decision dated: 16-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Jan Muhammad for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Rao TALIB ALI KHAN\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 21 = 2006 SLD 21 = 2006 PTD 338 = (2006) 93 TAX 438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Change After Filing Returns\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the department could not change or extend the Self-Assessment Scheme after returns had been filed, as doing so would be detrimental to the assessee.\n•\nCitation: Not provided", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,59 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11847 of 2005, heard on 7-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Dr. Ilyas Zafar\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS JAVED RUBBER WORKS, THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 22 = 2006 SLD 22 = 2006 PTD 348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Estimation of Sales and Trading Liabilities\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the estimation of sales and turnover made by the Tribunal. It upheld the inclusion of unpaid interest as trading liability and noted that such interest could be allowed even if unpaid in prior years.\n•\nCitation: 1983 PTD (Trib.) 320 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=25(c),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.207 of 1997, decision dated: 30-06-2005, hearing DATE : 17-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Appellant. Mian Yousaf Umar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CEBEE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 23 = 2006 SLD 23 = 2006 PTD 356 = (2005) 91 TAX 484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Power to Remand and Deductions of Bad Debts\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that remand orders should not be routine but made with clear reasons. The claim for deductions of bad debts was upheld, and the remand was deemed unjustified.\n•\nCitation: 1996 PTD (Trib.) 388; Ch. Muhammad Sadiq v. Income Tax Officer 1988 PTD 1014 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Preamble,9,23,23(1)(x),24(i),25(a),23(1)(xviii),54A, State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=46B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1066/IB to 1073/IB and I.T.As. Nos.1084/IB to 1091/IB of 2004, decision dated: 22-12-2004, hearing DATE , 7-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq\nRespondent(s) by: Arif Khan, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 24 = 2006 SLD 24 = 2006 PTD 386 = (2006) 93 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Loan and Amendments to S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nConclusion:\no\n(a) S.12(18) applies only to sums received as loans.\no\n(b) The amendment to S.12(18) by Finance Act (III of 1998), adding the terms advance or gift, did not clarify the law but changed it. This amendment is not applicable to assessments finalized before it came into force.\no\n(c) Share deposit money should not be treated as a loan under S.12(18); it can only be considered a loan if explicitly shown as such in the books.\no\n(d) Legal fiction provisions should not cause injustice.\no\n(e) Interpretations of fiscal statutes must align with fairness.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore ITA No.491 of 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),66A,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 300 of 2000, decision dated: 12-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Sajjid Ali Jafari\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nVS\nMESSRS PAPERS AND BOARD MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 25 = 2006 SLD 25 = 2006 PTD 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Filing Returns Under Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nConclusion: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rightly directed the Assessing Officer to accept the assessee's return under the Self-Assessment Scheme, as the transition from a registered firm to an association of persons required a separate assessment that did not justify rejecting the declared income.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1322 and 1323(IB) of 2004, decision dated: 15-06-2005, hearing DATE : 2-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIRZA KHAN, D.R. FOR APPELLANT. MIR ASAD KHAN FOR RESPONDENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Mir Asad Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 26 = 2007 SLD 26 = 2007 PTD 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Additional Tax Charge and Time Bar\n•\nConclusion: The charge of additional tax on 1-12-1977 was time-barred because it was levied after four years from the original assessment order, and no rectification or approval from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was sought.\n•\nCitation: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=18A(7),23(3) & 35(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 16 of 1986, decision dated: 2-10-1991", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Sirajul Haq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONEC, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs DADABHOY SILK MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 27 = 2006 SLD 27 = 2006 PTD 426 = (2006) 93 TAX 407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Universal Self-Assessment Scheme and Audit Selection\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declared the selection of the case for audit without issuance of the required statutory notice under S.120(5) as unlawful, and the case was sent back for re-initiation after proper legal procedures.\n•\nCitation: Ch. Muhammad Hussain v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2005 PTD 152 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114(1),120(3),177(1),120(5),120 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 17269 and 17901 of 2005, heard on 14-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Naeem Shah\nRespondent(s) by: Shahid Jamil Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS MUSTAFA FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS\nTAXATION OFFICER OF Income Tax AUDIT-III, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 28 = 2006 SLD 28 = 2006 PTD 429 = (2005) 91 TAX 462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Permission and Approval in Income Tax Procedures\n•\nConclusion: The distinction between permission and approval is crucial, as permission cannot replace the statutory requirement for approval, rendering the assessments and additions invalid.\n•\nCitation: 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1172; 1998 SCMR 2013 (SC Pak) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13(1)(aa),154,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5953/LB and 5954/LB of 2002, decision dated: 29-01-2005, hearing DATE : 25-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: h. Sharif Hussain and Sh. Muhammad Yasin\nRespondent(s) by: Sabiha Mujahid, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 29 = 2006 SLD 29 = 2006 PTD 441 = (2006) 94 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exercise of Discretion under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer must have definite information before initiating additional assessments. A revision of the wealth statement constituted valid grounds for invoking S.65, even if the information was derived from existing records.\n•\nCitation: 1993 SCMR 493; Edulji Dinsha Limited PLD 1990 SC 399 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,62,65,65(1)(b),136(1),136(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 27 of 1994, decision dated: 14-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": " ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Rehan Hassan Naqvi and Ms. Lubna Pervaiz\nRespondent(s) by: Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "MRS. FARIDA ABDUL AZIZ\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 30 = 2006 SLD 30 = 2006 PTD 447 = (2005) 92 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Capital Gain vs. Adventure in the Nature of Trade\n•\nConclusion: The re-assessment of a gain as taxable income under S.65 was unjustified because the profit from the sale of property was capital in nature, and no new facts or definite information warranted the re-assessment.\n•\nCitation: 2001 PTD 633 (Trib.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1549/KB to 1552/KB of 2003, decision dated: 20-03-2004, hearing DATE : 13-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": " S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: S. Nayyar Raza Zaidi, A.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Agha Hidayatullah, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 31 = 2000 SLD 31 = 2000 PTD 3599 = (1999) 238 ITR 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Disallowance of Business Expenditure under Indian Income Tax Act\n•\nConclusion: Payments such as proportionate salaries during a stay outside India and medical reimbursements to employees should not be included in disallowances. Surtax is not deductible in business expenditure, and machinery used for manufacturing heavy chemicals is entitled to investment allowance.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Continental Construction Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 485 (SC) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.262 of 1987, decision dated: 10-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.D. Mistry with Ms. H. Desai instructed by T. Pooran & Co. for the Assessee. R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COLOUR CHEM LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 32 = 2006 SLD 32 = 2006 PTD 470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: National Savings Schemes and Withholding Tax Exemption\n•\nConclusion: Exemption from withholding tax on yields from National Savings Schemes, specifically Mahana Amdani Accounts, applies to amounts where monthly installments do not exceed Rs.1,000. National Saving Organization cannot alter this concession.\n•\nCitation: 2006 PTD 402 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=239(14),SecondSched.,Part-I,Cls.77C(A),(83) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=151,159,SecondSched.,Part-I,Cls.77C,78-E ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 5511 and 1803 of 2004, heard on 26-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmed for Petitioner Dr. Danishwar Malik, Dy.-A.G., Tariq Shamim, Standing Counsel and Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Mst. SHUGFTA PARVEEN\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance Division, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 33 = 2006 SLD 33 = 2006 PTD 471 = (2005) 92 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Cooperative Societies and Minimum Tax\n•\nConclusion: A cooperative society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is not a company for tax purposes under the Income Tax Ordinance. Thus, minimum tax provisions applicable to companies do not apply to such societies.\n•\nCitation: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 2017 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(16)(b),80,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1641/KB of 2003, decision dated: 8-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Mushtaq Hussain Qazi, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 34 = 2006 SLD 34 = 2006 PTD 488 = (2005) 92 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Withholding Tax and Exemption of Income from Export Processing Zones\n•\nConclusion:\no\n(a) The exemption from withholding tax under S.50(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 applies only when payments are made to a branch of a non-resident company in Pakistan. Since the payment was made to a non-resident company’s branch in Singapore, withholding tax at 30% was applicable.\no\n(b) The exemption from withholding tax on payments to non-residents applies only when the payment is made within Pakistan to a branch of a non-resident company.\no\n(c) Exemption claims for income from Export Processing Zones were improperly allowed for the assessee as a banking company under the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nCitation: I.T.A. No.487/KB of 1997-98, dated October 10, 1999 for the assessment year 1996.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(3),52,Second ScheduleClause62,126,128 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2027/KB of 2002 and 926/KB, 622/KB, 623/KB, 129/KB, 941/KB, 1626/KB, 1291/KB, 914/KB, 1549/KB to 1552/KB, 1846/KB, 49/KB of 2003 and 114/KB of 1990-91, decision dated: 2-11-2004, hearing DATE : 7-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 35 = 2006 SLD 35 = 2006 PTD 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Audit\n•\nConclusion: Once a return qualifies under the Self-Assessment Scheme and is accepted, it cannot be later excluded for audit without proper grounds. The assessment under normal law should apply if the return is excluded from the Self-Assessment Scheme after selection for total audit.\n•\nCitation: 2001 PTD 121.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),61,62,80,80D,134,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1783/KB of 2002, decision dated: 5-10-2004. DATE of heating: 22-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Shabbir Memon, D.R. for Appellant. Akbar Azim Ansari for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 36 = 2006 SLD 36 = 2006 PTD 529 = (2005) 92 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Validity of Gift under Islamic Law and Income Tax Ordinance\n•\nConclusion:\no\n(a) A gift under Islamic law is valid even without a registered deed, provided the gift was made with the donor's declaration, acceptance by the donee, and transfer of possession.\no\n(b) The lack of registration does not invalidate the gift under Islamic law.\no\n(c) If a sum is gifted but not backed by a registered deed, the income from that property (e.g., rental income) is taxable.\n•\nCitation: Muhammadan Law by Mulla, C.B.R. Circulars.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),12(18A),13(1),62 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 1 of 2001, decision dated: 20-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, JUSTICE TARIQ PERVEZ KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Abdur Rauf Rohaila\nRespondent(s) by: Eid Muhammad Khattak", + "Party Name:": "MST. JAN RANA\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 37 = 2006 SLD 37 = 2006 PTD 538 = (2006) 94 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Selection for Audit and Constitutional Petition\n•\nConclusion: The High Court ruled that the selection of the cases for total audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme was unlawful as the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the law and lacked authority from the Supreme Court.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Sahib Textile Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, 2004 PTD 1.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=61,62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 10721, 10868, 10870, 11771 and 12179 of 2005, heard on 12-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Naeem Shah\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Shahid Jamil", + "Party Name:": "M/S HARVEST TOPWORTH INTERNATIONAL THROUGH MEMBER, LAHORE\nVS\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 38 = 2000 SLD 38 = 2000 PTD 3603 = (1999) 238 ITR 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deduction of Tax at Source and Opportunity to Rectify Forms\n•\nConclusion: The Income Tax Officer must give an opportunity to rectify minor defects in forms like Form No. 15H before treating the person as assessee in default. The absence of such an opportunity was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Hyderabad Stone Depot (1977) 109 ITR 686 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4402 of 1996, decision dated: 19-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "O. Anandaram for Petitioner.S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "VIJAY HEMANT FINANCE AND ESTATES LTD.\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 39 = 2006 SLD 39 = 2006 PTD 551 = (2006) 94 TAX 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption from Tax and Export Rebate\n•\nConclusion: The exemption from tax is limited to the original recipient of the income and does not extend to someone receiving income from that source. Partners of a firm are entitled to claim export rebate individually, as firms are not treated as legal entities for taxation.\n•\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nasir Ali and another 1999 PTD 1173.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=3(4)(a),151,First SchedulePart-IV,ParaA(2)(a) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14 Partnership Act, 1932=4 ", + "Case #": "C.T.Rs. Nos. 62, 65, 75 and 76 of 1998, decision dated: 31st October, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRANWALA\nVS\nINAM ULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1999 = 2013 SLD 1999 = 2013 YLR 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Bail and Criminal Liability\n•\nConclusion: The accused was granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking him directly to the fatality. The case primarily involved lesser charges, and his presence at the scene did not implicate him in the crime directly.\n•\nCitation: Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=.302/324/34/337-F(iii)/336 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.8703-B of 2012, decision dated: 3rd September, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner. Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy Prosecutor General. Ch. Zahid Iqbal for the Complainant. Ghulam Hussain, A.S.-I. With police record", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF\nVs\nTHE STATE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2000 = 2013 SLD 2000 = 2013 YLR 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Absconder's Right to Relief\n•\nConclusion: A fugitive or absconder from law is not entitled to seek relief from the court, as the accused did not surrender before the court. The Court rejected the plea for exemption from personal attendance.\n•\nCitation: Allah Bakhsy v. State 1982 SCMR 911.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=205,561A ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.49 and M.As. 1658 and 1659 of 2012, decision dated: 31st May, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "AHMED ALI M. SHEIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Majeeb Pirzada and Khalid Shah for Applicant. Ms. Rahat Ahsan, D.P.G., for Respondent No. 1. Mahmood A. Qureshi for Respondent No. 2", + "Party Name:": "HASSAN FARID KHAN\nVs\nTHE STATE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2001 = 2013 SLD 2001 = 2013 YLR 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal Against Acquittal\n•\nConclusion: The appeal against acquittal was dismissed as the trial court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. Serious inconsistencies in witness testimonies and evidence led to reasonable doubts regarding the prosecution’s case.\n•\nCitation: Rohtas Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 566.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302/34 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=417 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.86-M of 2012, decision dated: 7-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL AND ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanaullah Yousafzai for Appellants", + "Party Name:": "Mst. ZAHIDA\nVs\nKAKI KHAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 41 = 2006 SLD 41 = 2006 SCMR 526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal to High Court and Taxation Issues\n•\nConclusion: The High Court correctly ruled that a particular issue was not raised before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and thus could not be considered. The judgment was consistent with the relevant tax law.\n•\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Oriental Dyes and Chemical Co. Ltd. (1992) 65 Tax 254.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.189-L of 2001, decision dated: 6-02-2006. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-10-2000, passed by the Lahore High. Court, Lahore in C.T.R. No.24 of 1989).hearing DATE : 6-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam Chatta, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NIDA-IMILLAT (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONE NO.1, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 42 = 2006 SLD 42 = 2006 PTD 214 = (2005) 92 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Audit under S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001\n•\nConclusion: A notice failing to provide reasons for conducting an audit is illegal and void. The department is required to follow legal procedures strictly when auditing a taxpayer’s return.\n•\nCitation: Ch. Muhammad Hussain v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sialkot 2005 PTD 152.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,120,177,177(1) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 20554 of 2004, heard on 14-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Mian Nasir Mehmood\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "AAMIR FOOD INDUSTRIES\nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 43 = 2006 SLD 43 = 2006 PTD 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1202\n•\nTopic: Failure to File Statements and Penalties\n•\nConclusion: Penalties under S.108 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are applicable when monthly statements are not filed as required. The rules on time limits are valid and must be followed.\n•\nCitation: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Asim Textiles Mills Limited, Faisalabad 2003 PTD 2077.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(b),136(5),139 Income Tax Rules, 1982=53,61,61A Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 26 of 2000, 379/LB of 1999, decision dated: 25-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil for the Revenue. Ch. Anwaar ul Haq for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nMessrs MUGHAL MECHANISMS (PVT.) LTD., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 44 = 2006 SLD 44 = 2006 PTD 260 = (2006) 93 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Tax Liability of Public vs. Private Companies\n•\nConclusion: A company wholly owned by the Federal Government should be treated as a private limited company under most provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, except for the purpose of the First Schedule.\n•\nCitation: Anoud Power Generation Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 340.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(16),50,50(7A),FirstSched.,2(28) ", + "Case #": "Constitution petition No. D-2325 of 1994, decision dated: 10-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor-ul-Arfin for Petitioner. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 46 = 2000 SLD 46 = 2000 PTD 3612 = (1999) 236 ITR 603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification of Mistakes in Tax Assessments\n•\nConclusion: The rectification of assessments cannot be used to re-determine taxable income based on provisions such as S.115J. Mistakes in summary assessments should only address apparent errors.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Hero Cycles (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 14(M) of 1998, decision dated: 4-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "BRIJESH KUMAR, C.J. AND P. C. PHUKAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for Petitioner. R. Goenka and R.K. Agarwalla for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nM.L. AGARWALLA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 47 = 2006 SLD 47 = 2006 PTD 276 = (2006) 93 TAX 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Constitutional Petition and Amendment to Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nConclusion: Changes to the Self-Assessment Scheme after returns are filed cannot be detrimental to the assessees. The withholding of guidelines for case selection until after the filing of returns was improper.\n•\nCitation: W.P. No.9979 of 2003, dated 24-9-2003.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,59 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No.11759 of 2005, heard on 6-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Sayyid Ali Imran Rizvi\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS BASHIR DAR-ULMAHI THROUGH MUHAMMAD ASLAM, EX-MANAGING PARTNER\nVS\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EASTER REGION, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 48 = 2000 SLD 48 = 2000 PTD 3620 = (1999) 238 ITR 554", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Summary Assessment and Rectification\n•\nConclusion: Rectification orders made after an appellate tribunal’s decisions regarding depreciation cannot revise the tax calculations under summary assessment procedures.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Tiwary Bechar & Co. (1987) 165 ITR 78 (Pat.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.J.C. Nos. 782 and 886 of 1992 and 493 of 1994, decision dated: 16th September 1998", + "Judge Name:": "SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debi Pal, S.B. Gadodia, M.S. Mittal and R.K. Biswas for Petitioners Debi Prasad and K.K. Jhunjhunwala", + "Party Name:": "PARIKH ENGINEERING AND BODY BUILDING CO. LTD. and another\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 45 = 2006 SLD 45 = 2006 PTD 555 = (2006) 94 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption from Taxation\n•\nConclusion: The Supreme Court has already examined the relevant S.R.O.s and found them not to be discriminatory or unlawful. The exemption certificate issued in this context was upheld.\n•\nCitation: Anoud Power Generation Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 340.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 271-K of 2004, decision dated: 20-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: S. Irtaza H. Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record (absent)\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo for Nos.1, 3 and 4. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for No. 2", + "Party Name:": "DADABHOY ENERGY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 46 = 2006 SLD 46 = 2006 PTD 578 = (2006) 94 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Investment Returns and Income from Other Sources\n•\nConclusion: Returns from investments made by a company to utilize surplus funds cannot be classified as business income if the primary business does not involve investing in financial institutions.\n•\nCitation: Commissioner Income Tax U.P. v. Basnat Rai Takhat Singh 1933 ITR P.C. 197.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,30 ", + "Case #": "Tax References Nos. 117 to 119 of 2003, decision dated: 22-11-2005, hearing DATE : 16-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE SALIM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Khalid Anwar\nRespondent(s) by: Eid Muhammad Khattak", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS LUCKY CEMENT LTD.\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE COMPANIES, CIRCLE5, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 47 = 2006 SLD 47 = 2006 PTD 584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Super Tax Exemption for Professional Firms\n•\nConclusion: Exemption from super tax applies only to firms whose partners are prevented by law or professional regulations from forming a corporate body. The assessee did not qualify for this exemption.\n•\nCitation: I.T.A. No.632/KB of 1999.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,Cl.2B,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1363/KB of 2003, decision dated: 7-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASSAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaman Lal Oadh, D.R. for Appellant. Ali Rahim, A.R. for Respondent No. 4", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 48 = 2006 SLD 48 = 2006 PTD 590 = (2006) 94 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Gift and Income Tax\n•\nConclusion: A gift must involve the transfer of property with immediate effect. Without a registered gift deed and with the receipt of rental income from the property, the income was correctly included in the donor’s assessment.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Hero Cycles (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,134,148 Registration Act, 1908=17 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 517 of 1990, decision dated: 30-01-2006, hearing DATE : 30-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Iqbal Salman Pasha\nRespondent(s) by: Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 49 = 2006 SLD 49 = 2006 PTD 597 = (2006) 93 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification of Mistakes and Taxation Provisions\n•\nConclusion:\no\n(a) Rectification under S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 can only apply in cases where mistakes are glaring or self-evident, not in cases of misapplication of facts or law. The assessment was correctly annulled by the Appellate Tribunal.\no\n(b) The principle of change of opinion is applicable only when all facts are considered before the conclusion is reached.\no\n(c)–(f) Exemptions require separate declarations, as per the law, and the Assessing Officer must verify compliance before finalizing assessments.\no\n(g)–(x) Rectification under S.156 applies only for mistakes that are clear and do not require complex reasoning to address, and an opportunity must be given to the assessee before rectification.\n•\nCitation: 2003 PTD 1093, C.B.R. Circular No.1(155)DTO-11/94.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Part-IV,Cl.(9),8,55,56,61,62,80,80C,132,132,143B,156,156(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3412/LB of 2003, decision dated: 23rd February, 2005, hearing DATE : 25-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Akhtar Sheikh, F.C.A. along with Jalal Ahsan, A.C.A. for Appellant Shahid Jamil Khan, L.A. and Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 50 = 2006 SLD 50 = 2006 PTD 632 = (2006) 93 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Golden Handshake Scheme Taxation\n•\nConclusion: Payments under the Golden Handshake Scheme are taxable as salary under S.16(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and should be pro-rated based on the remaining service period. The First Appellate Authority's directions were vacated, and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the taxation as salary.\n•\nCitation: 2002 PTD 562.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,16(2)(c),Second Schedule Income Tax Rules, 1982=4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 528/LB of 2003, decision dated: 3rd September, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Mahboob Alam, D.R.\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 51 = 2006 SLD 51 = 2006 PTD 641 = (2006) 94 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Assessment Based on Survey Results\n•\nConclusion:\no\n(a) Survey forms cannot be treated as binding agreements for estimating sales, as they are informational. The Appellate Tribunal correctly dismissed the reliance on survey results for reassessment.\no\n(b) Remand is improper without new facts or further inquiry being needed.\no\n(c) Agreements made under undue influence in a survey are voidable.\no\n(d) Sales estimation should consider the overall facts, not just the survey results.\n•\nCitation: 2004 PTD 1285.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,129 Survey For Documentation of National Economy Ordinance, 2000=302(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 718/LB of 2004, decision dated: 14-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azhar Ehsan Sheikh for Appellant. Dr. Shahid Siddiqui Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 52 = 2006 SLD 52 = 2006 PTD 1840 = (1998) 234 ITR 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income from Property vs. Business\n•\nConclusion: The Commissioner of Income Tax correctly set aside the initial assessment to clarify whether income from letting property was from business or house property. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the setting aside, noting the need for further inquiry.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Gulabrai & Sons.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 90 of 1995, decision dated: 11-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. M.M Agrawal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKOHINOOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 53 = 2006 SLD 53 = 2006 PTD 660 = (2006) 94 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Cooperative Societies and Tax Status\n•\nConclusion: A cooperative society is not considered a company under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. It was correctly not treated as a company for tax purposes.\n•\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-II, Lahore v. Messrs Iqbal Avenues Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(16),80,80B ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 642 of 1999, decision dated: 27-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Shahid Jamil Khan", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX\nVs\nLAHORE CANTT. COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 54 = 2006 SLD 54 = 2006 PTD 661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Additional Assessments and Notices\n•\nConclusion:\no\n(a) Combined notices for multiple years are invalid if different issues are involved.\no\n(b)–(d) The Assessing Officer must issue separate notices and adhere to legal formalities for additional assessments, which was not followed here.\n•\nCitation: 1997 PTD 47.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),62,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 144/LB to 149/LB, 562/LB to 567/LB of 2005, decision dated: 16-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Afzaal Ahmad for the Assessee. Abdul Rasheed, D.R. for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 55 = 2006 SLD 55 = 2006 PTD 673", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Assessment Amendment under S.122\n•\nConclusion: The department improperly invoked S.122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 when the assessment was made before its promulgation. The Appellate Tribunal canceled the order as illegal.\n•\nCitation: 2005 PTD 1316.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2607/LB of 2005, decision dated: 30-11-2005, hearing DATE : 29-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmad, I.T.P. for Appellant and Muzammal Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 56 = 2006 SLD 56 = 2006 PTD 696 = (2006) 93 TAX 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Share Deposit Money and Income Tax\n•\nConclusion: The addition of share deposit money as a loan was deemed invalid, as it was not shown as a loan but as a liability related to a construction agreement. The Appellate Tribunal restored the original assessment.\n•\nCitation: Honda, Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi and others' case.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3958/LB of 2004, decision dated: 12-08-2005, hearing DATE : 11-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND EHSANUR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia-ud-Din Sheikh for Appellant. Muzammal Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 57 = 2006 SLD 57 = 2006 PTD 774 = (2006) 93 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Deemed to Accrue and Payments by Sister Concern\n•\nConclusion: Payments made by a sister concern on behalf of the assessee were not loans and should not be treated under S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The addition was unjustified, and the Appellate Tribunal vacated the order.\n•\nCitation: Utman Ghee Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 382 of 2003, heard on 6-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA AND NASIM SIKANDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant and Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "HANSA ENTERPRISES, SIALKOT\nvs\nREVENUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 58 = 2006 SLD 58 = 2006 PTCL 225 = 2006 PTD 778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Constitutional Petition Against S.62 Notice\n•\nConclusion: The Taxation Officer’s notice under S.62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was valid and not issued in bad faith. The High Court dismissed the petition, as the assessee had failed to respond to the notice.\n•\nCitation: Ujala Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-658 of 2005, decision dated: 13-01-2006. dates of hearing: 7th, 8th and. 15-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Abdul Sattar Pirzada and Ms Danish Zuberi for Petitioner. A.R. Akhtar for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 along with Dr. Tariq Masood, DCIT/Departmental Representative.", + "Party Name:": "I.C.I. PAKISTAN LTD., through Chief Financial Officer, Karachi\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 59 = 2006 SLD 59 = 2006 PTD 827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Approval for Additions under S.13(1)(d)\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal correctly deleted the addition under S.13(1)(d) due to the lack of mandatory approval from the relevant authority.\n•\nCitation: 2005 92 Tax 95 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1244/KB of 2005, decision dated: 28-01-2006, hearing DATE : 27-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. Ghulam Bashir Memon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 60 = 2006 SLD 60 = 2006 PTD 828", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification of Mistakes and Appeals\n•\nConclusion: An appeal against a rectified order can only challenge the changes in tax liability or fundamental aspects of the assessment. If the order doesn’t modify these, an appeal is not valid.\n•\nCitation: 2005 PTD (Trib.) 234.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1308/KB to 1310/KB of 2005, M.As. (Stay) Nos.3/KB to 5/KB of 2006, decision dated: 26-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. Gohar Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 61 = 2006 SLD 61 = 2006 PTD 838", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Preliminary Expenses and Rejection of Accounts\n•\nConclusion: Rejection of accounts without proper notice under S.62 was invalid. The addition based on unverifiable amounts or expenses was also unjustified, and the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.\n•\nCitation: 2004 PTD 2231.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1337/LB, 815/LB, 1203/LB of 2003 and 1349/LB of 2005, decision dated: 24-11-2005, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Abdul Rasheed, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1337/LB of 2003). Muhammad Shahid Baig for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 815/LB, 1203/LB of 2003 and 1349/LB of 2005). Ch. Abdul Rasheed, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.815/LB, 1203/LB of 2003 and 1349/LB of 2005). Muhammad Shahid Baig for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1337/LB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 62 = 2006 SLD 62 = 2006 PTD 854", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Reference to High Court and Tax Questions\n•\nConclusion: The High Court dismissed the reference as the question raised was not properly agitated before the Tribunal.\n•\nCitation: 2002 PTD 877.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.5 of 1993, decision dated: 31st May, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs RIAZUDDIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 63 = 2006 SLD 63 = 2006 PTD 862", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Re-assessment under S.65 and Mandatory Approvals\n•\nConclusion: Re-assessment proceedings under S.65 were invalid due to the lack of prior written approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.\n•\nCitation: 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1172.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 573/KB and 574/KB of 2005, decision dated: 27-06-2005, hearing DATE : 25-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P. for Appellant. Gohar Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 64 = 2006 SLD 64 = 2006 PTD 864 = (2006) 93 TAX 182 = (2006) 93 TAX 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Lease Income and Rejection of Accounts\n•\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer improperly rejected the declared lease income without evidence. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim and allowed the declared lease money.\n•\nCitation: 1998 PTD 769.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=11,11(1),12(18),17,19,19(1),19(2)(b),22,27,30,30(2)(d),32,32(1),32(3),32(1)(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1684/LB, 1685/LB, 2397/LB and 2398/LB of 2001, decision dated: 26-05-2005, hearing DATE : 19-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI AND EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervaiz Jami for Appellant (in 1.T.As. Nos.1684/LB and 1685/LB of 2001). Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.1684/LB and 1685/LB of 2001). Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2397/LB and 2398/LB of 2001). Shahid Pervaiz Jami for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.2397/LB and 2398/LB of 2001).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 65 = 2006 SLD 65 = 2006 PTD 882 = (2005) 92 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deductions for Bad Debts and Fraud Losses\n•\nConclusion: Deductions for bad debts were rightly allowed based on State Bank certification, while losses from fraud were not accepted without proper documentation.\n•\nCitation: 1990 PTD (Trib.) 731.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(vii),24,24(i) Income Tax Rules, 1982=20 Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=25,25(a),25(3),25(4),25(6),83,84 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 114/KB of 1990-91, decision dated: 30-08-2004, hearing DATE : 20-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Iqbal Naeem Pasha and Nadeem Ahmed Dawoodi\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Farid, Legal Advisor, Ali Hasnain, D.R. and Javed Iqbal Rana, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 66 = 2006 SLD 66 = 2006 PTD 896 = (2006) 94 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Additional Assessment and Tax on Exporter\n•\nConclusion: Issuing an additional assessment notice while other assessments were pending was improper. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the cancellation of the order.\n•\nCitation: 2005 PTD 1316.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),50,50(5A),56,61,65,80,80CC,143,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1239/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 15-04-2002, hearing DATE : 30-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAVAID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Judhar, D.R. for Appellant. Javed Zakaria for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 67 = 2006 SLD 67 = 2006 PTD 903 = (2006) 93 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Tax Rate on Contract Receipts\n•\nConclusion: Tax should be charged at 6% on contract receipts exceeding Rs.30 million, regardless of contract details. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the 6% rate for receipts above the threshold.\n•\nCitation: 86 Tax 262 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,143B,80C,50(4) & FirstSched.,Part-I,Para.CCC(I)(a)(ii), ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1846/KB of 2003 and 49/KB of 2004, decision dated: 13-10-2004, hearing DATE : 18-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Ali Khan Talpur, D.R. for Appellant. Mazharul Hasan, A.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 68 = 2006 SLD 68 = 2006 PTD 952", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Estimation of Income for Medical Practitioner\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's relief for the medical doctor, rejecting income estimates made without evidence. The addition of Salami as income was also deleted.\n•\nCitation: 2001 PCTLR 155.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5416/LB of 2003 and 5804/LB of 2002, decision dated: 31st August, 2005, hearing DATE : 16-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Shahab D.R. for Appellant. Ahmed Nadeem Ahsan, I.T.P. and Muhammad Waseem Bilal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 69 = 2000 SLD 69 = 2000 PTD 1843 = (1998) 234 ITR 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1231\nKey Points:\n•\nIncome from undisclosed sources, unexplained investments discovered during a search, and additions to income were upheld by the Tribunal.\n•\nNo question of law arose from the Tribunal’s decision.\nReferences: CIT v. Indian Woollen Textiles Mills, Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Civil Income tax Reference Case No. 1 of 1994, decision dated: 6-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": "M. P. SINGH AND A. K. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anjay Kothari for the Assessee. Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KANHIAYALAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER.OF IncomE tax." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 70 = 2006 SLD 70 = 2006 PTD 958", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nThe Income Tax Ordinance (1979) applies to assessments for income years before June 30, 2002.\n•\nDisputes on estimates made by survey teams were addressed, and deviations were justified.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that sales estimates were justified when the evidence supported deviation from survey estimates.\nReferences: 2002 PTD 541.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,59,59A,61,62,63,146,166,166(2)(a),239,239(1),239(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=239(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4873/LB and M.A. (Add. Ground) No. 691/LB of 2005, decided-on 22-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ajmal Khan and Shahid Umar Khan for Appellants. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 71 = 2006 SLD 71 = 2006 PTD 967 = (2005) 92 TAX 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority did not have jurisdiction over Capital Value Tax assessments, which could only be challenged by a revision petition.\n•\nExemption from Capital Value Tax was denied due to the nature of the land transfer.\nReferences: 1992 ALD 582(1), PLD 1964 SC 842.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1989=7,8 ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No.72/LB of 2005, decision dated: 9-05-2005, hearing DATE : 30th April. 2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghani, D.R. for Appellant. Rana M. Ishaque for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 72 = 2006 SLD 72 = 2006 PTD 973 = (2006) 93 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nAddition under Section 13(1)(aa) for gifted property was ruled illegal as it lacked a basis for re-assessment.\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority's decision was set aside, and the case was remanded for de novo consideration.\nReferences: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 769, 2000 PTD 517.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(3)(a),13,13(2),13(1)(aa),13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 77/LB of 1997, decision dated: 18-05-2005, hearing DATE : 20-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tahir Mehmood Butt for Appellant. Abdul Rasheed, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 73 = 2006 SLD 73 = 2006 PTD 984", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1235\nKey Points:\n•\nThe Finance Act amendments did not allow retrospective application of new tax deductions for the years prior to 1999-2000.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.\nReferences: 2004 PTD 921.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,50(4),86 Finance Act, 1998=Preamble ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4359 and 4360/LB of 2002, decision dated: 25-05-2005, hearing DATE : 24-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Maqbool, I.T.P. for Appellant. Muzammal Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 74 = 2006 SLD 74 = 2006 PTD 1019 = (2006) 93 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nAssessing Officers can complete assessments even after six months from the High Court's interim order.\n•\nFailure to issue a formal notice of defects under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance makes the assessment invalid.\nReferences: 1999 PTD 263, 1996 PTD 1125.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(1),24(ff),62,62(1),62(4A),136,136(7) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(4A),254 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1721/LB, 562/LB, 260/LB, 699/LB of 2003, decision dated: 16-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Asghar Qazi, I.T.P. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1721/LB, 562/LB and 260/LB of 2003). Ahmed Rauf, L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1721/LB, 562/LB and 260/LB of 2003). Ahmed Rauf, L.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 699/LB of 2003).\nMuhammad Ali Asghar Qazi, I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 699/LB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 75 = 2006 SLD 75 = 2006 PTD 1027 = (2006) 93 TAX 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1237\nKey Points:\n•\nUnregistered agreements to sell in slump sales did not transfer legal title to the assessee, invalidating the claim for tax exemption.\n•\nThe High Court confirmed that factual matters, such as whether the property sale qualified as a slump sale, are not subject to judicial review.\nReferences: Messrs Hotel Metropole Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, 1973 PTD 371.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(2),R.7(b)(I) ofThirdSched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 101 of 1994, decision dated: 16-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Farogh Nasim for Applicant. Javed Farooqui for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN PAPER PRODUCTS LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 76 = 2006 SLD 76 = 2006 PTD 1050", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nOrders passed under Section 132(2) due to failure to issue notices were recalled by the Appellate Tribunal for lack of formal notice to the assessee.\nReferences: 2002 PTD 1583.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=132,132(2),221 ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos. 579/LB to 581/LB of 2005, decision dated: 12-11-2005, hearing DATE : 11-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naseem Akbar, F.C.A. for Applicant. Anwar Ali Shah, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 77 = 2006 SLD 77 = 2006 PTD 1052 = (2006) 93 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1239\nKey Points:\n•\nAssessing Officer's inability to issue notices under Sections 56 and 61 for two assessment years was ruled invalid.\n•\nThe High Court concluded that the appeal was improperly handled due to lack of clarity from the First Appellate Authority.\nReferences: 2005 PTD (Trib.) 234.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,61,63,129 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5373/LB and 5374/LB of 2003, decision dated: 18-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Masood Raza Qizalbash, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 78 = 2006 SLD 78 = 2006 PTD 1061 = (2006) 93 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nIncome exempt from tax should not be subject to tax assessments on the basis of the tax return filed.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that exempt income should not have been taxed under Section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nReferences: CIT v. Ranchodas Karsondas (1959) 36 ITR 569.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,55(1),55(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 20 of 1996, decision dated: 3rd March, 2006, hearing DATE : 14-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqi for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEB, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs OLYMPIA POULTRY FARMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 79 = 2004 SLD 79 = 2004 PTD 1602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nClaims for exemption on charitable purposes were rejected for companies that supported the welfare of business interests but did not serve the public at large.\n•\nTax deductions related to depreciation and provisions for diminution were confirmed by the Tribunal.\nReferences: 1998 PTD 77, 2000 PTD 1201.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FourthSched.,5(a),6A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.124/KB and 198/KB of 2003, decision dated: 24-02-2004, hearing DATE : 29-01-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Ahmed D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 124/KB of 2003). Asif Kasbati, F.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 124/KB of 2003). Asif Kasbati, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 198/KB of 2003). Sajjad Ahmed D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 198/KB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 80 = 2006 SLD 80 = 2006 PTD 1072 = (2006) 93 TAX 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nThe exemption granted to certain companies was evaluated under public benefit criteria, where the company did not fulfill charitable criteria.\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld decisions regarding disallowed depreciation claims.\nReferences: 1965 55 ITR 722, 1985 PTD 287.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.94,13,24,26 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1698/KB to 1702/KB of 2003, decision dated: 13-09-2005, hearing DATE : 11-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND S. ABDUL MINAM, JAFARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "E.U. Khawaja and S. Hassan Naeem for AppellantMushtaq Husain Qazi, D.R. for Respondent. E.U. Khawaja and S. Hassan Naeem for Appellant. Mushtaq Husain Qazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 81 = 2006 SLD 81 = 2006 PTD 1085 = (2006) 93 TAX 413", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nHigh Court’s response on appeal issues was deemed valid as all questions raised before the Tribunal were addressed properly.\nReferences: 1992 65 Tax 254.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.189-L of 2001, decision dated: 6-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam Chatta, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NIDA-IMILLAT (PVT.) LTD. LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONE NO.1, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 439 = 2006 SLD 439 = 2006 PTD 1142 = (2006) 93 TAX 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nDisallowed business expenses and missed deductions were challenged by the assessee for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92, with the Tribunal confirming the department's calculations.\nReferences: 2000 PTD 359.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=25,25(c),135,136 ", + "Case #": "S.A.O. No. 2 of 1997, decision dated: 16-02-2006, hearing DATE : 26-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN AND SALIM KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rauf Rohaila for Appellant. Eid Muhammad Khattak for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KURRAM WOOD FACTORY (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 83 = 2006 SLD 83 = 2006 PTCL 120 = 2006 PTD 1151 = 2006 PTD 181 = (2006) 93 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nThe President’s acceptance of a representation without notice to the petitioner violated natural justice principles.\n•\nThe High Court’s decision to set aside the order was based on failure to afford due process.\nReferences: Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada, 1999 SCMR 2189.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=32 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-165 of 2004, decision dated: 23rd August, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Afzal Awan\nRespondent(s) by: Sajjad Ali Shah, D.A.G. for No. 1. Haider Iqbal Wahniwal for Nos. 2, 3 and 4.", + "Party Name:": "M/S SIDDIQSONS WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 84 = 2006 SLD 84 = 2006 PTD 1165 = (2006) 93 TAX 380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nFirst Appellate Authority’s enhancement of assessments based on insufficient material was ruled unlawful, emphasizing the need for additional evidence before reassessment.\nReferences: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2231.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,132,132(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6002/LB of 2003, decision dated: 4-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf, ITP for Appellant. Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 85 = 2006 SLD 85 = 2006 PTD 1189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nExempt income can only be set off against taxable income when both are included in the total income.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the set-off of taxable income against exempt income.\nReferences: 2000 PTD 359.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9,10,50,50(3),80,80DD,132,132(4),FirstSched.,50(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4453/LB, 4454/LB of 2005, 4605/LB, 4606/LB, 5049/LB and 5050/LB of 2003, decision dated: 24-02-2006, hearing DATE : 14-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for Appellant (in I.T.As, Nos. 4453/LB, 4454/LB of 2005, 4605/LB and 4606/LB of 2003). Muzammal Hussain, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.4453/LB, 4454/LB of 2005, 4605/LB and 4606/LB of 2003). Muzammal Hussain, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.5049/LB and 5050/LB of 2003). Sajid Ijaz Hotiana for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.5049/LB and 5050/LB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 86 = 2006 SLD 86 = 2006 PTD 1204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nRe-assessment under Sections 62 and 132 of the Income Tax Ordinance was invalid due to failure to formally confront the assessee with proposed additions.\nReferences: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2352.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),62,13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5169/LB of 2004, decision dated: 22-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ajmal Khan for Appellant. Dr. Ahmad Shahab, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 87 = 2006 SLD 87 = 2006 PTD 1225 = (2006) 93 TAX 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nOrders under S. 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance were not valid when books of accounts were not produced for review, which is mandatory for such assessments.\nReferences: 2000 PTD 277.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66-K,66A,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 176/IB to 178/IB of 2001-2002, decision dated: 17-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND EHSAN-UL-HAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervez Jami and C.A. Habib, F.C.A. for Appellant. Rafaqat Ali Syed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 88 = 2006 SLD 88 = 2006 PTD 1248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n•\nTaxable income from other sources cannot be offset against exempt income unless explicitly allowed by the tax regime provisions.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that taxable income should be properly set off against losses.\nReferences: 2000 PTD 359.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(24),2(24)(b),2(44),11,11(1),14,14(1),30,34,SecondSched.,Cl.118D,Cl.99 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 762/LB, 763/LB of 2002, 2457/LB and 2458/LB of 2004, decision dated: 15-06-2005, hearing DATE : 14-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervez Jami for Appellant. Muzammil Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 89 = 2006 SLD 89 = 2006 PTD 1254 = (2006) 94 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Estimation of Sales and Gross Profit Rate, Penalties for Failure to Furnish Statements\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer’s rejection of the accounts and estimation of sales and gross profit rate at 7.5% were upheld, as no evidence showed an increase in raw material prices or decline in sales.\n•\nPenalties for failure to furnish returns were deemed valid, with the imposition of additional penalties explained to be based on separate actions with different notices.\n•\nThe penalty for default continued after the penalty under Section 182(2), starting from the date of non-compliance.\nCitations:\n2000 PTD (Trib.) 2664; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 2605; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1167 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=151,153,169,182,182(2),182(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1727/KB of 2003 and 407/KB of 2004, decision dated: 23rd November, 2004, hearing DATE : 5-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.H. Faridi, I.T.P. for Appellant. Ghulam Shabbir Memon, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 90 = 2006 SLD 90 = 2006 PTD 1270 = (2006) 93 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption for Share Income Received by Member of Association of Persons\nConclusion:\n•\nThe exemption under Clause (110) of Part-II, Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was granted to the assessee, as the tax exemption for share income applies to the member, not just the association of persons, in line with statutory construction principles.\nCitations:\n2000 PTD (Trib.) 2664; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 2605; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1167 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.110,52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5857/LB to 4859/LB and 2086/LB to 2088/LB of 2004, decision dated: 30-05-2005, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ibrar Hussain Naqvi for Appellant/Assessee. Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent/Department.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 91 = 2006 SLD 91 = 2006 PTD 1282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Legality of Total Audit Selection and Tax Assessment\nConclusion:\n•\nThe selection of a case for total audit by the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax was declared illegal by the Appellate Tribunal, affirming the need for proper justification under the law.\nCitations:\nMessrs Sahib Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Secretariat, Islamabad and 4 others 2004 PTD 1; 1997 PTD 1555 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 721/LB of 2005, I.T.As. Nos. 3247/LB and 3299/LB of 2003, decision dated: 8-11-2005, hearing DATE : 2-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant (in M.A. No. 721/LB of 2005 and I.T.A. No. 3247/LB of 2003). Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent (in M.A. No. 721/LB of 2005 and I.T.A. No. 3247/LB of 2003). Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 3299/LB of 2003). Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 3299/LB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 92 = 2006 SLD 92 = 2006 PTD 1292 = 2005 PTR 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductions for Provisions and Expenses in Banking Companies\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decisions, confirming that provisions for bad debts, interest on suspense accounts, and business-related expenses were properly allowed in banking companies based on regulatory and accounting standards.\nCitations:\n2002 PTD (Trib.) 1898; 85 Tax 245 (Trib.); 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1189; R.A. No.349/LB of 2002 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,23,23(1),23(1)(x),24,24(1),25,25(a)(a),30,30(2)(a),62,62(1),FirstSched.,SecondSched. Income Tax Rules, 1982=3,4,18 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6053/LB of 2004, 6030/LB, 6031/LB of 2003, 6641/LB, 43/LB and 44/LB of 2004, decision dated: 24-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.6053/LB of 2004, 6030/LB and 6031/LB of 2003). Javaid Iqbal Rana IAC, LTU and Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, DCIT for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.6053/LB of 2004, 6030/LB and 6031/LB of 2003). Javaid Iqbal Rana IAC, LTU and Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, DCIT for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 6641/LB, 43/LB and 44/LB of 2004). Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 6641/LB, 43/LB and 44/LB of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 106 = 1976 SLD 106 = 1976 AIR 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction and Disallowance of Expenses in Banking Sector\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the disallowances of various banking expenses, including those for non-banking assets, excess perquisites, and provisioning for capital gains, as the deductions were either unsupported or non-business-related.\nCitations:\n2002 PTD (Trib.) 1898; 85 Tax 245 (Trib.); 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1189 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "DATE OF JUDGMENT 05/09/1975", + "Judge Name:": "BENCHCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH GUPTA, A.C.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Murarilal Mahabir Prasad & Ors\nvs\nShri B. R. Vad & Ors on 5 September, 1975" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 93 = 2006 SLD 93 = 2006 PTCL 420 = 2006 PTD 1319 = (2006) 93 TAX 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductibility of Embezzled Amount by Bank Employee\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that the claim for deduction of embezzled funds was not admissible, as no legal recovery efforts had been exhausted to support the deduction.\nCitations:\nAssociated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 1 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(xviii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C.. Nos. 64 to 67 and 69 to 70 of 1993, decision dated: 14-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GRINDLAYS BANK P.L.C., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 94 = 2006 SLD 94 = 2006 PTD 1323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Service of Notice and Tax Assessment Procedure\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that the presumption of postal service could be rebutted, and that procedural errors in the service of notice for tax assessments could invalidate the assessments.\nCitations:\n2003 PTD 1516; 1994 SCMR 2233; 1999 PTD 1358 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,55A,59,59(1)(4),64,65,65(1)(c),154 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1933/LB to 1935/LB, 2103/LB, 2096/LB and 2104/LB of 1996, decision dated: 9-02-2005, hearing DATE : 14-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHEERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akram Tahir, D.R. for Appellant. Ajmal Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 95 = 2006 SLD 95 = 2006 PTD 1338 = (2006) 93 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Dairy Farm Income and Gross Profit Rate Adjustments\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority’s decision to adjust the gross profit rate based on historical data and milking yield was affirmed by the Tribunal, validating the decision to reduce the applied rate from 33% to 15%.\nCitations:\nI.T.A. Nos. 5531/LB of 1996 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),19,19(1)(b),22,62,ThirdSched.,7(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1611/KB of 2003, decision dated: 12-03-2005, hearing DATE : 12-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Farzana Jabeen, D.R. for Appellant. Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 96 = 2006 SLD 96 = 2006 PTCL 523 = 2006 PTD 1343 = (2006) 93 TAX 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment in National Funds Bonds and Interest Deduction\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to adequately assess the liquidity and investment of the assessee in National Funds Bonds and that interest deductions were not justified without proper examination of cash flow.\nCitations:\nI.T.A. No. 1913/KB of 1998 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=31,31(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No: 3 of 1994, decision dated: 14-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicant. Nasarullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK SAUDI FERTILIZER LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 97 = 2006 SLD 97 = 2006 PTD 1351 = (2006) 93 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Dyeing Business Gross Profit Rate\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision to accept the declared gross profit rate of 12.54% after evaluating the proper context of the business’s turnover and performance history.\nCitations:\nI.T.A. No. 1913/KB of 1998 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1489/KB of 2003, decision dated: 9-03-2005, hearing DATE : 17-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Farzana Jabeen, D.R. Appellant. Abdul Raheem Lakhani for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 98 = 2006 SLD 98 = 2006 PTD 1356 = (2006) 93 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Credit for Investment in Plant and Machinery\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that tax credits under Section 107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were applicable to investments made between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2002, not for purchases made before this period.\nCitations:\nI.T.A. No. 242/KB of 1981-82 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107,107AA ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1296/KB of 2003, decision dated: 2-11-2004, hearing DATE : 20-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Gohar Ali, D.R. for Appellant. Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 99 = 2006 SLD 99 = 2006 PTCL 407 = 2006 PTD 1362 = (2006) 93 TAX 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Case Selection for Total Audit under Section 177(1)\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that selection for total audit required specific, documented reasoning from the Commissioner, which should be based on the factors outlined in Section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nCitations:\nGeneral Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-A rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177,177(1) General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.187 of 2005, decision dated: 16-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Raza Naqvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Altaf Mun for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through General Manager (Finance and Accounts), Karachi\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANIES Zone-III, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 100 = 2006 SLD 100 = 2006 PTD 1368 = (2006) 93 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption for Transfers to Educational Foundations\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's ruling that the transfer of funds for welfare activities did not qualify for tax exemption, as it was not within the scope of educational purposes defined under the law.\nCitations:\nC.B.R. Circular No.2 of 1996, dated 18-2-1996 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Part-I,Cl.(86) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.699/KB of 2003, decision dated: 29-03-2005, hearing DATE : 22-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riaz Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Arshad, A.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 101 = 2006 SLD 101 = 2006 PTD 1373 = (2006) 93 TAX 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax on Undisclosed Income and Declaration of Assets\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal directed that tax on undisclosed income be accepted, but only after the balance tax was paid, clarifying that declarations should be based on total investments and not depreciated values.\nCitations:\nI.T.A. No. 193/KB of 1998-99 dated 19-7-1999 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),59,59D Income Tax Rules, 1982=Part-IIA ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1471/LB of 2005, decision dated: 9-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Munawar, A.R. for Appellant. M. Aslam Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 102 = 2006 SLD 102 = 2006 PTD 1377 = (2006) 93 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from WAPDA Bonds and Exemption Claims\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that income from WAPDA Bonds was not exempt for banking companies due to clear provisions excluding them from such benefits.\nCitations:\nI.T.A. No. 193/KB of 1998-99 dated 19-7-1999 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,14(2),62,SecondSched.,Cl.79A,Cl.79B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1857/KB of 2001, 2024/KB to 2026/KB and 2091/KB of 2002, decision dated: 15-04-2005, hearing DATE : 5-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khaliqur Rehman, FCA and Fateh Ali Vellani for Appellant. Dr. Farrukh Ansari, D.R. (LTU), Dr. M. Ali Khan, D.R. (LTU) and Muhammad Farid for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 103 = 2000 SLD 103 = 2000 PTD 1848 = (1998) 234 ITR 541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessments Based on Hybrid Accounting Systems\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the authority of the Commissioner to reopen assessments when a wrong accounting system was applied and when tax liability might be higher under proper accounting methods.\nCitations:\nI.T.A. No. 1913/KB of 1998 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C.No.317 of 1984, decision dated: 12-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Ramagopal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGEO INDUSTRIES AND INSECTICIDES (I) (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 104 = 2006 SLD 104 = 2006 PTCL 473 = 2006 PTD 1396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Condonation of Delay in Filing Representation\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court set aside the President’s order, requiring a proper explanation for condoning delays in filing time-barred representations, as per the General Clauses Act.\nCitations:\nSiddiqsons Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2005 Kar. 656 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=32 General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997=24A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-35 and C.M.As. Nos.143 and 144 of 2006, decision dated: 28-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SHAMSUDDIN HISBANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taswar Ali Hashmi for Petitioner. S. Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for Respondent No. 1. Raja M. Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4", + "Party Name:": "NISHAT MILLS LIMITED through Principal Officer, Karachi\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 105 = 2006 SLD 105 = 2006 PTCL 415 = 2006 PTD 1398 = (2006) 93 TAX 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxation of Income from Land Sales and Concealment of Income\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that the income from the sale of agricultural land after development was not taxable as income, as it was disclosed in the wealth statement and not concealed.\nCitations:\n1994 PTD 675 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,134 & 13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 221 of 2004, decision dated: 29-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs ANGOLA ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 106 = 2006 SLD 106 = 2006 PTCL 503 = 2006 PTD 1400 = (2006) 93 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Cash vs. Mercantile Accounting Systems\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal emphasized that hybrid accounting systems were legally permissible, but each transaction should be reviewed for its proper classification under either the cash or mercantile systems.\nCitations:\nRadhaka Corporation v. Central Board of Revenue 1989 SCMR 358 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,136,66A ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 306 to 308 of 1999 and 785 of 2000, decision dated: 18-09-2002, hearing DATE : 16-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND ZIA PERWAZ, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Farough Naseem for Appellants. Muhammad Fareed for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos.306, 308 of 1999 and 785 of 2000). Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents (in I.T.A. No. 306 of 1999). Nasrullah Awan for Respondents (in I.T.A. No. 785 of 2000).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 107 = 2006 SLD 107 = 2006 PTCL 553 = 2006 PTD 1409 = (2006) 94 TAX 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption on Interest from Bank Deposits for Power Generation Companies\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that interest income from bank deposits was not exempt for power generation companies as it was not tied directly to the operation of power generation plants.\nCitations:\nGenertech Pakistan Limited and others v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan, Lahore and others 2004 SCMR 1319 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,30 & SecondSched.,Part-I,Cl.(176) Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=5(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 457 of 2003, decision dated: 13-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram for Petitioner Sajjad Ali Jaffri for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "KOHINOOR ENERGY LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER ACCOUNTS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (APPEALS) Zone-I, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 108 = 2006 SLD 108 = 2006 PTCL 445 = 2006 PTD 1422 = (2006) 93 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Non-Declaration of Income from Sale of Plots\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal concluded that the non-declaration of income from land sales was not a concealment of income, as the sale was disclosed in the wealth statement and was not liable to income tax.\nCitations:\nSyed Akhtar Ali v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad 1994 PTD 675 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.101 of 1987, decision dated: 17-01-2006, hearing DATE : 31st August, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEC, KARACHI\nvs\nA. R. HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 109 = 2006 SLD 109 = 2006 PTD 1446 = 2007 PLJ 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that no anti-dumping duty investigation could proceed without satisfying the requirements under the Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance 2000, ensuring proper procedures were followed.\nCitations:\nGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994, Art. 6 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Anti Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)=24,27 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 708, 707, 706, 748, 749, 750, 751 and 582 of 2006, heard on 20-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Petitioner. Sikandar Bashir assisted by Mazhar Bangash, Legal Advisor for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "IMRAN TRADERS\nvs\nMINISTRY OF COMMERCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 110 = 2006 SLD 110 = 2006 PTD 1476 = (2006) 93 TAX 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision of Tax Petition under Section 138\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal clarified that tax revision petitions filed under outdated laws should be considered under the correct, updated provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically Section 122A.\nCitations:\n2003 PTD 2109 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.853-L of 2004, decision dated: 29-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Complainant. Muhammad Naeem, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 111 = 2006 SLD 111 = 2006 PTD 1479 = (2006) 93 TAX 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalties for Non-Filing of Statements\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed for non-filing of requisite statements but directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case for a fair penalty determination in line with legal requirements.\nCitations:\n1993 PTD (Trib.) 1222 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),108,143,143B ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 594 of 1999, decision dated: 30-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JILLAN PACKAGING AND PAPER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 112 = 2006 SLD 112 = 2006 PTD 1481 = (2006) 93 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalties for Non-Filing of Statements\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed for non-filing of requisite statements but directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case for a fair penalty determination in line with legal requirements.\nCitations:\n1993 PTD (Trib.) 1222 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5660/LB of 2003 and 2130/LB of 2005, decision dated: 5-01-2006, hearing DATE : 16-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Zia Ullah for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 5660/LB of 2003). Mehboob Alam, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 5660/LB of 2003). Mehboob Alam, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2130 of 2005). Sh. Zia Ullah for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2130 of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 113 = 2006 SLD 113 = 2006 PTD 1486 = (2006) 93 TAX 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax, Violation of Agreement, and Arbitrary Conduct\nConclusion:\n•\nThe recovery proceedings for tax, which were initiated against the decision of the Commissioner and Regional Commissioner of Income Tax to withhold recovery until the appeal decision, were ruled to be in violation of the agreement. Recovery was made arbitrarily the day after the hearing, without proper prior notice, amounting to maladministration.\nCitations:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommendation for urgent action and release of pending order from Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the 2000-2001 year.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=140,146A(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=.2(3)(vi),2 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 539-L of 2004, decision dated: 1st March, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azhar Ehsan Sheikh for Complainant. Abdul Rehman Warriach DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LAHORE CONTINENTAL HOTEL, LAHORE CANTT.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 114 = 2006 SLD 114 = 2006 PTD 1501 = (2006) 93 TAX 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration in Handling Complaints Regarding Tax Evaders\nConclusion:\n•\nThe failure to take action on the complainant’s report of tax evasion and the cold-shouldering by an official was deemed maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended corrective actions, including disciplinary measures against responsible officers.\nCitations:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommendation for action under the Removal from Service Ordinance and Performance Evaluation Reports.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 688-L of 2004, decision dated: 4-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Qaisar Ali and Gulfam Arshad for the Complainant. Tallat Altaf Raja (IAC) and Ishtiaq Ahmad (D-CIT) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "SABIR HUSSAIN\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE, DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 115 = 2006 SLD 115 = 2006 PTD 1513 = (2006) 93 TAX 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 1278\nTopic: Taxation of Prepaid Tax and Refund Procedure for Cellular Services\nConclusion:\n•\nThe absence of a prescribed procedure for handling prepaid taxes on cellular service activations, despite changes in tax rates, was deemed a flaw. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended amendments to ensure proper collection and credit for the tax and an announcement for public clarity.\nCitations:\nCentral Board of Revenue recommendation for necessary amendments and public clarification.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=236 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1002-L of 2004, decision dated: 17-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "AAMIR HASSAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 116 = 2006 SLD 116 = 2006 PTD 1515 = (2006) 94 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal Against Assessment Order, De Novo Assessment, and Jurisdiction Issues\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority’s remand for de novo assessment was ruled to be unnecessary after most of the grounds were decided in favor of the assessee. Additionally, the Deputy Commissioner’s amended order was found to be issued without jurisdiction, resulting in its annulment.\nCitations:\n199 PTD (Trib.) 4026 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,2(13),2(65),120,122,122(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 506/LB and 1233/LB of 2005, decision dated: 7-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Ahsan, I.T.P. for Appellant. Rana Muhammad Luqman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 117 = 2006 SLD 117 = 2006 PTCL 615 = 2006 PTD 1525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maintainability of Appeal on Factual Issues\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court ruled that appeals based solely on factual controversies are not maintainable, declining to entertain the appeal.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 122 of 1998, decision dated: 19-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI AND SYED HUMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Yousaf Umar for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nRAHIM COTTON FACTORY, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 118 = 2006 SLD 118 = 2006 PTD 1534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdictional Transfer of Tax Case and Its Invalidity\nConclusion:\n•\nThe transfer of the assessee’s case from one jurisdiction to another without proper NOC from the Central Board of Revenue was deemed illegal, and the assessment orders based on such transfers were annulled.\nCitations:\n1996 SCMR 856; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2176; 2004 PTD 330; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 344 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(1)(c),5(2),5(3),5(4),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 427(IB) of 2005, 721(IB), 722(IB), 723(IB), 724(IB) and 725(IB) of 2004, decision dated: 9-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal and Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 119 = 2000 SLD 119 = 2000 PTD 1856 = (1998) 234 ITR 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Encashment of High Denomination Notes, Income from Unexplained Sources\nConclusion:\n•\nThe addition of income from high denomination notes was ruled unjustified as the assessee had a sufficient cash balance. No law required the maintenance of detailed records of currency denominations, and the Tribunal ruled that the source of funds was adequately explained.\nCitations:\nLalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.220 of 1986, decision dated: 25-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. P. Sathe for the Assessee. R. V. Desai with B. M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NARENDRA G. GORADIA (HUF)\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 120 = 2006 SLD 120 = 2006 PTCL 601 = 2006 PTD 1543 = (2006) 93 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Right to Premises and Framing of Additional Assessments\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal clarified that no ownership right is created in property under the Transfer of Property Act, and that additional assessments or revisions under sections 65 and 66(a) must be based on new information or legal grounds.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,66,66(a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882=5 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 54 of 1997, decision dated: 14-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Ghulam Ahmad for Appellant. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAUKAT SOAP FACTORY through Chief Executive\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 123 = 2006 SLD 123 = 2006 PTD 1557 = (2006) 93 TAX 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Appellate Tribunal’s Orders\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court ordered the setting aside of two orders of the Appellate Tribunal, directing that the appeal be reheard and decided afresh according to the law.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,136,156 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 528 to 532 of 1998, decision dated: 17-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Zia Haider Rizvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nS.M. RIAZ & SONS (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 124 = 2006 SLD 124 = 2006 PTD 1800 = (2006) 93 TAX 162 = 2006 PTR 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductions for Bad Debts and Provisions in Banking Sector\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld that provisions for bad debts in banks should be considered based on statutory regulations and should not be disallowed simply because they were presented as provisions. It was remanded for proper determination of bad debts.\nCitations:\n1976 PTD 237 rel.; 2002 PTD (Trib.) 1898; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1189 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(x),23(1)(xviii),23(1)(xxi) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5531/LB of 1996, 45/LB, 46/LB, 6362/LB, 88/LB, 89/LB, 6054/LB to 6057/LB of 2004, decision dated: 28-06-2005, hearing DATE : 12-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Amjad, Addl. CIT. and Shahid Jamil, L.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos, 5531/LB of 1996, 45/LB, 46/LB and 6362/LB of 2004). Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq for Respondent (in ITT.As. Nos. 5531/LB of 1996, 45/LB, 46/LB, 6362/LB of 2004). Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq for Appellant (in LT.As. Nos.88/LB, 89/LB, 6054/LB to 6057/LB of 2004). Dr. Amjad, Addl. C.I.T. and Shahid Jamil, L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.88/LB, 89/LB, 6054/LB to 6057/LB of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 125 = 2006 SLD 125 = 2006 PTD 1790", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Estimation of Gross Profit and Loans from Directors\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's accounts and confirmed the gross profit rate applied by the Assessing Officer. The loan from the director was directed to be examined afresh in line with applicable provisions.\nCitations:\n2002 PTD 1963 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),151,153,182,182(2),182(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182(2)(3),169,151,153 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 407/KB of 2004 and 1727/KB of 2003, decision dated: 23rd November, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.H. Fridi, ITP for Appellant. Ghulam Shabbir Memon, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 126 = 2006 SLD 126 = 2006 PTD 1787", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration in Self-Assessment Scheme and Tax Procedures\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration in the handling of the complainant’s self-assessment tax return, recommending the cancellation of the ex parte assessment and acceptance of the self-assessed return.\nCitations:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommendation to cancel ex parte assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2),2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,61,62,65,66,66A,9,9(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 144-L of 2004, decision dated: 16-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "None for the Complainant. Karamatullah, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MADINA CLOTH HOUSE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 127 = 2006 SLD 127 = 2006 PTD 1778 = (2006) 93 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Amendments of Assessments and Jurisdictional Issues in Tax Law\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal annulled amendments to assessments, ruling that changes made under provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 could not be applied retrospectively, and authority for amendments had been exercised improperly.\nCitations:\n2005 PTR 70 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),122(5A),240,201,201(1A),210 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,30,31,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 998/LB and 999/LB of 2004, decision dated: 10-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ziaullah Kayani for Appellant. Muzammal Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 128 = 2006 SLD 128 = 2006 PTD 1774", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Ex Parte Assessments\nConclusion:\n•\nThe ex parte assessment framed despite the complainant’s eligible self-assessment was ruled as maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended cancellation and acceptance of the self-assessment under the scheme.\nCitations:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommendation to cancel ex parte assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),61,62,80,80D,86,2,2(3),9,9(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1468-L of 2003 decided on 19th April 2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Munir Hussain for the Complainant. Mahmood Jafary, D-CIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Rao KHURRAM ALI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 129 = 2006 SLD 129 = 2006 PTCL 42 = 2006 PTD 1768 = (2006) 93 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes Under Income Tax Ordinance\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal annulled the rectification order passed before the amendment, ruling that any rectification made before June 17, 2003 was not legally valid under the newly amended provisions.\nCitations:\nPLD 1979 Lah. 703; 1984 PTD (Trib.) 95; 1988 PTD 227; 1991 PTD 843; 1993 PTD 110; 1993 PTD 83; 1994 PTD (Trib.) 839; 1994 PTD (Trib.) 1416, 1998 PTD (Trib.) 279 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221(1),221(1A) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5727/LB of 2003, decision dated: 25-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Bashir Malik for Appellant. Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 130 = 2006 SLD 130 = 2006 PTD 1761", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund, Limitation, and Excess Deductions\nConclusion:\n•\nThe objection regarding the limitation on refund claims was rejected by the Federal Tax Ombudsman, as the issue was not closed and required further verification. The Ombudsman recommended the verification of excess deductions for the years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 and the issuance of refunds after adjustment of outstanding liabilities.\nCitations:\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommendation for verification and refund issuance.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),10,10(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,96,99,99(5),102,143,143B ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1613-K of 2003, decision dated: 30-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazhar-ul-Hassan for the Complainant. Ejaz Asad Rasul, IAC, Zone-C and Zia Agro, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SARHAD PUNJAB GOODS FORWARDING AGENCY, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 131 = 2006 SLD 131 = 2006 PTD 1753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision of Wealth Statement and Investment Explanation\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessment made by the Assessing Officer was found invalid as the revision of the wealth statement was not acknowledged properly. The revised wealth statement with clarified sources of investment should have been considered, and the assessment was ordered to be cancelled, recommending a fresh assessment.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),58,58(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1676 of 2003, decision dated: 22-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Saghir Ahmed for the Complainant. Sajjad Azhar, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNIS KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 132 = 2006 SLD 132 = 2006 PTD 1738 = (2006) 93 TAX 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption from Super Tax and Expenses Disallowance\nConclusion:\n•\nThe claim for exemption from super tax by a professional firm was disallowed, as the firm failed to meet the statutory conditions. Additionally, disallowed expenses were ordered to be scrutinized individually, and the matter was remanded for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.\nCitations:\n2005 PTD 11152 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,Part-IV,para.A,sub-para.(2B) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.31/KB, 32/KB, 3382/KB of 2004, 803/KB and 804/KB of 2003, decision dated: 14-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Anwar Kamal, A.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.31/KB, 32/KB and 3382/KB of 2004). Ms. Shaista Kamal, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.31/KB, 32/KB and 3382/KB of 2004). Ms. Shaista Kamal, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.803/KB and 804/KB of 2003). Qazi Anwar Kamal, A.R. for Respondent (in I. T. As. Nos.803/KB and 804/KB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 133 = 2006 SLD 133 = 2006 PTD 1728 = (2006) 93 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Other Sources and Tax on Loans\nConclusion:\n•\nThe interpretation of income under section 39 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 clarified that certain loans or gifts are subject to tax if they do not meet the exclusions specified. The petition challenging the selection for total audit was upheld, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal provisions.\nCitations:\n1992 PTD 1141; 1992 PTD (Trib.) 1599 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=39,39(1),39(3),39(4),39(5),177,124,124A,5,6,7 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.337/PB of 2005, decision dated: 30-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafi Jan for Appellant. Yousaf Ghaffar, D.R. for Responden", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 134 = 2006 SLD 134 = 2006 PTD 1709", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interpretation of Tax Law and Reference to High Court\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court’s jurisdiction was clarified to be advisory, with no new factual questions allowed. The Tribunal’s decisions regarding points raised and decided were confirmed, and the High Court's role was emphasized as being limited to legal questions based on facts as already decided by the Tribunal.\nCitations:\nMessrs Muhammad Idrees Barry & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax PLD 1959 SC 202; Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab 1944 ITR 399 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42,42(1),42(3) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Nos. 70 and 232 of 1998, decision dated: 14-04-2006, hearing DATE : 11-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs W.J. TOWELL & CO. AGENCIES (KUWAIT), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 135 = 2006 SLD 135 = 2006 PTD 1678 = (2006) 93 TAX 207 = 2007 PTR 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding Tax on PCO Sales and Constitutional Petition\nConclusion:\n•\nConstitutional petitions related to withholding tax demands on public call office (PCO) sales were found not maintainable, as they involved factual disputes better suited for appeal within the income tax framework.\nCitations:\nICI v. Federation of Pakistan (C.P. No.D-658 of 2005) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996=5 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,236,236(1)(b),236(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-376 and D-611 of 2004, decision dated: 14-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmer Bilal Soofi for Petitioners. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Nemo from the Office of D.A.G", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNION COSMIC COMMUNICATIONS (PVT.) , LIMITED, KARACHI through Authorized Director and 5 others\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Member Income Tax, Islamabad and another\nSun Telecom (Pvt.) Limited\nTalk Point (Pvt.) Limited\nSignals One (Pvt.) Limited\nvs.\nCentral Board of Revenue\nTaxation Officer/Deputy Commissioner, \nFederation of Pakistan, \nUnion Cosmic Communications (Pvt.) Limited\nTele World (Pvt.) Limited, \nTele Call Payphone Services (Pvt.) Limited, \nStancom (Pvt.) Limited, \nBilal & Ihsan Telecommunications (Pvt.) Limited, \nTelenet Communication (Pvt.) Limited, \nv.\nCentral Board of Revenue, \nTaxation Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, \nCircle C-8, Companies Zone-I, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 136 = 2006 SLD 136 = 2006 PTD 1699 = (2006) 93 TAX 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Trading Account and Turnover Tax\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer was found unjustified in rejecting the trading account without proper examination, and the Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee’s declared results. Additionally, turnover tax on commission income was directed to be levied as per the law.\nCitations:\nI.T.A. Nos.4469 and 4470/LB of 2002 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1),80,80D ", + "Case #": "I..T.As. Nos. 4901/LB of 2004 and 2581/LB of 2005, decision dated: 26-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tipu Sultan, I.T.P. for Appellant. Ghazanfar Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 137 = 2006 SLD 137 = 2006 PTD 1691 = (2006) 94 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Trading Account and Receipt Verification\nConclusion:\n•\nThe rejection of the assessee’s trading account was ruled inappropriate as the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate discrepancies. The Appellate Tribunal directed acceptance of the assessee's declared trading results based on verified receipts and sales.\nCitations:\n1994 PTD 174; 1991 PTD 678; 1991 PTD 730 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3116/LB to 3118/LB of 2004, decision dated: 28-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem Abid, I.T.P. for Appellant. Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 138 = 2006 SLD 138 = 2006 PTD 1665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment Post Interim Order and Use of Audit Report\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessment conducted by the Assessing Officer after six months from the interim High Court order was upheld, but the use of an audit report still under consideration by the High Court was deemed improper. The assessment was ordered to be based only on evidence examined by the Assessing Officer.\nCitations:\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 382 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1),4,4(A),24,24(i),24(ff) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(4A),254 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 260/LB, 562/LB, 1721/LB and 699/LB of 2003, decision dated: 16-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Asghar Qazi, I.T.P. for Appellant. Ahmad Rauf, Legal Advisor for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 139 = 2006 SLD 139 = 2006 PTD 1647 = (2006) 93 TAX 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference to High Court and Deemed Income from Public Office\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court’s advisory jurisdiction in reference cases under tax laws was clarified, excluding the possibility of raising new issues. Additionally, the income received by a public officer for personal use was rightly taxed as deemed income.\nCitations:\nMessrs Nida-I-Millat (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2006 SCMR 526 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(2)(c),66 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 240 of 1997, decision dated: 4-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND SHAMSUDDIN HISBANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi and Lubna Pervaiz for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM MUSTAFA JATOI, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 140 = 2006 SLD 140 = 2006 PTD 1637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding of Refund and Appeal Effect\nConclusion:\n•\nThe withholding of a refund while appeals were pending in a higher forum was deemed unlawful, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the expeditious issuance of refunds along with compensation for the delayed refund.\nCitations:\n1994 PSC 621; 2004 PTD 88 Tax 83 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,171 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,62,65,102,111 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1542 and 1543 of 2003, decision dated: 28-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, A.R. for the Complainant. Shahid Irfan Haider, Taxation Officer for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Haji MUHAMMAD IKRAM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 141 = 2006 SLD 141 = 2006 PTD 1636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Restoration of Appeal\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal restored an appeal that had been dismissed due to inadvertent error, allowing the assessee to be heard.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131 ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos.795/LB and 796/LB of 2005, decision dated: 27-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant. Muzammal Hussain, D.R. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 142 = 2006 SLD 142 = 2006 PTD 1626 = (2006) 94 TAX 174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Compliance with Income Tax Rules and Reference to High Court\nConclusion:\n•\nThe applicability of penal provisions for non-compliance with rules under the Income Tax Rules, 1982 was affirmed, and the High Court’s jurisdiction in reference cases was clarified.\nCitations:\n2003 PTD 2077 rel.; 1999 PTD 3456 approved.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133,133(12) Income Tax Rules, 1982=53,61,61A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(b),136,136(6),139 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 379/LB of 1999, decision dated: 15-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil for Revenue. Ch. Anwaar-ul-Haq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nMessrs MUGHAL MECHANISMS (PVT.) LTD., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 143 = 2006 SLD 143 = 2006 PTD 1617 = 2007 PTCL 63 = (2006) 94 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Remanding Case for Fresh Probe\nConclusion:\n•\nThe remanding of a case for further probe following the revision of the director’s loan accounts was upheld. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the case based on proper documentation and evidence.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),66,66A,136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 8 of 2002, decision dated: 27-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Appellant Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SERVICES INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Zone-III, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 144 = 2006 SLD 144 = 2006 PTD 1602 = (2006) 93 TAX 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Amendment of Assessment and Maladministration\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found the amendment proceedings to be based on arbitrary opinions and insufficient evidence, recommending the discontinuation of proceedings and disciplinary actions for non-compliance with Central Board of Revenue instructions.\nCitations:\n1994 PSC 621; 2004 PTD 88 Tax 83 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1),122(5A) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),12(18) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 712-L of 2004, decision dated: 30-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "FARHAT MAHMOOD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 145 = 2006 SLD 145 = 2006 PTD 1586 = (2006) 93 TAX 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Credit for Investment in Leased Assets\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority's decision to allow tax credit for leased assets under S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was upheld, as the tax credit should apply equally to assets acquired through leasing, similar to those acquired through direct purchase. The departmental appeal, which sought to deny this credit, was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that both provisions of the tax code should be treated similarly.\nCitations:\n1990 PTD (Trib.) 463 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107,Explan.107AA,156,24,24(ft),25,25(c) Finance Act, 2001=Preamble ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 456/KB and 689/KB of 2003, decision dated: 30-01-2004, hearing DATE : 20-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aijaz Asad Rasool, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 456/KB of 2003). Dr. Muhammad Farough Naseem and Mushtaq Ahmed Vohra, FCA for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 456/KB of 2003). Dr. Muhammad Farough Naseem and Mushtaq Ahmed Vohra, FCA for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 689/KB of 2003). Aijaz Asad Rasool, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 689/KB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 146 = 2006 SLD 146 = 2006 PTD 1580 = (2006) 93 TAX 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Delay in Refund Issuance and Maladministration\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Department’s failure to issue a timely refund, despite reminders, was deemed to be maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the issuance of refunds with additional payments under S.171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and an investigation into the mishandling of the case.\nCitations:\n2004 PTD 90 Tax 351 FTO rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=120,120(1),120(4),170,170(1),170(2),170(3),170(4),170(5),170(5)(b),127,127(1),170(b),161,171,205 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 902-L of 2004, decision dated: 30-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Waheed Ch. for the Complainant. Ch. Jafar Nawaz DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALMAKKAH PRESS PVT. LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 147 = 2006 SLD 147 = 2006 PTD 1822", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Salary Deduction and Rectification\nConclusion:\n•\nThe second rectification order regarding salary deductions was found to be invalid. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended cancellation of the rectification order as it involved new grounds not supported by law, establishing maladministration.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=122,122A,221 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=24,24(c),50,156 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 621 of 2003, decision dated: 19-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Saigal, AR for the Complainant. Faheem Muhammad, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KHYBER GALVANIZED ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 148 = 2006 SLD 148 = 2006 PTD 1827 = (2006) 93 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference to High Court and Appellate Tribunal Findings\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Department's reference to the High Court was rejected, as the questions of law raised did not arise from the Appellate Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal’s findings were based on facts and prior legal decisions, reinforcing the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in tax appeals.\nCitations:\n2005 PTD (Trib.) 344; 2002 PTD 498 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=209,209(9) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=7,62,66,66A,136 ", + "Case #": "R.As. Nos. 426/KB to 429/KB of 2004, decision dated: 15-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Farzana Jabeen D.R. and Shafqat Hussain Kehar, DCT for Applicant. Javaid Zakaria for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 149 = 2006 SLD 149 = 2006 PTCL 645 = 2006 PTD 1844 = (2006) 93 TAX 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Accrued in Pakistan and Reassessment\nConclusion:\n•\nThe re-assessment initiated without proper approval from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was ruled invalid. The Appellate Tribunal annulled the assessment, as it lacked the statutory approval required for reopening an assessment under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\n2004 PTD (Trib.) 1052 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),13,65,65(1),65(2),13(1)(d),59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1185/LB and 1405/LB of 2000, decision dated: 20-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 150 = 2006 SLD 150 = 2006 PTCL 635 = 2006 PTD 1878 = (2006) 93 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Amendment of Appeal Grounds by Assessee\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that an assessee cannot amend the grounds of appeal in a departmental appeal, as the right to amend lies exclusively with the appellant (the Department), not the respondent (the assessee).\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),25(c),66,66(1)(c),134 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Revised Ground) No. 282/KB and I.T.A. No.184/KB of 2005, decision dated: 28-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.A. Mujahid Baluch, ITP for Applicant. Ghulam Shabbir Memon, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 151 = 2006 SLD 151 = 2006 PTCL 639 = 2006 PTD 1881 = (2006) 93 TAX 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Loss Due to Fire and Insurance Recovery\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessee was entitled to claim a loss due to fire, even if some insurance recovery was anticipated but not yet received. Any subsequent recovery would be taxable in the year it was received under S.25(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\n1983 PTD 30 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(x),25,25(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4293/LB of 2003, decision dated: 8-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Haider Rizvi along with Haroon Mirza for Appellant. Imran Raza Kazmi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 152 = 2006 SLD 152 = 2006 PTD 1888 = (2006) 93 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gross Profit Rate and First Year of Business\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly accepted the assessee’s gross profit rate for its first year of business, considering the circumstances and absence of clear evidence from the Assessing Officer to support an alternative rate.\nCitations:\n2005 PTD (Trib.) 1208; 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2231 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),52,59,62,66 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221,240 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2024/LB of 2004, 1549/LB, 1550/LB of 2003, 4043/LB and 4044/LB of 2001, decision dated: 6-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Abbas and Muhammad Hamid for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 2024/LB of 2004, 1549/LB, 1550/LB of 2003). Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 2024/LB of 2004, 1549/LB, 1550/LB of 2003). Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 4043/LB and 4044/LB of 2001). Shahid Abbas and Muhammad Hamid for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 4043/LB and 4044/LB of 2001).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 153 = 2006 SLD 153 = 2006 PTD 1899", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction for Non-Deduction of Tax on Salary\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority’s decision to reject the rectification for non-deduction of tax on salary was upheld, as the tax had been paid by the recipient, making the additional assessment invalid.\nCitations:\n1999 PTD 4028 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 735/LB and 851/LB of 2003, decision dated: 19-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj Khalid and Sohail Ibne Siraj for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 735/LB of 2003). Dr. Ahmad Shahab, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 735/LB of 2003). Dr. Ahmad Shahab, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 851/LB of 2003). Siraj Khalid and Sohail Ibne Siraj for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 851/LB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 154 = 2006 SLD 154 = 2006 PTD 1936 = (2006) 94 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding Tax on Carriage Contractors\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority correctly ordered the refund of withholding tax to the assessee, rejecting the Assessing Officer's stance that such tax was a final discharge of liability. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the refund order.\nCitations:\n2005 PTD 91 Tax 263 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=115,115(4),153,153(6),153(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.141/LB and 142/LB of 2006, decision dated: 25-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Appellant. Sh. Zafar-ul-Islam for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 155 = 2006 SLD 155 = 2006 PTD 1939 = (2006) 93 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Estimation of Expenses on Foreign Tours\nConclusion:\n•\nThe addition based on the Assessing Officer's arbitrary estimation of foreign tour expenses was deleted, as it lacked a reasonable basis. The Tribunal endorsed the First Appellate Authority's ruling that the addition was unjustified.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2594/LB of 2004, decision dated: 6-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant. Arshad Nauman, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 156 = 2006 SLD 156 = 2006 PTD 1941 = (2006) 94 TAX 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Amendment of Assessments under S.122\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal cancelled the amendment of assessments as the relevant legal provisions had not been in effect when the show-cause notices were issued. The jurisdictional error rendered the assessments void.\nCitations:\n2003 PTD 52; 2002 PTD 248 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Finance Act, 2004=Preamble Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),122(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1616/KB, 1617/KB of 2003, 1622/KB, 1623/KB of 2003, decision dated: 17-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Shaban for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1616/KB and 1617/KB of 2003). Ms. Farzana Jabeen, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.1616/KB and 1617/KB of 2003). Ms. Farzana Jabeen, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1622/KB and 1623/KB of 2003).\nAbid Shaban for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.1622/KB and 1623/KB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 157 = 2006 SLD 157 = 2006 PTD 1947", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes and Departmental Appeals\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Department’s appeal was dismissed as it had become infructuous after the rectification application was deemed accepted by operation of law. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision.\nCitations:\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 3478 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),156,156(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2022/LB to 2025/LB of 2000, decision dated: 6-09-2003, hearing DATE : 4th September 2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BATT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Shahzad Butt for the Assessee. Bashir Ahmad Shad, D.R. for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 158 = 2006 SLD 158 = 2006 PTCL 37 = 2006 PTD 1958", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Estimation of Sales Based on Survey\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority’s decision to reject the Assessing Officer's estimated sales based on contested survey forms was upheld, as the survey was not substantiated with solid evidence.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Survey For Documentation of National Economy Ordinance, 2000=Preamble ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5570/LB of 2002, 4793/LB of 2003, decision dated: 12-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Masood Raza Qazalbash, D.R. for Appellant. Ahmad Nadeem Ahsan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 159 = 2006 SLD 159 = 2006 PTD 1962 = (2006) 93 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax and Double Taxation Treaty\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not apply to expenses under the Pakistan-Poland Double Taxation Treaty, as the treaty superseded the Ordinance.\nCitations:\nI.T.A. No.463/LB of 2003 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(1),163,163(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 713/IB of 2004, decision dated: 21st May, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Ms. Rubica Jafri, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 160 = 2006 SLD 160 = 2006 PTD 1965", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Tax on Commission Payments\nConclusion:\n•\nThe First Appellate Authority’s direction to accept the assessee’s rectification application was upheld, as the department had incorrectly rejected the credit for tax deducted at source on commission payments.\nCitations:\n2005 PTD (Trib.) 668 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4A),59,59(A),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5144/LB of 2005, decision dated: 25-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Appellant. Zafar-ul-Islam for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 161 = 2006 SLD 161 = 2006 PTD 1968", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Minimum Tax on Turnover\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the assessee was exempt from the minimum tax under S.80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as per the exemption provided in the Second Schedule for certain entities.\nCitations:\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 865; 2000 SCMR 1012 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D,SecondSched,Cl-102B,Cl-122C Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=6,Sched. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2449/LB, 2450/LB, 2452/LB, 5522/LB of 2002 and 2189/LB of 2000, decision dated: 5-12-2005, hearing DATE : 3rd December, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASEER AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar ACA and Zulfiqar Ali Sheikh, ITP for the Assessee. Ali Ashtar Naqvi and Shahid Jamil Khan. L.A for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 94 = 2011 SLD 94 = 2011 SCMR 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Review Petition Delay and Condonation\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions due to the Department's delay in pursuing the legal remedy. The Court emphasized the need for vigilance and departmental accountability.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=188 ", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petitions Nos. 109 and 110 of 2006, decision dated: 11-02-2010. (Against the judgment dated 22-12-2005 passed by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 111 and 112 of 2000)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., CH. IJAZ AHMED AND GHULAM RABBANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both cases). Abdul Rauf Rohela, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in both cases).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, PESHAWAR-\nvs\nZABEEL PALACE HOTEL, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 155 = 2007 SLD 155 = 2007 CLD 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax on Imported Petroleum Products\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that the company, not the Federal Government, was liable to pay tax on imported petroleum products as it was the entity that filed the bill of entry and paid customs duties.\nCitations:\nEllahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5),80,80C ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 60 and 61 of 1999, decision dated: 17-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi for Appellant. Khalid Anwar along with Irfan Saadat Khan for Respondent -Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nPAKISTAN STATE OIL LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 49 = 2000 SLD 49 = 2000 PTD 1865 = (1998) 234 ITR 581", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Property Purchased by Minor Sons\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld that income from property purchased by the minor sons using loans was not includible in the father’s income, as the transaction was genuine and properly documented.\nCitations:\nNo references cited.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.29 of 1988, decision dated: 6-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": "B., J. SHETHNA AND A. K. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for D. S. Shishodia for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDr. SOHANLAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 50 = 2000 SLD 50 = 2000 PTD 1869 = (1998) 234 ITR 585", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD # 1326\nTopic: Income-tax - Recovery of tax - Interest for delay in payment of tax - Waiver of interest\nConclusion: The rejection of the petitioner's application for the waiver of interest was not valid as the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) failed to show consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) for further consideration.\nCitation: Smt. Harbans Kaur v. CWT (1997) 224 ITR 418 (SC); Apex Finance and Leasing Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 781 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4232 and W.M.P. No.6230 of 1988, decision dated: 9-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "K. SAMPATH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Jankiraman for Petitioner. S.V. Subramanian for C.V. Rajan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Smt. R. SESHAMMAL CHIDAMBARAM\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 51 = 2000 SLD 51 = 2000 PTD 1874 = (1998) 234 ITR 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD # 1327\nTopic (a): Income-tax - Business expenditure - Deduction to be allowed only on actual payment - Scope of S.43B\nTopic (b): Income-tax - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Powers of Tribunal\nConclusion (a): The Tribunal's requirement of both actual payment and provision in books to claim a deduction under S.43B was incorrect. The Tribunal's remand for reconsideration of the payment was unjustified.\nConclusion (b): The Tribunal cannot remand an issue that has not been challenged.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.43B; 1987 PTD (Trib.) 1850; (1997) 76 TAX 71 (Trib.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 148 of 1991, decision dated: 3rd September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "AJOY NATH RAY AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "ASSOCIATED PIGMENTS LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 87 = 2010 SLD 87 = (2010) 102 TAX 116 = 2010 PTD 1654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Income Tax Ordinance - Unexplained investment deemed to be income - Hypothetical estimate of expenses\nTopic (b): Income Tax Ordinance - Addition in defiance of binding instructions of Central Board of Revenue\nTopic (c): Income Tax Ordinance - Burden of proof on unexplained investment\nTopic (d): Income Tax Ordinance - Vehicle in the name of company\nTopic (e): Income Tax Ordinance - Loan received from company\nConclusion (a): Hypothetical estimates for determining excess expenditure are not permitted under the law.\nConclusion (b): The Assessing Officer ignored binding instructions from the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) in making additions.\nConclusion (c): When the assessee denies ownership, the burden of proof lies with the Revenue Department.\nConclusion (d): The addition based on a third-party statement regarding vehicle ownership was invalid as the ownership record favored the company.\nConclusion (e): The payment made by the company on behalf of the assessee did not constitute taxable income under S.12(18).\nCitation: 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1850; 1982 (136) ITR 652 rel.; Hansa Enterprises, Sialkot v. Revenue 2006 PTD 774 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(e),8,12,12(18),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6405, 6406, 6407, 6408 6452, 6453 and 6454 of 2005, decision dated: 22-12-2009, hearing DATE : 25-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Riaz Hussain for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 6405 to 6408 of 2005). Syed Mehmood Jaffar, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.6405 to 6408 of 2005). Syed Mahmood Jaffar, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.6452 to 6454 of 2005). Kh. Riaz Hussain for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.6452 to 6454 of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 1 = 1995 SLD 1 = 1995 PTD 1 = (1994) 70 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Income-tax - Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer\nTopic (b): Income-tax - Lifting of corporate veil\nTopic (c): Income-tax - Approbate and reprobate\nTopic (d): Income-tax - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal\nTopic (e): Income Tax Ordinance - Income year choice\nConclusion (a): The Income Tax Officer's request for jurisdictional assignment was not valid since no approval was received.\nConclusion (b): Corporate veil can only be lifted under specific legal provisions or when necessary for creditors or shareholders.\nConclusion (c): The assessee cannot shift positions to defeat proper taxation.\nConclusion (d): The company cannot shift positions to evade tax, as it accepted certain benefits under its corporate identity.\nConclusion (e): Once the assessee exercises the choice of income year, it cannot change it at will.\nCitation: Salomon v. Salomon & Company (1897) AC 22 (HL) ref.; Sh. Abdul Hakeem v. C.B.R. PLD 1975 Lah. 287; Mustafa Prestressed RCC Pipe Works Limited, Karachi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Investigation), Karachi 1990 PTD 974 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(26)(b),13,13(1)(2),57 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.280 and 884 of 1994, decision dated: 17-08-1994, hearing DATE : 9-06-1994", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilays Zafar for Appellants (in both ITRs). Shahbaz Butt, L.A., Zahid Pervaiz L.A. and Imtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent (in ITA No. 280 of 1994). Shahbaz Butt, L.A. and Imtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent (in ITA No. 884 of 1994).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 1600 = 1991 SLD 1600 = 1991 PLC 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act - Promotion\nTopic (b): Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act - Selection on merit\nTopic (c): Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act - Departmental rules for promotion\nConclusion (a): Promotion should be based on merit, considering qualifications, experience, and seniority.\nConclusion (b): Promotions must follow the rules of the administrative unit to ensure equal opportunity for all.\nConclusion (c): Without departmental rules, merit-based promotions are not possible.\nCitation: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act (VI of 1976) Ss. 3 & 8, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Service Tribunal (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Service Appeal No. 398 of 1988, decision dated: 8-04-1990.", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND RAJA MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KAYANI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant. Abdur Rashid Abbasi for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Ch. MUHAMMAD LATIF\nvs\nAZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 2 = 1994 SLD 2 = 1994 PTD 5 = (1993) 201 ITR 800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Casual receipt - Manufacture of radiators for automobiles\nConclusion: The surplus received due to the devaluation of the Indian rupee, after the seizure of the goods by Pakistan, was considered a casual receipt and not business income. The surplus was treated as a capital receipt and not taxable under the Income Tax Act.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Universal Radiators (1979) 120 ITR 906 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5897 of 1983, decision dated: 30-03-1993. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 25-07-1979, of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.54 of 1976 (Reference No.35 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": "DR. T. KOCHU THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with him) for Appellant. J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chanilra, T.V. Ratnam, Ms. A. Subhashini and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "UNIVERSAL RADIATORS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 3 = 1994 SLD 3 = 1994 PTD 14 = (1993) 201 ITR 831", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) - Karta, partner in firm\nConclusion: The appellant's increased salary was justified and treated as individual income. The Tribunal's apportionment of the salary between the individual and the HUF was overturned, and the appellant’s increased salary was reinstated as his individual income.\nCitation: Brij Mohan (HUF) v: C.LT. (1986) 158 ITR 14 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1534 of 1981, decision dated: 19-02-1993. (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 16, 1980, of the Delhi High Court in I.T.R. No. 101 of 1972)", + "Judge Name:": "B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.N. Monga and Ashok Grover, Advocate for 4ppellant. Dr. S. Narayanan, C. Ramesh and P. Parameswaran, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "BRIJ MOHAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 50 = 2000 SLD 50 = 2000 PTD 1877 = (1998) 234 ITR 635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Firm - Income from house property\nConclusion: A transfer of immovable property by a firm to individual partners, without a registered deed, was invalid. The rental income from the property should be assessed in the hands of the firm, not the individual partners.\nCitation: CIT v. Dadha & Co. (1983) 142 ITR 792 (Mad.) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases No s.49 to 51 of 1984 (References Nos. 17 to 19 of 1984), decision dated: 25-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nPALANIAPPA ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 4 = 1994 SLD 4 = 1994 PTD 18 = (1993) 201 ITR 816", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Charitable purposes - Transport business\nConclusion: The amount collected as Dharmada was for charitable purposes, and the question of whether it was taxable arose. The matter was referred to the High Court for its determination.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. AS. Nos. 2456 of 1978 3522 of 1979, 1368 of 1982 5987 and 5988 of 1990 and 1558 of 1993. Civil Appeal No. 3522 of 1979 with, Civil Appeals Nos. 2456 of 1978, 5987 and 5988 of 1990, 1368 of 1982,1549 to 1558 of 1993, decision dated: 31st March, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Viswanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (T.V. Ratnam and P. Parameswaran, Advocate with him) Appellants (in CAs. Nos. 3522 of 1979, 1368 of 1982,1558 of 1993 and 1549 to 1557 of 1993). G. Viswanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (R. Ayyam Perumal and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Appellants (in CAs. Nos.2456 of 1978 and 5987 and 5988 of 1990). C. S. Aggarwal and B.V. Desai, Advocate for Respondents (in all the Appeals).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nAMRITSAR TRANSPORT CO. (P.) LTD. (P.) Ltd. (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J)\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nCHADDHA GOODS TRANSPORT CO. (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 2 = 1995 SLD 2 = 1995 PTD 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Re-assessment - Violation of principles of natural justice\nConclusion: The re-assessment order made without confronting the assessee with statements of third parties relied upon was in violation of natural justice and thus invalid.\nCitation: 1991 PTD 2165 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 8(HB) to 11(HB) of 1973-74, decision dated: 12-03-1975", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M. Z. FARRUKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. G.A. Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 2 = 2005 SLD 2 = 2005 PTD 1 = (2005) 91 TAX 250 = 2005 PTCL 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Income Tax Ordinance - Appeal to High Court - Imposition of penalty\nTopic (b): Contract Act - Fraud\nTopic (c): Income Tax Ordinance - Penalty for concealment of income\nConclusion (a): The penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner was invalid as it lacked statutory approval.\nConclusion (b): Fraud cannot be presumed and must be proven with clear evidence.\nConclusion (c): Penalty should only be imposed if the taxpayer is found to have concealed income wilfully.\nCitation: Sandal Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. v. I.A.C. Income Wealth Tax (2001) 83 Tax 551 rel.; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Aasia, Film Artiste, Lahore 2001 PTD 678 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(1)(c),111,116(a),119,136 Finance Act, 1988=11(2A) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 25 of 1999, decision dated: 29-07-2004, hearing DATE : 16-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "GHARIBWAL CEMENT LIMITED through General Manager\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 3 = 2005 SLD 3 = 2005 PTD 88 = (2005) 91 TAX 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD # 1337\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance - Reopening of assessment\nConclusion: The reopening of an assessment based on vague or unsubstantiated information was not valid. The lack of concrete evidence regarding the understatement of property value led to the dismissal of the case.\nCitation: 1987 PTD (Trib.) 485 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 581 of 1998, decision dated: 19-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nOLIVES CATERING" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 4 = 2005 SLD 4 = 2005 PTD 101 = (2005) 91 TAX 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Rectification of earlier order\nConclusion: Appeals regarding the rectification of orders are not maintainable unless the Tribunal's order is final.\nCitation: Messrs Hong Kong Chinese Restaurant, Main Boulevard Gulberg, Lahore v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6, Lahore and another 2002 PTD 1878 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A.No. 603 of 1999, decision dated: 11-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSTANDARD FOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 5 = 2005 SLD 5 = 2005 PTD 106 = 2005 PLC 106 = (2005) 92 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Reopening of assessment - Definite information\nConclusion: Reopening of an assessment on the basis of speculative information is not valid. There was no concrete evidence supporting the claim that the property value had been understated.\nCitation: 2000 PTD 2903 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),65,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 18 of 1999, decision dated: 19-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil Khan for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nIMRAN SIDDIQUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 6 = 2005 SLD 6 = 2005 PTD 116 = (2005) 91 TAX 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Appeal to High Court - Non-filing of certified copy\nConclusion: The Tribunal’s rejection of the appeal due to the absence of a certified copy was unjustified, as procedural issues should not prevent the determination of the substantive case.\nCitation: CIT v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=11 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 281 of 2003, decision dated: 2-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jameel Khan for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs REHMAN TRADERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 7 = 2005 SLD 7 = 2005 PTD 119 = (2005) 91 TAX 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Wavering attitude of Appellate Tribunal\nConclusion: The Tribunal's inconsistent decisions and failure to resolve issues in a timely manner led to the referral of the case to the Chairman of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for appropriate action.\nCitation: Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,156 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4367 of 2004, decision dated: 14-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner Yawar Ali Khan, Dy. A.G. and Muhammad Ghias ud Din, Assistant Registrar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MEHMOOD BARNI, PROPRIETOR INTERHOME, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nI.A.C., COMPANIES RANGE, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 8 = 2005 SLD 8 = 2005 PTD 147 = (2005) 91 TAX 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Constitutional petition - Notice issued after deadline\nConclusion: The service of notice after the statutory deadline was invalid, and the assessment could not proceed based on it.\nCitation: Mustafa Prestressed RCC Pipe Works Limited, Karachi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Investigation), Karachi 1990 PTD 974 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(4),61 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11062 of 2002, decision dated: 15-03-2004, hearing DATE : 23rd July, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "H & SONS\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 9 = 2005 SLD 9 = 2005 PTD 165 = (2005) 92 TAX 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Appeal to High Court - Administration of justice\nConclusion: Non-speaking orders by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were found to be legally insufficient, and the case was remanded for a fresh hearing.\nCitation: Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,66,66A,80,80C(7),143,143B,166 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 General Clauses Act, 1897=24-A Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 9953 of 2004, heard on 29-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MAHMOOD BARNI\nvs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, GUJRANWALA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 10 = 2005 SLD 10 = 2005 PTD 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Penalty for late filing of statements\nConclusion: The assessee's excuse for filing statements late was dismissed as it did not meet the requirements of the law for an extension. Penalty for late filing was upheld.\nCitation: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1698 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,80,80C,108,108(b),134,143,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2147 to 2149/KB of 2002, decision dated: 6-03-2004, hearing DATE : 19-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Kaleem Kazmi for Appellant, Abdul Hameed Sangi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 11 = 2005 SLD 11 = 2005 PTD 184 = (2005) 91 TAX 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Appeal to High Court - Liability to turnover tax\nConclusion: The Tribunal's decision regarding the turnover tax was found valid, and the case was rejected on the grounds of no distinct legal question arising.\nCitation: 2000 PTD 2173 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D,80D(2),136 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 456 of 1998, decision dated: 11-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Yousaf Omar for Appellant. Syed Abid Raza for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 12 = 2005 SLD 12 = 2005 PTD 192 = (2005) 91 TAX 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Export rebate on interest income\nConclusion: The issue of export rebate was not ruled upon by the Tribunal, and the case was not entertained for review.\nCitation: 1988 PTD 907 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,136,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 305 of 1998, decision dated: 17-07-2004, hearing DATE : 13-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX; SIALKOT ZONE, SIALKOT\nvs\nMessrs GLORIOUS MERCANTILE CORPORATION (PVT.), LTD., SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 13 = 2005 SLD 13 = 2005 PTD 194 = (2005) 91 TAX 57 = 2005 SCMR 1265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Income Tax Ordinance - Sales tax on imported goods\nTopic (b): Income Tax Ordinance - Inclusion of sales tax towards income\nConclusion (a): The sales tax paid on imported goods is not taxable income.\nConclusion (b): Income from imported goods, including taxes paid, should not be treated as taxable income under the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitation: Messrs Ramma Pipe and General Mills (Pvt.) Limited v. The Federation of Pakistan 1994 PTD 848 approved.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,30(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 364-L of 2002, decision dated: 6-07-2004. (On appeal from the judgment dated 16-11-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 18286 of 2001)", + "Judge Name:": "SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmer Bilal Sofi Advocate Supreme Court with Mian Ata-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Shahzad Shoukat, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, RAILWAY STATION, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs ABDUL GHAFFAR ABDUL REHMAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 14 = 2005 SLD 14 = 2005 PTD 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Credit sales and supplies\nConclusion: The issue of credit sales and its treatment under the tax law was not discussed by the Tribunal, and no ruling was made.\nCitation: 1993 PTD (Trib.) 952 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),80,80(c),136,136(2),143 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 111 of 1997, decision dated: 3rd June, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND NASIM SIKANDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs HAFIZ ABDUL WAHEED & BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 15 = 2005 SLD 15 = 2005 PTD 203 = (2005) 91 TAX 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Share income from AOP\nConclusion: The Tribunal's findings regarding the share income of the assessee were upheld. The Department's objections regarding tax liability and adjustments were rejected.\nCitation: 2000 PTD 2173 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,50,50(5A),80,80C,80CC,134,SecondSched,Cl-110,Cl-111A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1209/LB and 1210/LB of 2004, decision dated: 16-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Abbasi, D.R. for Appellant. Ahmad Shuja Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 16 = 2005 SLD 16 = 2005 PTD 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Powers of Appellate Tribunal to grant stay of recovery proceedings\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal had the authority to grant a stay of recovery proceedings while a question of law was pending before the High Court.\nCitation: 1988 PTD 907 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,133 ", + "Case #": "M. A. Stay No. 205/LB of 2004, decision dated: 11-06-2004, hearing DATE : 3rd June, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Ahmad Khan Kamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 17 = 2005 SLD 17 = 2005 PTD 211 = (2005) 91 TAX 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Non-compliance of notice\nConclusion: Ex parte assessments were finalized due to repeated non-compliance of notices, which were upheld due to the assessee's deliberate actions.\nCitation: 1996 PTD 1125 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,63,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4666/LB and 4667/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-09-2004, hearing DATE 9-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Abbasi, D.R. for Appellant Qari Habib-ur-Rehman Zubari for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 18 = 2005 SLD 18 = 2005 PTD 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Adjudication of issues\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on various deductions and tax matters, reinforcing the allowance of financial expenses against total receipts.\nCitation: 1991 PTD (Trib.) 531 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=17,18,22,23,23(1)(x),24,27,134,24(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1658/LB of 2003, decision dated: 11-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ajmad Iqbal, D.R. for Appellant Ghulam Abbas, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 19 = 2005 SLD 19 = 2005 PTD 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Deductions and additions for service charges and sale of properties\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the allowance for service charges against total receipts but ruled against the gain made from the sale of properties held as collateral.\nCitation: 1991 PTD 569 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(29),23,23(1)(viii),24(xviii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2789/LB, 4491/LB and 5269/LB of 1999, decision dated: 28-07-2004, hearing DATE : 25-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehmood Jaffery, D.R. for Appellant. Iqbal Hashmi and Abdul Hameed Khan, F.C.A for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 20 = 2005 SLD 20 = 2005 PTD 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Commission income of employee\nConclusion: Commission income received by an employee was subject to the same tax treatment as salary income and was not eligible for special rates.\nCitation: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 457 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,16,SecondSched,2A ", + "Case #": "M. A. No. 427/LB of 2004, decision dated: 21st August, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN, ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Andarabi for Applicant. Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 21 = 2005 SLD 21 = 2005 PTD 231 = (2005) 91 TAX 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Financial expenses against total receipts\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s decision to allow financial expenses against total receipts, rejecting the Department’s objections.\nCitation: 1991 PTD (Trib.) 531 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(VII),34,62,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2086/LB of 2002, decision dated: 21st August, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rasheed, D.R. for Appellant. Ch. Abdul Hamed, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, SIALKOT ZONE, SILAKOT\nvs\nMessrs ITTEFAQ TRADERS, MANDI SAMBRIAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 22 = 2005 SLD 22 = 2005 PTD 234 = (2005) 91 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Multiple assessment years - Annulment of assessment\nConclusion: The combined issuance of notices for eight years, followed by notices under S.61, caused prejudice to the assessee. The assessment was deemed defective due to this process, and the assessments were annulled.\nCitation: 1998 SCMR 91 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,61,65,136 ", + "Case #": "R.A. Nos. 153/LB to 160/LB of 2003, decision dated: 4-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 23 = 2005 SLD 23 = 2005 PTD 237 = (2005) 91 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Re-opening of assessment - Amortization of expenses\nConclusion: The assessment was improperly re-opened under S.65 for an issue that was already addressed in the original assessment. The claim for Golden Handshake expenses was to be amortized over three years, as directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax.\nCitation: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 3901; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 2946; 2000 PTD (Trib.) 329; 1993 SCMR 1232 = 1993 PTD 766; 2002 PTD (Trib.) 257 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65,66,66A,134,156 Income Tax Rules, 1982=94,94(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1101/LB of 2001 and 1102/LB of 1997, decision dated: 24-06-2004, hearing DATE : 5-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Iqbal Hashmi for Appellant (in I. T. A. No. 1101/LB of 2001). Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. and Shahid Jamil, L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1101/LB of 2001). Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. and Shahid Jamil, L.A. for Appellant (in I. T. A. No. 1102/LB of 1997). M. Iqbal Hashmi for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1102/LB of 1997).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 24 = 2005 SLD 24 = 2005 PTD 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Tax Credit - Constitutional petition\nConclusion: The petitioners were entitled to tax credit for investments made between 1-7-1988 and 30-6-1989, despite the retrospective amendment of S.107 in 1989. The rights to claim the tax credit had accrued at the time of investment and could not be affected by the retrospective change.\nCitation: The Chief Land Commissioner v Ghulam Hyder Shah 1988 SCMR 715; Province of East Pakistan v. Sharafatullah and others PLD 1970 SC 514; Ghulam Hyder Shah v. Chief Land Commissioner 1983 CLC 1585 and Molasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1905 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107,107(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Rules, 1982=48 ", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos. D-704 of 1990, D-991 of 1989, D-738 of 1990, D-739 of 1990, D-740 of 1990, D-742 and D-509 of 1991, heard on 21st January, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muneeb Akhtar, Salman Iqbal Pasha, Noorallah holding brief for I.H. Zaidi, Ihsrat Alavi and Abdul Hadi Farid for Petitioners.", + "Party Name:": "GULSHAN SPINNING MILLS LTD. and others\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 25 = 2005 SLD 25 = 2005 PTD 270 = (2005) 91 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Filing return declaring loss - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer had processed the case under normal law, despite the assessee’s plea under S.80-D. The Appellate Authority's decision to maintain the additions made was justified as the provisions of S.62 were not in conflict with S.80-D.\nCitation: Ellahi Cotton Mills case 1997 PTD 1555 = PLD 1997 SC 582 and Pakistan Burma Shell v. Federation of Pakistan 1998 PTD 1804 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,12,12(18),13,13(1)(aa),80,80D,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 116/IB of 2003, decision dated: 12-03-2004, hearing DATE : 10-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ilyas Khan, Legal Advisor for Income-tax Department. Noushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 26 = 2005 SLD 26 = 2005 PTD 280 = (2005) 91 TAX 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Sales Tax and Customs Duty\nConclusion: Sales tax and customs duty are not to be treated as income while calculating tax liabilities under the relevant sections of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitation: 1994 PTD 848; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 735; (1997) 76 Tax 5 (SC); 1994 PTD 842 and (2002) 86 Tax 91 (Trib.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5),80,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3861/LB of 2001, decision dated: 22-03-2004, hearing DATE 16-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Baig for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 27 = 2005 SLD 27 = 2005 PTD 288 = (2005) 91 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Rectification of mistakes - Appellate Tribunal\nConclusion: The Tribunal's rectification request was denied as there was no apparent mistake in the original assessment. The appeal should not serve as another hearing opportunity.\nCitation: 1987 PTD (Trib.) 36 and (1992) 66 Tax p.53 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(e),62,63,132,134 ", + "Case #": "M.a. (Rect.) No. 274/KB of 2003, decision dated: 31st July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajab-ud-Din D.R. for Appellant. Doulatram Manager for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 51 = 2000 SLD 51 = 2000 PTD 1879 = (1999) 235 ITR 4751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Exemption of income from fertilizer sales\nConclusion: The question of whether exemption for fertilizer sales applies to gross profits after deducting expenses is a matter for the High Court.\nCitation: Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 1027 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T. Case No.67 of 1996, decision dated: 24-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": "V. K. BALI AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goyal for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSONEPAT COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 28 = 2005 SLD 28 = 2005 PTD 296 = (2005) 91 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Exemption of income from power plant\nConclusion: Only income from power generation is exempt from tax. Income from interest on deposits with gas companies is not exempt.\nCitation: 2004 SCMR 1319 and 2002 PTD (Trib.) 783 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,SecondSched,Cl-176 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 180/KB of 2004, decision dated: 29-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Pasha for Appellant. Sikendar Aslam, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 29 = 2005 SLD 29 = 2005 PTD 301 = (2005) 91 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Rectification of mistakes - Departmental delay\nConclusion: No rectification was granted as no mistake was apparent in the original decision. The Department sought to revisit the case unnecessarily.\nCitation: PLD 1966 SC 828; PLD 1960 (SC) (AJK) 11; 1996 SCMR 669 and 1940 MLD 1012 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 10/LB of 2004, decision dated: 11-08-2004, hearing DATE : 5-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Applicant. Muhammad Arshad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 30 = 2005 SLD 30 = 2005 PTD 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Filing of voluntary return\nConclusion: The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise the assessment based on discrepancies identified in the filed return.\nCitation: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2276; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 2902; 2003 PTD 1530; 1987 PTD 249 and 1991 PTD (Trib.) 812 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,55(1),59,59(1),59A,66,66A,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3857/LB of 2001, decision dated: 26-07-2004, hearing DATE : 19-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Mehmood Jaffery, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 31 = 2005 SLD 31 = 2005 PLD 318 = 2005 PTD 318 = (2005) 91 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Rectification of mistakes - Miscellaneous application\nConclusion: The application for rectification was rejected as no substantial error was identified. The Tribunal had already made a considered decision.\nCitation: 2003 PTD 575; PLD 2003 SC 823 and PLD 1985 Kar. 95 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1),136(2),156 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XX,R.1,R.5 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 338/LB of 2003, decision dated: 30-07-2004, hearing DATE : 27-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Applicant. Ahmad Nauman Sh., I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 32 = 2005 SLD 32 = 2005 PTD 323 = (2005) 91 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Excise duty treatment\nConclusion: Excise duty should be charged to the profit and loss account if it is not related to product cost but instead passed to the purchaser.\nCitation: Carter's Advanced Accounts, (p.31); (1960) 2 Tax (V-4) and I.T.A. No. 7428/LB of 1996 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "R. A. No. 100/LB of 2004, decision dated: 11-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad Shad, D.R. for Applicant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 33 = 2005 SLD 33 = 2005 PTD 326 = (2005) 91 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Reopening of case\nConclusion: The reopening of assessments without proper approval was ruled invalid. The assessment was annulled due to the lack of mandatory approval under S.65.\nCitation: (2003) 87 Tax 3 (Trib.); 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1238; Syed Mehmood Shah v. CIT 2000 PTD 3788; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1172; 1987 PTD (Trib.) 424; 1985 PTD (Trib.)178; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 3892; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1121; 2003 PTD 1238 (Trib.) and (1994) 70 Tax 90 (Trib.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),59,59(1),59A,61,62,63,65,65(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 423/IB to 429/IB of 2002, decision dated: 17-09-2003hearing DATE : 17-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nadeem Ahmad for AppellantQasier Iqbal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 34 = 2005 SLD 34 = 2005 PTD 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Reference to High Court - Miscellaneous application\nConclusion: The reference application was rejected due to the Tribunal’s acceptance of the miscellaneous application by the assessee.\nCitation: No reference available.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,156 ", + "Case #": "R.A. No. 668/LB of 2003, decision dated: 20-05-2004, hearing DATE : 19-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FARUOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Qudus for Applicant. S. Nadeem Hassan, D.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 35 = 2005 SLD 35 = 2005 PTD 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Rectification of mistake - Revising Deputy Commissioner's order\nConclusion: The application to rectify the order was denied as no errors were found. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was affirmed.\nCitation: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 332 and 1997 PTD (Trib.) 879 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,156,59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 209/LB of 2004, decision dated: 3rd August, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Applicant. Zulfiqar Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1 = 2004 SLD 1 = 2004 PTCL 457 = 2005 PTD 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Self-Assessment Scheme - Audit\nConclusion: The selection for a full audit was declared unjustified, and the return filed under the Self-Assessment Scheme was reinstated.\nCitation: 2004 PTD 1 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2499/LB of 2004, decision dated: 21st July, 2004, hearing DATE : 20-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Anwar Ali Shah, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 2 = 2004 SLD 2 = 2004 PTCL 596 = 2005 PTD 344 = (2005) 91 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Revision by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner\nConclusion: The powers of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under S.66-A are limited, and actions based on extraneous reports or materials not part of the case record were found invalid.\nCitation: No reference available.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,20,23,27,28,SecondSched,Cl-116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1730/KB to 1733/KB of 2001, decision dated: 1st January, 2004, hearing DATE : 1st November, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI AND RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Jawed Zakaria for Appellant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Legal Advisor, Javed Iqbal Rana, D.R. and Ali Hasnain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 3 = 2004 SLD 3 = 2004 PTCL 461 = 2005 PTD 474 = (2005) 91 TAX 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Insurance management expenses\nConclusion: The restriction on management expenses under the repealed Insurance Act of 1938 was found not applicable, and the addition made was deleted.\nCitation: PTD 1985 (Trib.) 255 and Mocsa Kazimi v. K.M. Sheriff AIR 1959 Mad. 542 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,FourthSched,5(c) Insurance Ordinance, 2000=26(2) Insurance Ordinance, 2000=Preamble General Clauses Act, 1897=.8(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4828/LB of 2002, decision dated: 4-10-2004, hearing DATE : 9-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikram ul Haq for Appellant. Sardar Jamal Ahmad Sukhera, L.A. and Dr. Amjad Iqbal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 36 = 2005 SLD 36 = 2005 PTD 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Contradictory notices under different ordinances\nConclusion: The assessment was annulled due to contradictory notices issued under the 2001 and 1979 Ordinances.\nCitation: No reference available.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,114(4),131,58,61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3081/LB of 2004, decision dated: 9-09-2004, hearing DATE : 8-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Syed Nadeem Hassan Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 37 = 2005 SLD 37 = 2005 PTD 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Reassessment and constitutional petition\nConclusion: The petition was disposed of based on the assurance that reassessment would not proceed until the Reference was decided by the High Court.\nCitation: Muhammad Inayatullah Cheema v. Ali Raza Masood Qazilbash 2002 PTD 1195; Mst Inayat Begum v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore 1985 PTD 375 and (2003) 87 Tax 165 (Tribunal) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=133 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6152 of 2003, heard on 9-12-2004, hearing DATE : 9-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Imran Rizvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Sh. AMANAT ALI\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 38 = 2005 SLD 38 = 2005 PTD 504 = (2005) 91 TAX 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Taxation of bonus shares\nConclusion: Bonus shares were exempt from taxation when issued between July 1997 and June 2002, and the tax levied on them was deleted.\nCitation: 1969) 20 Tax 51 (Trib.); High, Court Azad Jammu Kashmir (1984) 49 Tax 34; 1980 PTD (Trib.) 914; (1995) 72 Tax 63; (1995) 72 Tax 93 (Trib.); (1998) 977 Tax 280 (Trib.) and (1999) 79 Tax 273 (Trib.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(9),2,2(20)(a),50,50(7),62,66,66A,SecondSched,Cl-108 Finance Act, 1997=Preamble Finance Act, 1995=Preamble Companies Ordinance, 1984=235,241,248,251 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 986/KB of 2002, decision dated: 3rd June, 2003, hearing DATE : 7-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jan e Alam, I.T.P. for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 39 = 2005 SLD 39 = 2005 PTD 529 = (2005) 91 TAX 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Filing return in wrong jurisdiction\nConclusion: Reassessment was invalid as the return was filed in the wrong jurisdiction and subsequently accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nCitation: 2003 PTD 1795 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1586/LB and 1587/LB of 2002, decision dated: 22-04-2004, hearing DATE : 15-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurshid Ahmad for Appellant. Syed Nadeem Hassan, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 40 = 2005 SLD 40 = 2005 PTCL 416 = 2005 PTD 534 = (2005) 91 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Deemed assessment\nConclusion: Additional assessments were annulled due to the lack of a written order under S.59-A, making the proceedings void.\nCitation: 1989) 78 Tax 205 (Trib.); 2003 PTD 1530; 2002 PTD 541 and CIT v. National Food Laboratories (1991) H.C. 869 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=59,59(1),59A,13,13(a),13(aa),57,61,65,65(1)(c),129,134,154,154(6) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.V,R.20.17,19 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,29 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1291/KB, 941/KB, 1626/KB and 914/KB of 2003, decision dated: 10-09-2004, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASSAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. M. INAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervez Jami and Muhammad Raza Merchant for Appellant (in I. T. As. Nos. 1291/KB and 941/KB of 2003). Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1291/KB and 941/KB of 2003). Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1626/KB and 914/KB of 2003). Shahid Pervez Jami and Muhammad Raza Merchant for Respondent (in I. T. As. Nos. 1626/KB and 914/KB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 41 = 2005 SLD 41 = 2005 PTD 563 = (2005) 91 TAX 361 = (2005) 91 TAX 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Unexplained investment - Co-ownership\nConclusion: The addition made under S.13(1)(d) was not valid, as the same valuation should have been adopted for the entire property. The addition was deleted.\nCitation: 2001) 83 Tax 564 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),13(1)(aa),62,63,132 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=201 Income Tax Rules, 1982=207,207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2327/KB of 2001, decision dated: 17-03-2003, hearing DATE : 27-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Jawed Zakaria for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 42 = 2005 SLD 42 = 2005 PTD 598 = (2005) 91 TAX 236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Rejection of trading results\nConclusion: The rejection of declared trading results without evidence of defects was found invalid, and the declared results were accepted.\nCitation: No reference available.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 688/IB to 690/IB, 720/IB to 722/IB of 2003, decision dated: 8-03-2004, hearing DATE : 5-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant Department. Anwar Ali, I.T.P. for Respondent/Assessee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 43 = 2005 SLD 43 = 2005 PTD 611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision of Deputy Commissioner's Order under S. 66 A of Income Tax Ordinance\nConclusion: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner canceled the assessment on the grounds that the business was being run by real brothers as an Association of Persons (AOP). However, no conclusive evidence was presented to prove the sharing of profit and loss, and the Appellate Tribunal disapproved the cancellation, asserting that the business was run separately in individual status.\nCitations: 2002 PTD 1428; 1968 PTD 93; 1968 PTD 78 and 1967 PTD 160 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2899/LB, 2900/LB, 2901/LB of 2002, decision dated: 21st June, 2003, hearing DATE : 11-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shahid Baig for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 44 = 2005 SLD 44 = 2005 PTD 615 = (2005) 91 TAX 327 = (2005) 91 TAX 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Investment Advisor's Remuneration\nConclusion: The First Appellate Authority correctly directed the allowance of remuneration paid to the investment advisor after proper verification, as the Assessing Officer failed to prove the expenditure's lack of nexus to the capital gain income. The Department's appeal was dismissed.\nCitations: I.T.A. No. 62/HQ of 1988 89; I.T.A. No. 852/HQ of 1989 90; I.T.A. No. 788/HQ of 1990 91 and I.T.A. No. 1769/KB of 1991-92 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(xviii),28,SecondSched.,Cl.116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1601/KB of 2001, decision dated: 31st January, 2002, hearing DATE : 29-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaq Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant. Syed Shabbir Ahmed Hashmi, ITP and Irshad Rizwan Siddiqui, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 45 = 2005 SLD 45 = 2005 PTD 621 = (2005) 91 TAX 380 = (2005) 91 TAX 380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Set-off of Losses Against Exempt Income\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer's action to set off brought forward business losses against exempt income was ruled incorrect. Since the income was exempt, it couldn't be considered assessable, and the losses should not be offset. The Appellate Tribunal vacated the decision of the First Appellate Authority.\nCitations: Civil Petitions Nos.38, 156 to 180, 199 to 276, 278 to 283, 285 to 320, 323 to 411 and 518 to 524 of 2000 rel.; 1962) 46 ITR 1135 and 1999 PTD (Trib.) 1528 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,15,35,156,SecondSched,Cl-118D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1972/KB and 1973/KB of 2002, decision dated: 5-09-2003, hearing DATE : 4-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Zakaria and Jan e Alam, I.T.P. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 46 = 2005 SLD 46 = 2005 PTD 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund for Tax Deducted at Source\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the issuance of a refund since the Bank certificate confirmed tax deduction. The delay in the refund was deemed unjustified, and the assumption was made in favor of the complainant unless proven otherwise.\nCitations: S. 9 Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 96 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,50,50(7B) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1557 of 2003, decision dated: 11-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Marwat for the Complainant. Aurangzeb Khattak and Taza Khan, Taxation Officers for Respondent. Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Advisor Dealing Officer", + "Party Name:": "IRFAN KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 47 = 2005 SLD 47 = 2005 PTD 640", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Adjournment Request Rejection and Maladministration\nConclusion: The refusal of the adjournment request was deemed a mala fide action, and the assessment was finalized without adequate opportunity for the complainant. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the cancellation of the assessment and a fresh one with proper hearings.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1162-P of 2003, decision dated: 14-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sufi M.A. Latif for the Complainant. Ashraf Ali Marwat and Fayyaz Hussain, Taxation Officers for Respondent. Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Advisor.", + "Party Name:": "MEHRBAN KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 48 = 2005 SLD 48 = 2005 PTD 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-assessment and Administrative Justice\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer should have awaited the decision of the Federal Tax Ombudsman as a matter of administrative justice. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the Department's review application and emphasized the need to implement the Ombudsman's recommendations.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3) & 10(8)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),10,10(8) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),62 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1297 L of 2003, decision dated: 24-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAHIB JEE through Member\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 49 = 2005 SLD 49 = 2005 PTD 652 = (2005) 91 TAX 182 = (2005) 91 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Appellate Tribunal's Order\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold the departmental view regarding the failure to file an option under the Presumptive Tax Regime was upheld. The rectification application was rejected as no error on the face of the record was found.\nCitations: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 2853; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 2289 and I.T.A. No. 4095/LB of 1994 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,56,65,80,80C,SecondSched,Cl-9A,Cl-913 ", + "Case #": "M.As. (R) Nos. 33/113 and 34/113 of 2004, decision dated: 17th August 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASSAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Andarabi and Anjum Sheikh, FCA for Applicant. Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 50 = 2005 SLD 50 = 2005 PTD 658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Sales Estimation and Maladministration\nConclusion: The sales estimation was found to be without basis and tainted with incompetence and inefficiency. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended recalling the assessment order for a fresh decision on merits.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) S. 9 & 11", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),2(3)(i)(ii),11,9,9(2)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(5),122,122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1199 L of 2003, decision dated: 18-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "AMEER BEGUM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 51 = 2005 SLD 51 = 2005 PTD 668 = (2005) 91 TAX 263 = (2005) 91 TAX 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax on Income of Contractors - Service Rendered\nConclusion: The term services rendered was interpreted broadly, and the washing contract (Dhobi service) was included under this definition. The assessment under S. 80C was not justified, and the Appellate Tribunal directed a reassessment under normal law.\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (1979) and 2001 PTD (Trib.) 2969 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),80,80C,80C(2)(a)(1),143,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 632/IB of 2004, decision dated: 20-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Basit, FCA for Appellant. Tauqueer Aslam, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 52 = 2005 SLD 52 = 2005 PTCL 680 = 2005 PTD 678 = (2005) 91 TAX 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation for Assessment and Merger of Orders\nConclusion: The limitation period for reassessment was counted from the Member (Judicial)'s order, and the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the order of the Appellate Additional Commissioner merged in the order of the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue.\nCitations: Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. I.A.C. and others 1992 SCC 910 rel", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66(1)(c),138 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 581/IB to 583/IB of 2003, decision dated: 7-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, D.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 52 = 2005 SLD 52 = 2005 PTD 693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Addition in Income and Wealth on Unverified Information\nConclusion: The lack of verification and independent inquiry into the informer's information led to maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended canceling the assessments and conducting a proper investigation.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 9", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),2(3)(i)(a),9 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1279 L to 1281 L and 1333 L to 1335 L of 2003, decision dated: 24-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "FAISAL SAYID and others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 53 = 2005 SLD 53 = 2005 PTD 707", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Best Assessment and Non-Resident Status\nConclusion: The assessment was set aside due to the inefficiency and misconduct of the Assessing Officer. The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the completion of proceedings within 30 days.\nCitations: S. 122A Income Tax Ordinance, 2001", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,63 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1531 of 2003, decision dated: 31st January, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL RAHEEM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 54 = 2005 SLD 54 = 2005 PTD 720", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Fair Market Value of Shares\nConclusion: The determination of fair market value without proper approval and verification was unlawful. The Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition made under S. 12(12) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitations: Central Insurance Company v. C.B.R. 1993 SCMR 1232; Commissioner of Income tax v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. 2002 PTD 720 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2,2(13),2(65),239,239(1),239(2),210 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4,12,12(12),29,29(3),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4121/LB and 4125/LB of 2004, decision dated: 15-10-2004hearing DATE : 18-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad Shad, DR for AppellantSajid Ijaz Hotiana for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 55 = 2005 SLD 55 = 2005 PTD 745 = (2005) 91 TAX 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Estimation of Sales by Sales Tax Department\nConclusion: The Sales Tax Department's audited sales figures should be respected unless proven otherwise. The Appellate Tribunal directed the acceptance of the declared sales supported by the Sales Tax audit.\nCitations: M/s. Siemens A.G.'s case 1991 PTD 488 and I.T.A. No. 5100/LB of 2002 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3087/LB of 2001 and 284/LB of 2002, decision dated: 8-11-2003hearing DATE : 5-11-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Bashir Malik for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 56 = 2005 SLD 56 = 2005 PTD 786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistake - Whitening Scheme\nConclusion: The First Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits regarding the claim to set off assessed income against SNF Bonds under the whitening scheme, in line with the instructions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\nCitations: 1989 PTD 544 = PLD 1989 SC 360; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 879; PLD 1995 SC 423 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,156,SecondSched.,Cl.172 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5628/LB of 2002, decision dated: 4-09-2004hearing DATE : 4-09-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R. and Shahid Jamal Khan, L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 57 = 2005 SLD 57 = 2005 PTD 807", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Estimation of Sales and Profit Loss Account\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled to accept the declared sales and gross profit rate of the assessee after considering the ambient circumstances and past history.\nCitations: 2001 PTD 2938; 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1369; 1994 SCMR 229 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 910/LB of 2003, 203/LB of 2001 and 2536/LB of 2003 decided on 21st September, 2004 hearing DATE : 29-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for AppellantMian Ashiq Hussain and Amir S. Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 58 = 2005 SLD 58 = 2005 PTCL 616 = 2005 PTD 814 = (2005) 91 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment on Cash Basis and Medical Practitioner\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal accepted the declared receipts of the medical practitioner, as no significant defects in the accounting method were found.\nCitations: (1984) 51 Tax 11 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,62 Income Tax Rules, 1982=28,29 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1921/LB of 2004, decision dated: 25-11-2004 hearing DATE : 20-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zulfiqar Khan for AppellantMustafa Ashraf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 59 = 2005 SLD 59 = 2005 PTD 819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gross Profit Rate on Sale of Town Houses\nConclusion: The application of Gross Profit rate was unjustified, and the Appellate Tribunal deleted the rate applied by the authorities.\nCitations: 1993 PTD 206; 1993 SCMR 1108 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,24,62,80,80D,ThirdSched.,7(b)(1) Income Tax Rules, 1982=207 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3893/LB, 3892/LB, 3472/LB, 3473/LB of 1996, 1271/LB of 2003, decision dated: 23rd August, 2003 hearing DATE : 4-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Kamal, D.R.. for Appl. (I.T.As. 3893/LB & 3892/LB of 96) M. Ali Asghar Qazi, I.T.P. for Resp. (I.T.As. 3893/LB & 3892/LB of 96)M. Ali Asghar Qazi, I.T.P. for Appl. (I.T.As. 3472/LB, 3473/LB of 1996 & 1271/Lb of 03).Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Resp. (I.T.As. 3472/LB, 3473/LB of 96 & 1271/LB of 03)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 60 = 2005 SLD 60 = 2005 PTD 830 = (2005) 91 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Foreign Currency Account and Withholding Tax Exemption\nConclusion: Reinvestment of foreign currency account proceeds did not fall under the exemption for withholding tax, and the petition was dismissed.\nCitations: Central Insurance Company v. Central Board of Revenue 1993 PTD 766 = 1993 SCMR 1232 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(2),SecondSched.,Cl.78 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 19415 of 2004, decision dated: 24-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for Petitioner, Pervez Ahmad Malik, A. G. on Court call, Tahir Mehmood Gondal, Asstt. A. G. and Muhammad Alyas Khan for Respondent No. 3", + "Party Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for , Pervez Ahmad Malik, A. G. on Court call, Tahir Mehmood Gondal, Asstt. A. G. and Muhammad Alyas Khan for No. 3\nvs\nSheikh SAADAT ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 61 = 2005 SLD 61 = 2005 PTD 833", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Tax and its Legal Nature\nConclusion: Advance tax is a provisional payment and not a final levy, except under the presumptive tax regime.\nCitations: CIT v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. (1992) 66 Tax 140 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=236,FirstSched.,PartIV,DivisionV,para..(b) ", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D 468 of 2003, decision dated: 5-08-2003 hearing DATE : 5-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Amjad Hussain Bukhari for Petitioners Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "CALL TELL and another\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 62 = 2005 SLD 62 = 2005 PTD 849 = (2005) 91 TAX 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance applicability\n•\nSummary: Industrial establishments are not subject to the charge of Workers Welfare Fund under section 4 of the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance if they fall under exemption clauses of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption from tax under the Income Tax Ordinance applies, and the levy under the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance is invalid.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 2112; C.P. Nos. 38 of 2000, 156-534 of 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 78 of 2001 and 223 to 226 of 2003, heard on 4-11-2004 hearing DATE : 4-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Yousaf Umar for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXIWEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs K.A. ENTERPRISES (PVT). LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 63 = 2005 SLD 63 = 2005 PTD 854 = (2005) 91 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Reimbursement of medical expenses for a non-salaried Director\n•\nSummary: A non-salaried director’s medical expenses reimbursement is allowable under section 23(1)(xviii), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as it qualifies as a commercial expense rather than under section 24(i) as an employee benefit.\n•\nConclusion: First Appellate Authority correctly ruled that the reimbursement was allowable.\n•\nReference: 1969 SC 335.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,16(2)(b),23,23(1)(xviii),24,24(1),24(1),24(c),25(c) Income Tax Rules, 1982=3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 90/PB of 2003, decision dated: 19-08-2004 hearing DATE : 19-08-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Khan D.R. for Appellant Shaukat Amin Shah, F.C.A. and Mehmood Mirza for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 64 = 2005 SLD 64 = 2005 PTD 858", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Deductibility of interest paid on loan\n•\nSummary: The appellate forums found no direct connection between the loan and interest expenses to justify their deductibility.\n•\nConclusion: High Court declined to entertain the case since it was a matter of fact already decided by the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 1093.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1994, decision dated: 14-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moeen Qureshi for Petitioner Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Syed AKHTAR AHSAN through Legal heir\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE 05, ZONE B, LAHORE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 65 = 2005 SLD 65 = 2005 PTCL 664 = 2005 PTD 862 = (2005) 91 TAX 238 = (2005) 91 TAX 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Timeliness of appeal decisions\n•\nSummary: The Commissioner of Appeals must decide an appeal within three months, and failure to act within that time frame entitles the appellant to relief under section 129(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nConclusion: Relief granted to the taxpayer as the Commissioner failed to act within the prescribed time limit.\n•\nReference: 2000 PTD 39; Ch. Irshad Ahmad Virk v. Commissioner, 1996 PTD 279.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=129,129(5),129(6),129(7),132,132(6) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 4749 of 2003, decision dated: 19-01-2005 hearing DATE : 14-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwar ul Haq for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "DATA ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Finance Division, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 66 = 2005 SLD 66 = 2005 PTD 872 = (2005) 91 TAX 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Agreed assessment as a past and closed transaction\n•\nSummary: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the notion that agreed assessments are final and binding unless there is clear evidence of mistake or new material.\n•\nConclusion: The rectification application was rejected, and the case was closed based on the agreement.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 318.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,156 ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos. 624/LB to 626/LB of 2003, decision dated: 18-11-2004, hearing DATE : 7-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 67 = 2005 SLD 67 = 2005 PTD 891 = (2005) 91 TAX 419", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Leasing of industrial units for exemption under tax laws\n•\nSummary: Leasing of an industrial unit does not automatically entitle the lessor to tax exemptions under Income Tax provisions.\n•\nConclusion: The leasing transaction does not affect the exemption entitlement.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 2200.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.118A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 1 of 1997, heard on 12-05-2004, hearing DATE : 12-05-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Waheed Baig for Appellant Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MIANSONS COTTON FACTORY (PVT LTD through Chief Executive\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAHAWALPUR ZONE, BAHAWALPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 68 = 2005 SLD 68 = 2005 PTD 914", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Qualification for self-assessment scheme\n•\nSummary: The rejection of self-assessment based on a 20% increase rule was found to be incorrect, as the law does not require this increase to be after all rebates.\n•\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, allowing the self-assessment scheme.\n•\nReference: 2001 PTD 1482.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5740/LB of 2004, decision dated: 6-01-2005 DATE hearing: 6-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saqib Sheikh for Appellant, Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 69 = 2000 SLD 69 = 2000 PTD 1881 = (1999) 235 ITR 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Income from partnership involving a minor\n•\nSummary: Interest earned by a minor from the partnership is to be included in the income of the father under section 64(1)(iii) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nConclusion: Interest income should be included in the father's total income.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1513 of 1984 (Reference No. 1102 of 1984), decision dated: 11-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the CommissionerP.P.S. Janardhana Raja for M/s. Subbaraya Iyer, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBANSILAL BHAIYA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 70 = 2005 SLD 70 = 2005 PTD 944 = (2005) 91 TAX 275 = (2005) 91 TAX 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Rejection of accounts and interest income taxation\n•\nSummary: The Assessing Officer rejected declared sales and expenses, leading to additional tax liabilities. The rejection was based on unverifiable claims and assumptions without evidence.\n•\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal remanded the case for fresh review, ensuring fair opportunity for hearing and evidence presentation.\n•\nReference: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1256.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,32,32A,34,62,80,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6035/LB of 2003, decision dated: 13-10-2004, hearing DATE : 13-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaq Ahmed Vohra, FCA for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 71 = 2005 SLD 71 = 2005 PTD 952 = (2005) 91 TAX 438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Deduction of withholding tax on foreign currency account\n•\nSummary: The reassessment and tax adjustment for investments made from encashed foreign currency accounts were questioned due to timing discrepancies.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the payment of the refund based on clarification from the Central Board of Revenue.\n•\nReference: 2003 PTD 1423.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(2A) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-319-K of 2004, decision dated: 2-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Mujib Siddiqui for the ComplainantHaseeb-ul-Haq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIB SIDDIQUI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 72 = 2005 SLD 72 = 2005 PTD 960 = (2005) 91 TAX 322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Service of order within limitation\n•\nSummary: The failure to serve an order within the limitation period under section 64 renders the assessment order null and void.\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, declaring the order void.\n•\nReference: 2001 PTD 616 (SC India).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,64 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 602/LB and 467/LB of 2002, decision dated: 26-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 73 = 2005 SLD 73 = 2005 PTCL 184 = 2005 PTD 965 = (2005) 91 TAX 312 = 2005 PTR 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Withdrawal from firm’s capital account\n•\nSummary: Withdrawal from a partnership's capital account for personal expenses is not treated as a loan under section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: The addition made to income was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal, confirming that such withdrawals are not loans.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 877.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4206/LB and 4207/LB of 2004, decision dated: 26-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mustafa Ashraf, D.R. for Appellant. Sohail Mutee Babri for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 74 = 2005 SLD 74 = 2005 PTCL 321 = 2005 PTD 974 = (2005) 91 TAX 399 = (2005) 91 TAX 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Deduction of tax on sale of land, building, and machinery\n•\nSummary: Tax deduction on the sale of land and building along with machinery was wrongly applied under section 50(4).\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that no tax could be deducted under the provision, as land and buildings are not covered under supply of goods. \n•\nReference: 1999 PTD 4028.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27,50,50(4),80,80C,SecondSched,Cl.188D ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1374/LB of 2000, decision dated: 28-08-2004, hearing DATE : 24-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi and Masood Ishaq for Appellant, Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 75 = 2005 SLD 75 = 2005 PTCL 264 = 2005 PTD 986 = (2005) 91 TAX 286 = (2005) 91 TAX 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Additional assessment and reopening\n•\nSummary: The reopening of the assessment due to presumed discrepancies in market prices was found unjustified, as there was no definite evidence.\n•\nConclusion: The reopening was annulled, and the tax liability was confirmed based on valid original assessments.\n•\nReference: 1997 PTD 616.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(e),55,56,59,59A,59B,60,62,63,65,80,80C,80C(4),80C(7),80C(1),143,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5207/LB of 2003, decision dated: 21st October, 2004, hearing DATE : 20-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Mustafa Ashraf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 76 = 2005 SLD 76 = 2005 PTD 993 = (2005) 91 TAX 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Condonation of delay in filing appeal\n•\nSummary: The Appellate Tribunal declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, as the order had already achieved finality.\n•\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed for failure to justify the delay.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 549.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,134,134(3),154 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5698/LB and M.A. (Cond.) No.831/LB of 2003, decision dated: 13-01-2005, hearing DATE : 25-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Appellant. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 77 = 2005 SLD 77 = 2005 PTD 1012 = (2005) 91 TAX 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Penalties and filing appeal\n•\nSummary: The High Court declined to admit an appeal concerning penalties due to lack of legal grounds, as the matter had already been adjudicated.\n•\nConclusion: The appeal was not admitted by the High Court.\n•\nReference: 2000 PTD 892.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(b),136,136(2),139,142 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 59 of 2001, decision dated: 21st September, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Yousaf Umar for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (APPEALS-I), FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs FLORA FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 78 = 2005 SLD 78 = 2005 PTD 1014 = (2005) 91 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Additional assessment for unexplained investment\n•\nSummary: The Appellate Tribunal found the reopening of assessments unjustified based on insufficient evidence, as the initial investment was adequately explained.\n•\nConclusion: The reassessment was canceled, and the matter was resolved in favor of the taxpayer.\n•\nReference: 1989 PTD 1010.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65,65(1),65(2) Stamp Act, of 1899=27B Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-3204 to 3207 of 1992, decision dated: 19-11-2004, hearing DATE : 8-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Petitioners. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 3 others\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 79 = 2005 SLD 79 = 2005 PTD 1022", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Refund delays and maladministration\n•\nSummary: The department unlawfully withheld refunds and failed to issue refund vouchers despite clear eligibility, leading to maladministration.\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the issuance of the refund along with compensation for delays.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 1450.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,170(2),221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7E),59,59(1),85 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 449-L of 2004, decision dated: 21st July, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif for the Complainant. Muzammil Hussain, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MANZOOR AHMAD DHOBI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 80 = 2004 SLD 80 = 2004 PTD 1027 = (2005) 91 TAX 463 = (2005) 92 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Appeal to High Court regarding penalties\n•\nSummary: The High Court declined to consider the question of penalty imposition, as the issue was not raised during the Appellate Tribunal’s review.\n•\nConclusion: High Court refused to admit the appeal based on procedural grounds.\n•\nReference: 1992 PTD 751.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,52,108,108(b),136,136(2),142,201 Income Tax Rules, 1982=53,61,61A ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 66 of 2001, decision dated: 5-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nTAIWAH CHINESE RESTAURANT (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 81 = 2005 SLD 81 = 2005 PTD 1033", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Revision of assessment for unexplained agricultural investment\n•\nSummary: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the complainant’s claim was unjustly rejected, and the tax authority did not sufficiently examine the facts.\n•\nConclusion: The Ombudsman recommended rectification of the assessment to ensure fairness in the revision process.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 2435.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(1),122A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-339-K of 2004, decision dated: 10-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khursheed Ali Khan for the Complainant. Taj Muhammad Jonejo, DCIT for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HOTUMAL, COMMISSION AGENT AND FERTILIZER AGENCY, JHOL DISTRICT SANGHAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 83 = 2005 SLD 83 = 2005 PTD 1040 = (2005) 91 TAX 467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Relief under section 19(3) for house property occupation\n•\nSummary: Relief under section 19(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance is not available for those occupying a property as a sub-lessee.\n•\nConclusion: Relief was denied, and the claim was rejected based on the legal requirements for occupying property as an owner.\n•\nReference: 2001 PTD 795.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 47 of 1992, decision dated: 2-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqui for Applicant. Iqbal Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONED, KARACHI\nvs\nMUHAMMAD SARDAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 84 = 2005 SLD 84 = 2005 PTD 1047 = (2005) 91 TAX 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Zakat and Ushr deductions for insurance companies\n•\nSummary: Zakat paid at source on Khas Deposit Certificates by insurance companies is an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: The deduction was confirmed as valid under the applicable tax rules.\n•\nReference: 2003 PTD 1309.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=20,133 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FourthSched,5,5(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 505 of 2004, decision dated: 18-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Altaf Mun for Appellant. Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs AGRO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 85 = 2005 SLD 85 = 2005 PTD 1052", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Amendment of assessment and refund procedures\n•\nSummary: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that unlawful delay in refund payments should be rectified, and the proper procedures for refund issuance should be followed.\n•\nConclusion: The Ombudsman advised the tax department to process the refund and cancel any unnecessary notices.\n•\nReference: 2000 PTD 1382.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=114,122,141(1),170,141,171,SecondSched,Cl-73,Cl-77(D) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),10,10(3) Income Tax Rules, 2002=71 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 296-K of 2004, decision dated: 2-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam, Director (F&A) Liquidator for the Complainant. Nadeem Ahmed Farooqi, IAC and Dr. Muhammad Abbas, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "FEDERAL CHEMICAL CERAMICS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 86 = 2005 SLD 86 = 2005 PTD 1061 = (2005) 91 TAX 469", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Illegal levy of Workers' Welfare Fund\n•\nSummary: A charge of the Workers' Welfare Fund was found to be illegal as it had been levied without the proper statutory authority.\n•\nConclusion: The levy was declared null and void, and the tax was refunded.\n•\nReference: 2002 PTD 1555.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,129,156,SecondSched,Cl-118-E Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2948/LB of 2002, decision dated: 28-01-2005, hearing DATE : 5-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ijaz Hussain for Appellant And Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 87 = 2005 SLD 87 = 2005 PTD 1102 = (2005) 92 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Failure to pay minimum tax under section 80-D\n•\nSummary: The failure to pay the minimum tax as per section 80-D led to the imposition of additional tax under section 89, which was deemed legally justified.\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the tax assessment and the additional tax penalty.\n•\nReference: PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,63,64,65,66,67,11,2,2(24),2(44),80,80D,80C,80CC,89,88,80D(2),108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 203 of 1999, decision dated: 19-11-2004, hearing DATE : 2-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, D.A.G. for Respondents Nos.1 & 2 Jawaid Farooqui for Respondents Nos. 3 to 6", + "Party Name:": "M/s BAIG SPINNING MILLS LTD.\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 88 = 2005 SLD 88 = 2005 PTD 1109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Amendment of Assessment\n•\nConclusion: The complainant's return for 2001-2002 under the Self-Assessment Scheme was unlawfully challenged based on a misapplication of a 1999-2000 clarification by the Taxation Officer. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the notice under section 122 be withdrawn.\n•\nCitation: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s recommendation to cancel the notice was accepted, emphasizing that Self-Assessment conditions should apply only for the specific year in question.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),2,2(24),80,80D Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(9),122(5A) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 325-K of 2004, decision dated: 10-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Anwar Kamal for Complainant. Mushtaq Hussain Qazi, IAC for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs T.M. TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 89 = 2005 SLD 89 = 2005 PTD 1135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification of Mistakes by Appellate Tribunal\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal allowed a miscellaneous application for recall of its decision, instructing a reexamination of the case in light of the arguments and facts presented.\n•\nCitation: 2003 PTD 2841 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 634/LB of 2004, decision dated: 11-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Aslam for Applicant. Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 90 = 2005 SLD 90 = 2005 PTD 1142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deductibility of Interest on Loans from Private Parties\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of interest paid to private lenders as a legitimate business expense, ruling that the interest claim should not be disallowed due to leasing of the business property at a later stage.\n•\nCitation: Calico Dyeing and Printing Works v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City II 34 ITR 265 Bombay ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 173 of 1997, decision dated: 24-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, Justice(s).", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs TAJ FLOUR MILLS (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 52 = 2000 SLD 52 = 2000 PTD 1884 = (1999) 235 ITR 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Penalty for Failure to Get Accounts Audited\n•\nConclusion: The Court directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the penalty for non-auditing, as the assessee's explanation provided a reasonable cause. The case was remanded for a fresh decision.\n•\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.44-AB & 271-B.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.58 of 1995, decision dated: 24-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "P.A. MOHAMMED AND P. SHANMUGAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair and S. Vinod Kumar for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JAI TRADING COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 91 = 2005 SLD 91 = 2005 PTD 1157 = (2005) 91 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Liability to Deduct Tax on Commission and Discounts\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the assessee, acting as an agent, was not liable to deduct tax on discounts or commissions because no actual payment was made to sub-agents or purchasers.\n•\nCitation: Principles of commission and discount outlined in S.50(4A), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4A),52,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 535 of 1999, heard on 7-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Zia Haider Rizvi for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ROYAL TRAVEL SERVICE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD through Chief Executive\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 92 = 2005 SLD 92 = 2005 PTD 1208 = (2005) 91 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Method of Accounting in Income Tax Assessments\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal emphasized that the method of accounting adopted by the assessee, if regularly followed, could not be rejected without valid reasons. It highlighted the significance of gross profit margins and production records in accounting.\n•\nCitation: Various cases referenced including CIT v. Singari Bai (1945) 13 ITR 224 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,24,62(1),Proviso & 32,32(3),30,24(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 859/KB of 2000-01, 1592/KB, 1652/KB and 1778/KB of 2002, decision dated: 2-11-2002, hearing DATE : 9-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Jawed Zakaria and Jan-e-Alam I.T.P., for Appellant. Assessee Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. for Respondent/Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 93 = 2005 SLD 93 = 2005 PTD 1303 = (2005) 91 TAX 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Liability for Failure to Deduct Tax on Purchases\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the department could not hold the assessee in default under section 52, as there was insufficient evidence to prove the failure to deduct tax on purchases.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,13(1)(aa),50(4),52,SecondSched.,Cl.122D,50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1060/LB to 1063/LB, 1229/LB to 1232/LB and 1250/LB of 2002, decision dated: 31st December, 2004, hearing DATE : 17-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRMAN AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1060/LB to 1063/LB, 1229/LB to 1232/LB of 2002). Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.1060/LB to 1063/LB, 1229/LB to 1232/LB of 2002). Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1250/LB of 2002). Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1250/LB of 2002).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 52 = 2000 SLD 52 = 2000 PTD 1314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Reference to High Court on Time-Barred Applications\n•\nConclusion: The High Court dismissed the Tax Reference as time-barred because it was filed late beyond the 90-day limit.\n•\nCitation: Reference to High Court under S.136(3), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(2),136(3) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 15 of 1997, decision dated: 16-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR UL MULK, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Eid Muhammad Khattak for Applicant. Nazir Ahmad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX, ZONEA, PESHAWAR\nvs\nASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 94 = 2005 SLD 94 = 2005 PTD 1364 = (2005) 92 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Addition for Non-Disclosure of Vehicle in Balance Sheet\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the affidavit and sale receipts submitted by the assessee to prove the sale of the vehicle should not have been rejected, thus deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nCitation: 1988 PTD (Trib.) 612 and I.T.A. No.2052/LB of 2003 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(1)(c),13(1)(b),65 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 453/LB of 2002, decision dated: 6-09-2004, hearing DATE : 3rd September, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Naseer Sh. for Appellant. Abdul Rasheed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 95 = 2005 SLD 95 = 2005 PTD 1373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Finalization of Assessment Without Adequate Notice\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal vacated the assessment order, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's actions lacked legal basis as the notice under section 62 was not properly issued prior to finalizing the assessment.\n•\nCitation: Legal principle regarding notice under section 62.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5901/LB of 2004, decision dated: 25-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Latif for Appellant. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 96 = 2000 SLD 96 = 2000 PTD 1887 = (1999) 235 ITR 484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Power of Assessing Officer Under Section 143(1)(a)\n•\nConclusion: The Court held that adjustments under section 143(1)(a) can only be made when deductions or reliefs claimed are prima facie inadmissible. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were found to be inappropriate.\n•\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.143.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 3015 of 1993, decision dated: 2-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "D. BISWAS, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf and K.K. Gupta for Petitioner. G.K. Joshi and B.J. Talukdar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MAKUM TEA CO. (INDIA) LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 97 = 2005 SLD 97 = 2005 PTD 1375 = (2005) 91 TAX 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Charge of Additional Tax on Failure to Pay Tax\n•\nConclusion: The Court held that in the absence of a specific date for payment, the due date implied in the notice should be treated as the last day of the month.\n•\nCitation: General Clauses Act, 1897, S.24A.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=89,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.622/KB and 623/KB of 2003, decision dated: 12-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ausama Rahim Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Indhar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 98 = 2005 SLD 98 = 2005 PTD 1385 = (2005) 91 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Tax on Income of Contractors and Importers\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim under the Presumptive Tax Regime, ruling that the receipt from companies and diplomats must be taxed under normal tax laws as no rate was specified for such services in the Finance Act.\n•\nCitation: Finance Act (IV of 1999).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),62,80,80C(2),FirstSched.,Cl.E,80C Finance Act, 1999=Preamble ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 168/IB and 238/IB of 2003, decision dated: 27-01-2004, hearing DATE : 11-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Basit, F.C.A. for the Appellant/Assessee And Noushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent/Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 99 = 2005 SLD 99 = 2005 PTD 1431 = (2005) 91 TAX 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Refund Creation and Withholding Tax\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the issuance of the refund, pointing out that the department failed to verify the payments and unduly delayed the process.\n•\nCitation: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 1143; 1995 PTD 749.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),50(5),96,100,132,135,135(9),136,136(2),SecondSched,Cl-9B Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=132(10) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 613-L of 2004, decision dated: 13-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suhail Muttee Babri, ITP for the Complainant. Samra Ashraf, D-CIT and Ms Mufeeza Iqbal, A-CIT for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PAKASIA MILLS STORE, LAHORE CANTT.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 53 = 2000 SLD 53 = 2000 PTD 1437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rejection of Trading Results Based on Low Gross Profit\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer could not reject the declared trading results without confronting the assessee with defects in their accounts and providing an opportunity to explain.\n•\nCitation: PLD 1975 Kar. 370; 1984 PTD 197.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1),24,24(c),50,50(4),80,80CC(2),143,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3655/LB of 2001, decision dated: 28-11-2002, hearing DATE : 26-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kaleem Rathore, F.C.A. and Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Javed ur Rehman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 2 = 1990 SLD 2 = 1990 PTD 834", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Depreciation for Specified Buildings\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld that depreciation at the rate of 15% was applicable to buildings constructed between 1946-1975, despite the Assessing Officer’s contention that it should be 10%.\n•\nCitation: High Court decision, Sh. Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2),10(2)(vi),10(2)(vi)(a)(aa),10(2)(a),10(2)(aa),10(2)(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.593 of 1976, decision dated: 24-02-1980. (On appeal from the judgment dated 31 3 1976 of the Lahore High Court in T.R. No.96 of 1970).", + "Judge Name:": "DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court with Riazul Haq Sh. Advocate Supreme Court, Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 162 = 2006 SLD 162 = 2006 SCMR 652", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deeming Provisions in Taxation\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal clarified that the deeming provisions of section 50(7A) of the Income Tax Ordinance should not be applied to non-existent income but rather to income that is presumed to have accrued under the law.\n•\nCitation: Muhammad Younas v. Chairman Municipal Committee, Sahiwal, PLD 1984 Lah. 345.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Explanationto50(7A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.163 to 169, 211, 212, 376, 377, 730, 731, 1342 to 1344, 1415, 1468 of 1999, 894 to 897, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1042 of 2000, 1297 and 1298 of 2001, Civil Petitions Nos.3000-L to 3002-L of 2000 and C.M.A. No.2400 of 2000 in C.A. No.163 of 1999, decision dated: 19-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Ellahi Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Khalil Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (C.As. Nos.163 to 169, 1342 to 1344 of 1999 and 894 to 897 of 2000). Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicant (C.M.A. No. 2400 of 2000 in C.A. No. 163 of 1999). Rao Munawar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (C.As. Nos. 1297, 1298 of 2001, 1468 of 1999 and 1042 of 2000). Muhammad Uzair Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (C.As, Nos.211, 212 of 1999 and 999 to 1002 of 2000). Ms. Afghan Ghazanfar, A.A.G. Punjab for Petitioners (C.Ps. Nos.3000-L to 3002-L of 2000). Raja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. and Ch. Akhtar All, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (C.As. Nos. 163 to 169 of 1999). M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (C.As, Nos.894 to 897 of 2000 and C.Ps. Nos.3000-L to 3002- L of 2000). Syed Kalim Khursheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 6 and 5 (C.As. Nos.165 and 166 of 1999). Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (C.As. Nos.211, 212, 376, 377, 730 and 731 of 1999 and 999 to 1002 and 1042 of 2000). Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 5 (C.A. No. 1344 of 1999).", + "Party Name:": "BISMILLAH & CO. and others\nvs\nSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 100 = 2005 SLD 100 = 2005 PTD 1451 = (2005) 91 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Refund and Withholding Tax Certificates\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman emphasized that the department’s refusal to process the refund based on the lack of prescribed certificates from withholding agents was maladministration, directing immediate action to issue the refund.\n•\nCitation: 2004 PTD 758 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),59,59A Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=160,161,161(1),164,164(1),164(2),165,168,170,171,182,182(2),205,205(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 421-L of 2004, decision dated: 14-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jamil Akhtar Baig (FCA) for the Complainant. S.A. Masood Raza (IAC) and Muzammil Hussain, D-CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SKY STAR TRAVELS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 101 = 2005 SLD 101 = 2005 PTD 1456 = (2005) 91 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Limitation for Reference to High Court\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declined to entertain a reference on time-barred grounds, holding that it was filed beyond the allowed 90-day period.\n•\nCitation: N.A. Industries v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1992 PTD 50 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 189 of 1997, decision dated: 14-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Zia H. Rizvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs RASHID TEXTILE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 102 = 2005 SLD 102 = 2005 PTD 1460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Service of Short Document Notice\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman concluded that the service of a short document notice to an employee who was not authorized was invalid and ordered a revision of the assessments.\n•\nCitation: 2004 PTD 758 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),61,62,154 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),2(3)(1)(a),2(3)(1)(b),2(3)(ii),9,9(2)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 796-L of 2004, decision dated: 18-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Aslam for the Complainant. Malik Ghulam Rasul. D-CIT for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD TRADING CO., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 103 = 2005 SLD 103 = 2005 PTD 1467 = (2005) 91 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Reference to High Court on Time-Barred Applications\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declined to answer questions of law raised in a reference petition that was time-barred.\n•\nCitation: I.T.A. No.402 of 1998 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133(4) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 86 of 2003, decision dated: 4-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND NASIM SIKANDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miana Yousaf Umar for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs MULTI COMMERCE (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 163 = 2006 SLD 163 = 2006 SCMR 859", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption from Income Tax and Working Capital Loans\n•\nConclusion: The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, arguing that working capital loans should not be excluded from industrial investment for exemption under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nCitation: Various cases related to tax exemptions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.77,Cl.77A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "C.P.L.As. Nos.1616 and 1617 of 2003, heard on 14-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., M. JAVED BUTTAR AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court along with Danish Zubairi and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocates-on-Record for the Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for the Respondent No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "MORTAR INVESTMENTS INTL. LIMITED ICI PAKISTAN LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 104 = 2005 SLD 104 = 2005 PTD 1607 = (2005) 91 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Interpretation of Agreements and Tax Deductions\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the manufacturing company was entitled to benefits under section 80C based on advance tax deducted on payments by the marketing company.\n•\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Prime Dairies Ice Cream Ltd. 1999 PTD 4147 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 915 of 1999, decision dated: 9-02-2005. dates of hearing: 14th, 15-04-5th 6th, 12-05-2004 and 7-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar for Appellant. Muhammad Farid for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK SAUDI FERTILIZERS LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 54 = 2000 SLD 54 = 2000 PTD 1902 = (1999) 235 ITR 278 = (1999) 79 TAX 504", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Annuity Deposit Taxation in the Hands of Legal Representatives\n•\nConclusion: The Court ruled that annuity payments made to the legal representatives of a deceased depositor should not be treated as income but part of the estate, with no tax implications for the legal heirs.\n•\nCitation: Padam Shree N.N. Mohan (Estate of Late) v. CIT 150 ITR 92 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5264 of 1990, decision dated: 18-12-1998. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated May 22, 1984, of the Delhi High Court in Income-tax Reference No.33 of 1977)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D. P. MOHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (Tripurari Rai and Vineet Kumar, Advocates with him) for Appellant. K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor-General (Ranbir Chandra and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "KAPIL MOHAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 105 = 2005 SLD 105 = 2005 PTD 1663 = (2005) 91 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the imposition of a penalty for concealment of income was invalid as it fell below the minimum prescribed limit, and the Appellate Authority could correct this error by enhancing the penalty.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.111, 132(1)(b) & 135(5).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,132,132(1)(b),135,135(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 217 of 1991, decision dated: 6-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMst. SHAKILA KHATOON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 106 = 2005 SLD 106 = 2005 PTD 1908 = (2005) 91 TAX 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Refund Processing and Maladministration\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended corrective measures for tax employees’ neglect in processing refunds. The Ombudsman highlighted the maladministration, urging the Revenue Division to ensure prompt refunds and resolve contradictions within 30 days, enforcing accountability among officers.\n•\nCitation: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s recommendations emphasized tax efficiency and accountability across all levels of administration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1429 L of 2003, decision dated: 10-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for the Complainant. Muhammad Jamil Bhatti, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN & CO. (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 107 = 2005 SLD 107 = 2005 PTD 1915 = (2005) 91 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Service of Notice and Validity of Assessment\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that a short document notice served through UPC, which didn't provide evidence of delivery, was invalid. The Taxation Officer’s actions were found arbitrary and unjust, and the case was directed back to assess the return under the correct process.\n•\nCitation: CTR No.11/2002, dated 19-12-2002 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) General Clauses Act, 1897=57 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),59A,154,61 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 857-L of 2003, decision dated: 27-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tipu Sultan ITP for the Complainant. Muzammal Hussain Butt, DCIT and Anwar Ali, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ARTEX INTERNATIONAL (LAHORE)\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 108 = 2005 SLD 108 = 2005 PTD 1918 = (2005) 91 TAX 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Option for Assessment under Income Tax Ordinance\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the pre-amendment provisions of S.80-C did not allow an option for alternate assessment, as the amendment had no retrospective effect. The assessee's claim under S.80-C was ruled inapplicable for the 1995-96 assessment.\n•\nCitation: Finance Act, 1996 amendment.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,80,80C,136,Sched.II,Part4,Cl.9 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 358 of 1998, decision dated: 15-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Haider Rizvi for Appellant. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HYBRID TECHNICS (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 109 = 2005 SLD 109 = 2005 PTD 1942 = (2005) 91 TAX 425 = 2006 SCMR 652", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deeming Provision in Taxation\n•\nConclusion: The explanation to S.50(7A) in the Income Tax Ordinance creates a legal fiction for income chargeability, applying to advance tax payments for awarded contracts. The Court upheld the application of the deeming provision and its impact on advance tax adjustments.\n•\nCitation: Muhammad Younas v. Chairman Municipal Committees, Sahiwal, PLD 1984 Lah. 345.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.163 to 169, 211, 212, 376, 377, 730, 731, 1342 to 1344, 1415, 1468 of 1999, 894 to 897, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1042 of 2000, 1297 and 1298 of 2001, Civil Petitions Nos.3000-L to 3002-L of 2000 and C.M.A. No.2400 of 2000, decision dated: 19-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Ellahi Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Khalil Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (C.As. Nos.163 to 169, 1342 to 1344 of 1999 and 894 to 897 of 2000). Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicant (C.M.A. No. 2400 of 2001 in C.A. 163 of 1999). Rao Munawar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (C.As. Nos. 1297, 1298 of 2001, 1468 of 1999 and 1042 of 2000).\nMuhammad Uzair Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for appellants (C.As. 211, 212 of 1999 and 999 to 1002 of 2000). Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (C.As. 376, 377, 730 and 731 of 1999). Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.G. Punjab for Petitioners (C.Ps. 3000-L to 3002-L of 2000). Raja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (C.As. Nos. 163 to 169 of 1999). M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Aslant Chatta, Advocate-on-Record and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (C.As. Nos.894 to 897 of 2000 and C.Ps. 3000-L to 3002-L of 2000),\nSyed Kalim Khursheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos 6 and 5 (C.As. 165 and 166 of 1999). Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (C.As. 211, 212, 376, 377, 730 and 731 of 1999 and 999 to 1002 and 1042 of 2000). Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 5 (C.A. No. 1344 of 1999).", + "Party Name:": "BISMILLAH & CO. and others\nVs\nSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 110 = 2005 SLD 110 = 2005 PTD 1956", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Tax Exemption and Legislative History\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld that the exemption for companies with paid-up capital below Rs.1.5 million was discontinued under S.50(10) of the Income Tax Ordinance. The Court ruled that the exemption no longer applied due to legislative changes.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, S.50.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(10),50(4),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 196 to 198 of 2000, heard on 14-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Haider Rizvi for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S.K. TEXTILE PROCESSING MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE through Chief Executive\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 111 = 2005 SLD 111 = 2005 PTD 1974 = (2005) 91 TAX 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Audit Notice\n•\nConclusion: The Court ruled that notices issued for total audits under the Self-Assessment Scheme without proper grounds or justification were invalid, and such proceedings could not be initiated against the assessee.\n•\nCitation: Ch. M. Hussain Agency Dealer v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2005 PTD 152 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=77,114,120,120(1)(b),122(4),175,176,177,177(1A) ", + "Case #": "C. Ps. Nos. D-1047, 1048 and 1096 of 2004, decision dated: 15-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervez Jami for Petitioners. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Javed Farooqui for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MUNEER BHIMJEE and others\nvs\nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 112 = 2005 SLD 112 = 2005 PTD 1982 = (2005) 92 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification of Assessment Order\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that an appeal on a rectification application was valid and should not have been dismissed based on the assessment's original date. The matter was to be reviewed based on the corrected order.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, S.62.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,80,80D,80C,136 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1911-L of 2000 decided on 22-06-2001. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 1-6-2000 of the Lahore High Court passed in ITA No. 476 of 2000)", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1911 L of 2000 decided on 22nd June, 2001\nKhawja Tariq Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court, Mansoor Shah with permission and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. M. Ilyas Khan Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs J.K. (TECH) (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 113 = 2005 SLD 113 = 2005 PTD 2022 = (2005) 91 TAX 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Share Deposit Money and Tax Classification\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that share deposit money cannot be considered a loan, emphasizing that share capital, as reflected in the company's balance sheet, should not be reclassified for tax purposes.\n•\nCitation: Venkatakrishna Rice Company v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),66,66A ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 19 of 2002, decision dated: 10-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Ali Jafri for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nSIMNWA POLOY PROPYLENE PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 114 = 2005 SLD 114 = 2005 PTCL 708 = 2005 PTD 2032", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Limitation and Invalid Assessment\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that assessments made after the two-year limitation period were invalid. The assessment order was declared null and void as the books of accounts and documents were not properly examined.\n•\nCitation: 91 Tax 322 (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,62,63,64,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3934/LB, 4208/LB of 2002, 717/LB and 1167/LB of 2004, decision dated: 7-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAD MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haroon Ahmad, A.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.3934/LB of 2002 and 717/LB of 2004). Imran Raza Kazmi, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.3934/LB of 2002 and 717/LB of 2004). Imran Raza Kazmi, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.4208/LB of 2002 and 1167/LB of 2004). Haroon Ahmad, ACA for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.4208/LB of 2002 and 1167/LB of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 114 = 2005 SLD 114 = 2005 PTD 2035 = (2005) 91 TAX 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Rectification and Zakat Payment\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the rectification order, confirming that Zakat paid by the assessee should not have been added to the total income. No legal issue was found to warrant further proceedings.\n•\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax Company’s II, Karachi v. National Food Laboratories 1992 SCMR 687.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(2),156,156(1),SecondSched.PartIII,para.1 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 242 of 1991, decision dated: 14-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MAHMOOD NAWAZ\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANY CIRCLE, ZONE B, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 115 = 2005 SLD 115 = 2005 PTD 2037 = (2005) 92 TAX 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Grounds for Appeal and Tribunal's Dismissal\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the memorandum of appeal was argumentative and narrative. The High Court remanded the case for a decision on merits.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Muhammad Tariq Javed (2000) 82 Tax 67.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=10 ", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 16 of 2002, decision dated: 10-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Sajjad Ali Jaffri\nRespondent(s) by: Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, Zone-II, LAHORE\nVS\nMESSRS CANDOUR INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 116 = 2005 SLD 116 = 2005 PTD 2041 = (2005) 91 TAX 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Suspense Account and Taxation of Income\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that income credited to a suspense account was not taxable, as it was a prudential regulation and did not constitute actual income until resolved.\n•\nCitation: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1878.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(7),23,23(1)(X),24,24(1),24(c),50,50(4),50(7B),52,62,86,FirstSched.PartV,para.D(a),SecondSched.Part1,Cl.116,Cl.3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.966/LB to 968/LB, 1427/LB to 1429/LB of 2002, 205/LB, 5961/LB, 5962/LB, 575/LB, 6640/LB of 2004, decision dated: 2-04-2005. DATE hearing 25-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.966/LB to 968/LB of 2002, 205/LB, 5961/LB and 5962/LB of 2004). Dr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.966/LB to 968/LB of 2002, 205/LB, 5961/LB and 5962/LB of 2004).\nDr. Shahid Siddique Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1427/LB to 1429/LB of 2002, 575/LB and 6640/LB of 2004). Dr. Ikram-ul-Haq for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.1427/LB to 1429/LB of 2002, 575/LB and 6640/LB of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 117 = 2005 SLD 117 = 2005 PTD 2082 = (2005) 91 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #1463\n•\nTopic: Exemption of Educational Institutions’ Income\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education were exempt from income tax on interest earned, as their purpose was solely educational, not profit-oriented.\n•\nCitation: Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad v. Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary and others Writ Petition No.121 of 2004.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=14,50,50(2A),53,SchedII,ItemNo.86 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976=Preamble ", + "Case #": "W.Ps. Nos.121 of 2004 and 1974 of 2001, heard on 7-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afnan Karim Kundi and Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Petitioners. Arshad Majeed Malik and Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD through Secretary\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 118 = 2005 SLD 118 = 2005 PTD 2086 = (2005) 91 TAX 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Interest Deduction for Financial Institutions\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the deduction of interest paid on loans procured for earning interest income, confirming that such expenses were legitimate for tax deductions under the relevant provision.\n•\nCitation: 1992 PTD (Trib.) 1142.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,31,31(1)(b),66,66A,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.414 and 416 of 1998, decided 15-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND SH. AZINAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil Khan for Appellant. M.M. Akram for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPIONEER CEMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 119 = 2005 SLD 119 = 2005 PTD 2088", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Late Document Submission\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that a delay of six days in submitting documents under the Self-Assessment Scheme should not disqualify the assessee from the benefits of the scheme.\n•\nCitation: 1991 PTD 968; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1948.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4329/LB and 4328/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-05-2005, hearing DATE : 12-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Baig for Appellant. Ahmed Kamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 120 = 2005 SLD 120 = 2005 PTD 2093 = (2005) 92 TAX 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deduction of Interest Income\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that interest income could be treated as business income and deductions related to it should be properly considered in the calculation of taxable income.\n•\nCitation: 2005 PTD (Trib.) 344.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,30,31(1)(b),34,66A,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 269 of 1998, decision dated: 14-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Zahid Pervaiz for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs GRAYS LEASING COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 121 = 2005 SLD 121 = 2005 PTD 2097", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Amendment of Assessment after Income Tax Ordinance 2001\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the Commissioner could not amend assessments under the old Income Tax Ordinance after the new law came into effect, as the provisions under the old law were no longer applicable.\n•\nCitation: Income-Tax Ordinance, 2001, S.122.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,30,31,31(1)(b),34,66,66A,136,59,59(1),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4748/LB of 2002, decision dated: 3rd June, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farid Adil for Appellant. Dr. Amjad Iqbal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 122 = 2005 SLD 122 = 2005 PTD 2099 = (2005) 91 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption on Income from Educational Deposits\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits by educational boards was exempt from tax, emphasizing that such boards were not established for profit but for educational purposes.\n•\nCitation: Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad v. Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary and others Writ Petition No.121 of 2004.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(2A),SecondSched,Cl-86 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 5671 of 2004, decision dated: 12-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Mohy-ud-Din Qazi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, SARGOHDA through Chairman\nVS.\nFEDERATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 123 = 2005 SLD 123 = 2005 PTD 2103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Late Submission of Documents and Appeals\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal accepted the appeal based on the need for proper examination of assessment records, ensuring that the relevant documents were produced to resolve the case fairly.\n•\nCitation: 1991 PTD 968; 2002 PTD 407.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,134 ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos. 15/LB and 16/LB of 2004, decision dated: 21st August, 2004, hearing DATE : 18-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Baig for Applicant. Abdul Rasheed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 124 = 2005 SLD 124 = 2005 PTD 2111 = (2005) 91 TAX 474", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Re-Opening of Assessment Based on Customs Information\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessments under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance due to the misclassification of imported goods, confirming that the agreed assessment could not be avoided.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, S.65.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 777/LB to 779/LB of 2003, decision dated: 30-06-2003, hearing DATE : 28-6-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 125 = 2005 SLD 125 = 2005 PTD 2171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction of Taxation Officer over Wealth Tax\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that wealth tax assessments could not be handled by the Taxation Officer under the Income Tax Ordinance, as they were governed separately by the Wealth Tax Act.\n•\nCitation: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 4026.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 79/LB to 85/LB and 92/LB to 96/LB of 2004, decision dated: 26-05-2005, hearing DATE : 25-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant (in W.T.As. Nos.79/LB to 85/LB of 2004).\nSheraz Mirza, D.R. for Respondent (in W.T.As. Nos.79/LB to 85/LB of 2004). Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Appellant (in W.T.As. Nos.92/LB to 96/LB of 2004). Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Respondent (in W.T.As. Nos.92/LB to 96/LB of 2004).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 126 = 2005 SLD 126 = 2005 PTD 2123 = (2005) 91 TAX 479", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal Jurisdiction and Adjournment Request\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the request for an adjournment was too vague and insufficient to merit acceptance. The appeal was dismissed due to procedural issues.\n•\nCitation: Webster's Third New International Dictionary.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=133,133(6),62,2,2(2),134,134(1),130,130(7),111,132,148,148(2),156,66,66A,80,80B,80C,80CC ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 534/KB of 2004, decision dated: 4-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S.A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farzana Jabin, D.R. for Appellant. Shabbar Zaidi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 127 = 2005 SLD 127 = 2005 PTD 2136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Trade Advances and Taxation\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that amounts received as trade advances against sales were not taxable under S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, as they were not loans but prepayments for goods sold.\n•\nCitation: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 1642.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2066/LB and 2067/LB of 2004, decision dated: 20-04-2005, hearing DATE : 30-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 128 = 2005 SLD 128 = 2005 PTD 2143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Allocation of Service Expenses in Business Activities\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the allocation of service expenses on a pro-rata basis, confirming that service income inseparable from business income should be allocated proportionally.\n•\nCitation: 1999 79 Tax (Trib.).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,50,62,80,80C,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2071/KB of 2004, decision dated: 15-12-2004, hearing DATE : 11-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Ansari, D.R. for Appellant. Shahid Pervez Jami for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 129 = 2005 SLD 129 = 2005 PTD 2151 = (2005) 91 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Cancellation of Assessment and Rectification\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) acted incorrectly by cancelling assessments under S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance. The case was remanded for proper adjudication.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, S.156.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5A),62,80,80D,118,118D,134,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 7006/LB of 1996, decision dated: 28-05-2005, hearing DATE : 13-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Masood Raza Qizalbash, D.R. for Appellant. Shahid Pervaiz Jami for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 130 = 2005 SLD 130 = 2005 PTD 2154 = (2005) 91 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Withholding Tax on Rent and Default\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the tenant's responsibility for withholding tax on rent under the Income Tax Ordinance. The tenant was held accountable for non-payment of rent within the prescribed period.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Meridian Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mrs. Yasmeen Riaz 1999 SCMR 832.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7B) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2426 to 2428 of 2001, decision dated: 20-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, HAMID ALI MIRZA AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Haider Ali Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Abdul Sattar Pingar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "RUKHSANA BEGUM\nvs\nEXPRESS WORLDWIDE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 131 = 2005 SLD 131 = 2005 PTD 2161 = (2005) 91 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Proration of Expenditure\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that expenditure should not be prorated but instead should be examined individually by the Assessing Officer for proper deduction.\n•\nCitation: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 900.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,24,24(2),28,28(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.733/KB to 743/KB of 2003, 340/KB to 342/KB of 2004, 1509/KB to 1511/KB of 2003 and I.T.A. No.947/KB of 2003, decision dated: 27-04-2005, hearing DATE : 26-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Hidayatullah, D.R. and Aqeel Abbasi, Legal Adviser for Appellants (I.T.As. Nos. 733/KB to 743/KB of 2003)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 55 = 2000 SLD 55 = 2000 PTD 1911 = (1999) 235 ITR 287 = (1999) 79 TAX 565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Depreciation on Lease and Hire Vehicles\n•\nConclusion: The High Court ruled that depreciation on trucks given on lease was permissible, as there was no legal distinction between lease and hire for motor vehicles.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No.1 of 1998, decision dated: 11-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Bansal for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nP.S. JAIN & CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 132 = 2005 SLD 132 = 2005 PTD 2230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Withholding Tax Liability of Licensee\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the licensee, not the Civil Aviation Authority, was responsible for withholding tax on the raffle scheme. The order of the Assessing Officer was upheld.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, S.50(7C).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7C),52,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.147/KB of 2001 and in M.A. No.743/KB of 2002, decision dated: 25-10-2004, hearing DATE : 9-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahsan Laliwala, A.R. and Nadeem Iqbal for Appellant. Ghulam Shabbir Memon D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 133 = 2005 SLD 133 = 2005 PTD 2209 = (2005) 91 TAX 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Adjournment Request and Appeal Procedure\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal rejected the adjournment request for being vague and unsubstantiated. It also dismissed the appeal due to failure in adhering to procedural requirements regarding service of notices.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, S.136.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 190 of 2003, decision dated: 14-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AMZAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Muhammad Afzal for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs BLUE SKY TOUR BUREAU (PVT.) FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 134 = 2005 SLD 134 = 2005 PTD 2211 = (2005) 91 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction and Remanding for Fresh Proceedings\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the First Appellate Authority, which had found the assessment order to be without jurisdiction, should have annulled the assessment rather than remanding it for reconsideration. The assessment was cancelled as it was made outside the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132(1)(a)(i) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 183/LB of 1996, decision dated: 23rd September, 2003, hearing DATE : 7-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AMJAD ALI RANJHA AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yousaf, ITP for Appellant. None for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 135 = 2005 SLD 135 = 2005 PTD 2216 = (2005) 91 TAX 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Taxation of Dividend Income and Turnover Tax\n•\nConclusion: The High Court upheld that dividend income is distinct from business income and is taxable under Section 30, rather than being covered under turnover tax provisions of Section 80-D. The assessee's claim was rejected.\n•\nCitation: Muhammad Hussain Patel v. Habib Wall Muhammad PLD 1981 SC 1; S. Sundaram Pillai and others v. V.R. Pattabiraman AIR 1985 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(11),22,30,80,80D ", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos.184 and 185 of 2002, decision dated: 1st July, 2005. dates of hearing: 12th, 13th and 14-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fateh Ali W. Vellani for Applicant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-V KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 136 = 2005 SLD 136 = 2005 PTD 2229 = (2005) 91 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal and Agricultural Income Estimation\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal and Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals, ruling that the reopening of the case under Section 65 was not supported by sufficient legal grounds, and the reassessment of agricultural income was not based on solid evidence.\n•\nCitation: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 463 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(2) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=20(3),proviso Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2302/LB to 2306/LB of 2002, decision dated: 11-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR AHMAD GONDAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Appellant. Shahid Abbas for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 137 = 2005 SLD 137 = 2005 PTD 2270 = (2005) 91 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Reduction of Penalty in Income Tax Assessment\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the reduction of a penalty imposed under Section 108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance by the Appellate Additional Commissioner, affirming that such penalties could be adjusted within the discretion provided to the authorities.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(b),129,132,132(1)(b),134,135,135(4),135(5) ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 4, 400, 426 of 2003, 20, 21, 22, 328 and 338 of 2004, decision dated: 24-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil Khan, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs MUSARAT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 138 = 2005 SLD 138 = 2005 PTD 2281 = (2005) 92 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax Rules and Determination of Income\n•\nConclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, which had observed that the registered value in a deed should be accepted by the Assessing Officer unless there were valid reasons for not doing so.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),136 Income Tax Rules, 1982=207 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 551 of 1999, decision dated: 14-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ryas Khan for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, ZONE \"\"A\"\" EASTERN REGION, LAHORE\nvs\nMUHAMMAD RAIZ, Proprietor Messrs Riaz Cloth Merchants, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 139 = 2005 SLD 139 = 2005 PTD 2285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction and Reference to High Court\n•\nConclusion: The High Court ruled that the proposed question of law did not arise from the order of the Tribunal and thus dismissed the reference, as it was based on factual grounds rather than legal issues.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 2 of 2003, decision dated: 17-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs ATTOCK TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 140 = 2005 SLD 140 = 2005 PTD 2338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Assessment under Universal Assessment Scheme\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld that the Inspecting Additional Commissioner did not apply his independent mind when cancelling an assessment made under the Universal Assessment Scheme and remanding it for a de novo assessment.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.375 of 2004, decision dated: 21st February, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khadim Hussain Zahid for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, ZONEC, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs MINHAS AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 141 = 2005 SLD 141 = 2005 PTD 2340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Constitution of Larger Bench in Divergent Opinions\n•\nConclusion: The High Court ordered the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to constitute a larger bench to resolve divergent opinions across different provinces, as fairness and consistency in decisions were essential.\n•\nCitation: 2004 PTD (Trib.) 1029 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,136(1),136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 67 to 71 of 2002, heard on 5-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hammad Aslam for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NATIONAL SECURITY COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 142 = 2005 SLD 142 = 2005 PTD 2343 = (2005) 91 TAX 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Cooperative Society and Income Tax Classification\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that a cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 is not considered a company under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and thus does not fall under the provisions applicable to companies.\n•\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax v. Messrs Engineering Cooperative Housing Society Lahore 2000 PTD 3388.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(16),80B ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 68 of 2001, decision dated: 10-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Munir Hussain for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES Zone-II, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs IQBAL AVENUES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 143 = 2005 SLD 143 = 2005 PTD 2345 = (2005) 91 TAX 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in Issuing Notices\n•\nConclusion: The High Court ruled that the notices issued under Sections 61 and 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were without jurisdiction as no valid return had been filed. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue the proper notices under relevant sections for the assessment.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Preamble,55,56,61,62,65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-306 of 2005, decision dated: 21st June, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND MAQBOOL BAQAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No. 1. A.R. Akhtar for Respondent No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "ASIA PETROLEUM LTD. through Managing Director\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division) and Ex-officio, Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 144 = 2005 SLD 144 = 2005 PTD 2362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption for Imported Machinery\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld that the arrangement for lease finance did not change the nature of the import nor affect its installation at the business premises. The exemption for machinery under the relevant notification was valid.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, LAHORE", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.172 of 2002, decision dated: 28-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Assessee had imported machinery for installation at its own business premises and for its own use", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 145 = 2005 SLD 145 = 2005 PTD 2366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal and Non-Demand Notice\n•\nConclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal as the Revenue failed to provide proof of the demand notice or the existence of an assessment order, which made the reopening of the assessment under Section 65 invalid.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 141 of 1999, decision dated: 14-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEA, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs SALEEM BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 146 = 2005 SLD 146 = 2005 PTD 2368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Production Accounts and Notice under Section 62\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee had not provided books of account for examination, the Assessing Officer had no obligation to issue a notice under Section 62.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference 45 of 2004, heard on 5-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Pakistan. Respondent ex parte", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, MULTAN ZONE, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs BABU MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ANSARI, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 147 = 2005 SLD 147 = 2005 PTD 2386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Loan Classification as Income\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the amount in question was not classified as a loan under Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance. The amount was considered business income injected into working capital and not liable to be treated as a loan.\n•\nCitation: Venkatakrishna Rice Company v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R No. 156 of 2003, decision dated: 10-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nSARITOW PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 148 = 2005 SLD 148 = 2005 PTD 2397 = (2005) 91 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal Fee and Reopening of Assessment\n•\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed due to insufficient appeal fee. The High Court ruled that the date of filing the appeal was critical for payment, not the assessment year.\n•\nCitation: Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Saeed Mehdi, Commissioner Lahore, 1994 CLC 2313.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(43),62,130(1) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 79 of 2001, decision dated: 5-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwar ul Haq for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHROON INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 149 = 2005 SLD 149 = 2005 PTD 2403 = (2005) 91 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Share Deposit Money and Loan Classification\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that share deposit money cannot be considered a loan under Section 12(18), as it was capital raised for the company's use. The amendment in the statute was interpreted to ensure fairness and justice.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Mr. Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore I.T.A. No.491 of 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),138 ", + "Case #": "P.T.Rs. Nos. 20 and 21 of 2002, heard on 10-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nHAFEEZ VALQA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 150 = 2005 SLD 150 = 2005 PTD 2413 = (2005) 91 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Change in Assessment Formula for Production\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer was entitled to change the formula for calculating production, as long as a valid reason was provided. No question of law arose from the change in estimation.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. 165 of 2001 and C.T.R. No. 10 of 2002, decision dated: 22-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAJI TRADERS, Proprietor Tanveer Anjum\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEALTH TAX, ZONEB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 151 = 2005 SLD 151 = 2005 PTD 2427 = (2005) 91 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Valuation of Property and Appeal to High Court\n•\nConclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that property valuation issues are questions of fact and cannot be appealed on legal grounds under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(2),136(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 551 of 1998, decision dated: 13-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil Khan for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE\nvs\nSufi MUHAMMAD SALEEM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 152 = 2005 SLD 152 = 2005 PTD 2429 = (2005) 91 TAX 26 = 2005 PTCL 751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Capital Gain Tax Exemption for Contractors\n•\nConclusion: The High Court dismissed the reference, stating that the Tribunal had already ruled that the jurisdiction under Section 59(3) of the Ordinance was limited to minor adjustments, not resolving disputed factual questions.\n•\nCitation: 1986 PTD 380 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(3),136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 52 of 1992, decision dated: 16-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqi for Applicant Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI\nVs.\nMessrs EASTERN SERVICES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 153 = 2005 SLD 153 = 2005 PTD 2430 = (2005) 91 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Reopening of Assessment and Property Valuation\n•\nConclusion: The High Court upheld that reopening of assessments based on valuation changes was not a jurisdictional fact. The issue of property valuation was a factual matter that had already been decided by the Tribunal.\n•\nCitation: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),65,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 535 of 1998, heard on 3rd March, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs QADRI CLOTH HOUSE, LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 154 = 2000 SLD 154 = 2000 PTD 1913 = (1996) 220 ITR 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Recovery and Attachment of Property\nTopic: Attachment and Sale of Property; Recovery of Tax; First Charge Over Property\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed as the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) was correct in not returning the excess amount over the tax arrears. The appellant’s property was auctioned for Rs.12,01,000, but a prior charge on the property held by J.T. (who had acquired the decree from Chartered Bank) took precedence. The TRO was under obligation to first satisfy the first charge, and J.T. had obtained a decree prior to the auction. The appeal against the dismissal of the petition was found to be without merit as J.T.’s claim had priority over the tax arrears, and the appellant was not entitled to the balance post-adjustment of dues.\nKey Legal References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Schedule II, Rule 8\n•\nTax Recovery Officer proceedings and the execution of sale in relation to first charge holders.\n•\nCase law references not provided in this summary.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.A. No. 128 of 1990, decision dated: 8-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "U. P. SINGH, C.J. AND S. SANKARASUBBAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for Appellant. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "K.T. THOMAS\nvs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 155 = 2005 SLD 155 = 2005 PTD 2455 = (2005) 91 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman and Import Surcharge\nTopic: Federal Tax Ombudsman; Constitutional Petition; Import Surcharge\nConclusion: The constitutional petition challenging the Federal Tax Ombudsman’s decision was dismissed. The petitioner had filed a complaint regarding the release of a bank guarantee that had been furnished as security against customs duties. The Ombudsman directed the release of the bank guarantee, but the Department appealed to the President, claiming that an import surcharge was payable. The President’s order upheld the surcharge claim, affirming the adjustment against the bank guarantee. The court found no legal error in the President’s order, as the surcharge was payable and the adjustment was a legitimate recovery method.\nKey Legal References:\n•\nFederation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law v. Muhammad Hussain (2003 YLR 2793)\n•\nCase references from PLD 2004 Lah. 83, PLD 1999 SCN R 2744, and SCN 1999 SCMR 2189\n•\nConstitutional and administrative legal principles regarding the jurisdiction and scope of the Federal Tax Ombudsman and President.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10,13,14,32 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=19 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4517 of 2005, decision dated: 27-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omer Arshad for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AHMED HASSAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through Chairman\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Law, Justice & Human Right Division, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 156 = 2005 SLD 156 = 2005 PTD 2513 = (2005) 91 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nTopic: Income Tax Credit; Tax Credit for Plant and Machinery Investments\nConclusion: The benefit of tax credit under Section 107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, is limited to the amount invested in plant and machinery itself, not to installation expenses. The court clarified that tax credits should be applied only to the amount directly invested in plant and machinery and not to ancillary costs such as installation. The principle of literal interpretation of statutes was applied, with emphasis that no part of the law should be redundant.\nKey Legal References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 107\n•\nCases cited: Central Insurance Co. v. Central Board of Revenue, (1993) 68 Tax 86 (SC Pak), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. (1966) 61 ITR 799\n•\nCase law on interpretation: Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC India)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.280 of 1991, decision dated: 2-09-2005, hearing DATE : 10-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ANNOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 157 = 2005 SLD 157 = 2005 PTD 2518 = (2005) 91 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nTopic: Reference to High Court; Question of Fact\nConclusion: The High Court declined to answer a reference made under Section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, related to whether the assessee should be classified as a commission agent or a manufacturer. Since the matter was based on factual findings rather than legal interpretation, it fell outside the purview of Section 136(2), and the court did not intervene.\nKey Legal References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 136(2)\n•\nCase law on factual disputes and limitations on the scope of Section 136(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 18 of 1993, decision dated: 31st May, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONEB, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs RAHAT BAKERY, LAHORE CANTT." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 158 = 2005 SLD 158 = 2005 PTD 2525 = (2006) 93 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment and Interpretation of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nTopic: Amendment to Section 12(18); Loans and Share Deposit Money\nConclusion: The amendment to Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, bringing in the words “advance or gift” was considered a substantive change in the law, not a clarification. Therefore, the amendment was not applicable to assessments finalized before its enactment. Further, share deposit money shown in the books of a company was not to be treated as a loan unless it was specifically claimed as such. The amendment clarified that such sums should be treated as capital unless explicitly shown as loans.\nKey Legal References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 12(18)\n•\nFinance Act, 1998\n•\nCase law: CIT North Zone v. Crescent Textile Mills (1973 PTD 375)\n•\nGeneral principles of tax law interpretation and legal fiction in fiscal statutes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 20 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd May, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner Safdar Mehmood and M. Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COLIBRATIVE HEAVY INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nC.I.T./W.T., COYS Zone-II, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 159 = 2005 SLD 159 = 2005 PTD 2534 = (2005) 91 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S. 32(3) Method of Accounting—Past History of the Case—When Relevant\n•\nUnder Section 32(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the Deputy Commissioner can invoke a different method of accounting to compute income, profits, and gains, only if the assessee fails to properly maintain accounts or records or if the accounts are kept in a way that makes it impossible to deduce the correct financial information.\n•\nIn the case at hand, the Assessing Officer did not find any issue with the maintenance of accounts and confirmed that the purchases and sales were verifiable. Therefore, the enhancement of the gross profit (GP) rate was found to be unjustified.\n•\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should have accepted the declared GP rate, as increasing the GP would contradict the established accountancy principles.\nKey Takeaway: The provisions of S. 32(3) could not be invoked since the conditions for its application were not met, and the income, profits, and gains should have been computed based on the declared method of accounting.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 80 of 1993, decision dated: 31st August, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Pasha for Applicant. Aqueel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMODITY & EQUIPMENT INTL (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 160 = 2005 SLD 160 = 2005 PTD 2537 = (2005) 91 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S. 135, 136 & 156—Rejection of Application for Rectification—Reference to High Court—Limitation\n•\nAn application for reference to the High Court under Section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance was dismissed because it was time-barred.\n•\nThe rejection of the rectification application did not create a fresh cause of action for filing a reference, as the limitation period for filing the reference had already passed.\nKey Takeaway: Once an application for rectification is rejected, it does not extend the time for filing a reference if the original time limit has already expired.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,136,136(1),156 ", + "Case #": "R.T.Rs. Nos. 204 to 206 of 2003, decision dated: 17-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Zia Haider Rizvi for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs RIZWAN BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 161 = 2005 SLD 161 = 2005 PTD 2541 = (2005) 91 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—Ss. 62, 66-A & 135(5)—Re-opening of Assessment—Power of Appellate Tribunal—Scope\n•\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was empowered to set aside or modify an order, remanding the case for further inquiries and investigations if the initial assessment was based on incorrect or incomplete information.\n•\nIn this case, the Tribunal correctly exercised its power in deciding to further investigate the matter and remand the case to ensure a fair assessment.\nKey Takeaway: The Tribunal has the authority to amend or set aside an order and can issue directions for additional inquiries to ensure the proper resolution of the case.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66,66A,135,135(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 137 of 2000, decision dated: 30-03-2005, hearing DATE : 3rd March, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ASAD & COMPANY\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 162 = 2005 SLD 162 = 2005 PTD 2577 = (2005) 91 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S. 12(18)—Deeming Provision of S. 12(18)—Object to Discourage Fictitious Loans\n•\nThe Deeming provision of S. 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance discourages fictitious loans, particularly where a company has misstated its financial position.\n•\nIn a case involving a Director's loan for purchasing land for a company, the company initially treated the amount as a loan but later revised it as share deposit money. The Assessing Officer rejected this revision, but the Tribunal ruled that the revision was correct as it was made before the assessment was completed.\nKey Takeaway: The revision of the balance sheet before assessment completion was valid, and correcting inadvertent errors in accounting entries is permitted before final assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 200 of 2002, decision dated: 12-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Ullah Kiani for Petitioner. Sajjad Ali Jafri for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ZAMAN PAPER AND BOARD MILLS\nVs\nTAXATION OFFICER, CIRCLE12, COMPANY ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 163 = 2005 SLD 163 = 2005 PTD 2586 = (2005) 91 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—Ss. 23 & 24—Deductions—No Conflict in Court Decisions\n•\nThe Karachi High Court and Lahore High Court both agreed that no conflict existed between their decisions regarding deductions and assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nThe Tribunal followed the correct approach by recognizing that if an assessee has both taxable and exempt income, deductions can only be made for the taxable income portion.\nKey Takeaway: Courts and tribunals are required to follow the precedent set by the relevant High Court in their jurisdiction, and deductions must be properly allocated to taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,24,26,136 Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii),15BB ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 247, 248, 249, 250, 251 & 252 of 2005, decision dated: 26-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi with Miss Lubna Perwez for Applicant. None for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ATLAS INVESTMENT BANK LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 164 = 2005 SLD 164 = 2005 PTD 2599 = (2005) 91 TAX 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S. 136(2)—Reference to High Court—Framing of Question\n•\nIn this case, the question framed for the High Court was found to be more of an argument than a clear legal question, and as such, the reference was dismissed.\n•\nWhen it comes to capital gains arising from the sale of shares, an investment company or bank cannot claim that all income should be treated as business income, as capital gains are assessed separately under specific provisions (S. 27 and S. 28). The company could not evade the record-keeping requirements for the shares transaction, and it failed to allocate expenses to the capital gains income.\nKey Takeaway: A question referred to the High Court should raise a legal controversy, and the failure to maintain proper records by an investment company regarding capital gains is not acceptable. Capital gains are treated separately from business income under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=15,22,23,23(1)(xviii),27,28,32,32(3),136,136(2),SecondSched,PartI,Cl-116 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 7 and P.T.Rs. Nos. 128 and 129 of 2001, heard on 22-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan and Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Petitioners, Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CRESCENT INVESTMENT BANK LTD.\nvs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 4 = 2004 SLD 4 = 2004 PTD 1304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Exemption from Tax for Charitable Purpose\nCase Summary:\nThe case involves a Merchant Navy Club seeking exemption from income tax under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act (XI of 1922), based on its charitable purpose. The initial Order-in-Original, which denied the tax exemption, was upheld by the Appellate Authority but set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court considered the object of the club's formation, which was to benefit officers and sea-men. It was concluded that the beneficiaries, without distinction of religion, caste, or nationality, fulfilled the charitable purpose requirement. Activities such as dancing and wine supply to sea-men were considered ancillary and did not detract from the charitable purpose.\nConclusion:\nThe Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s decision, affirming that the club's activities fell within the scope of charitable purposes under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.\nReferences:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Muhammad Abdur Rauf Khan PLD 1963 SC 209\n•\nFauji Foundation v. Shamimur Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 11 Taxation 306", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,4(3)(i),Explanation ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 72 of 1988, decision dated: 18-02-2004, hearing DATE : 20-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant, Muhammad Farid for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMERCHANT NAVY CLUB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 5 = 2004 SLD 5 = 2004 PTD 1348 = (2004) 89 TAX 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979) – Definition of “Parent” for Minor Child Income\nCase Summary:\nThis case deals with Section 83A of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979), which defines the relationship of a parent with respect to a minor child for the purpose of income tax. It was clarified that only the biological mother or father of the minor could be considered the parent for tax purposes, excluding the grandfather.\nConclusion:\nThe ruling emphasized that the term parent for the purposes of Section 83A only includes the biological mother or father, and not the grandfather. The action of clubbing the income of a minor child with that of the grandfather was held to be improper.\nReferences:\n•\nP.R. Aiyar's Concise Law Dictionary (1997 Edition)\n•\nChambers Dictionary, Law Lexicon, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=83,83A,59,59(1),66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 414/LB to 418/IB of 2002, 1/IB to 6/IB of 2003, decision dated: 12-11-2003.hearing DATE : 7-11-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmed Bajwa D.R. for Appellant, Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 6 = 2004 SLD 6 = 2004 PTD 1360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Power to Enter Business Premises and Enquiry by Inspector\nCase Summary:\nThis case examines whether an Income Tax Inspector could enter and search business premises for inquiries without proper authorization under Section 146 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979). The Inspector was not authorized by law to conduct such an inquiry, making the actions unlawful.\nConclusion:\nThe inquiry made by the inspector was invalid, as it was not backed by proper authorization under the Income Tax Ordinance. The Federal Tax Ombudsman found the actions to be maladministration.\nReferences:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2(3)\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2002", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(3),146 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C 782 K of 2003, decision dated: 8-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faiq Razvi for the Complainant, Messrs Rajab-ud-Din, IAC and Muhammad Aslam, ACIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "AMJAD ALI KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 7 = 2004 SLD 7 = 2004 PTD 1373 = (2004) 89 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979) – Self-Assessment Scheme and Audit\nCase Summary:\nThe case concerns the self-assessment scheme under Section 59 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979). It was debated whether a case selected for total audit via a computer ballot could be subjected to an audit without full scrutiny or whether only a simple assessment should be performed. The Ombudsman noted that such cases should be audited in detail if required, and the audit could inform the assessment process under Section 62.\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that the total audit scheme was lawful under the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance. However, no maladministration was proved, so the case was closed.\nReferences:\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2002\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979) Sections 59, 61, 62", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4,4A,7,59,59(1),59(1A),61,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 353, 445 and 446 of 2003, decision dated: 4-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waseem Ahmad Siddiqui, FCA for the Complainants, Manzoor Ahmad, DCIT with Khushnoodul Hassan, ACIT for RespondentQaser Iqbal, IAC, Range II", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BAHAWALPUR ENGINEERING LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 8 = 2004 SLD 8 = 2004 PTD 1377 = (2004) 89 TAX 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979) – Treatment of Payments and Loans\nCase Summary:\nThis case involves the taxability of amounts paid by directors from their personal accounts on behalf of a company, which were initially recorded as loans. The issue arose because the payments were made directly to third parties rather than through the company's account. The tax authorities treated these payments as deemed income under Section 12(18), but the Tribunal disagreed, finding that the director’s actions did not constitute fictitious loans.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the amount paid by directors was legitimate and should not have been treated as deemed income under Section 12(18). The addition to income was therefore deleted.\nReferences:\n•\nRamkola Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT, Punjab and N.W.F.P. Lahore 1955 SCC (Federal Court)\n•\n2002 PTD 63", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),13,62,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2429/LB of 2000, decision dated: 23rd September, 2002hearing DATE : 6-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmed Nauman Sheikh, ITP and Iqbal Hashmi for Appellant, Mian Ashiq Hussain, LA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 9 = 2004 SLD 9 = 2004 PTD 1391 = (2004) 89 TAX 413", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979) – Validity of Service of Notice for Short Document\nCase Summary:\nThis case revolves around the service of a notice for short document, which was served on a servant or employee of the assessee rather than the assessee personally. The First Appellate Authority ruled that if the service of notice was not validly made, the assessment should be annulled or the declared income should be accepted.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal concluded that the service of notice on an employee or servant was invalid, as it did not meet the legal requirements for service of notice. The assessment was cancelled due to improper notice service.\nReferences:\n•\n(1967) 15 Tax 103\n•\n(1961) 3 Tax 68", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),59,59(1),154 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 369/IB of 2003, decision dated: 11-12-2003, hearing DATE : 4-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND SYED MASOODUL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ali Malik for Appellant, Noshad Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 10 = 2004 SLD 10 = 2004 PTD 1396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979) – Unexplained Investment and Best Judgment Assessment\nCase Summary:\nThis case concerns unexplained investments deemed as income under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979). The issue arose because the assessee’s approvals for the investments were not separate, but consolidated. The Tribunal found that the failure to obtain separate approvals led to an invalid assessment.\nConclusion:\nThe assessment was deemed invalid due to the lack of separate approvals as required by law. The addition to the income was disallowed.\nReferences:\n•\n2000 PTD 439\n•\n2001 PTD 781", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),13(2),13(1)(d),65 Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3139/LB and 3267/LB of 2000, decision dated: 14-01-2004, hearing DATE : 13-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD, SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbass for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 3139/LB of 2000). Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 3139/LB of 2000). Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 3267/LB of 2000). Muhammad Shahid Abbass for Respondent (in I.T.A No. 3267/LB of 2000).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 11 = 2004 SLD 11 = 2004 PTD 1400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979) – Modification of Orders and Premium Written Off\nCase Summary:\nThis case dealt with the modification of tax orders related to management expenses and premium written off. The Appellate Tribunal found that excess management expenses were condoned as per law. The Tribunal also ruled that the Assessing Officer was required to follow the Tribunal's decision, despite the pendency of appeals in other years.\nConclusion:\nThe Ombudsman found that the Assessing Officer was obligated to follow the Tribunal’s decision regarding management expenses and premium written off. The rejection of an application was ruled as unlawful.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1981 SC 293\n•\nI.T.A. No. 1320/KB of 2000", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(x),62,62C,92,FourthSched,5,ClC,129 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=124,124A,221 ", + "Case #": "Complaint. No. 915 K of 2000, decision dated: 28-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Raza Hashmi for the Complainant, S.A. Matee, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITED INSURANCE CO. OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 12 = 2004 SLD 12 = 2004 PTD 1407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979) – Estimation of Sales and Ex Parte Assessment\nCase Summary:\nThe case involved the estimation of sales by the Assessing Officer without pointing out defects in the assessee’s books. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that as no defects were highlighted, the assessment should have been accepted as per the declared version of the assessee.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the declared version of the assessee’s sales, as there were no defects in the accounts.\nReferences:\n•\n1974 PTD 45\n•\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 3892", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4294/LB, 4976/LB of 2003 and 4550/LB of 2002, decision dated: 10-01-2004.hearing DATE : 10-01-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 4294/LB of 2003). M. Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 4294/LB of 2003). M. Akram Tahir, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.4976/LB of 2003 and 4550/LB of 2002). Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.4976/LB of 2003 and 4550/LB of 2002).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 13 = 2004 SLD 13 = 2004 PTD 1410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme, Extension of Time, Cut-off Date\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 59(1), C.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2002, S. 2(3) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)\n•\nFacts: The complainant/assessee applied for an extension of time to meet the cut-off date for the Self-Assessment Scheme. However, the cut-off date could not be extended based on this application.\n•\nConclusion: The extension of time did not alter the fixed cut-off date set by the Central Board of Revenue. The case was therefore not entitled to an extension. The action was in accordance with the legal provisions.\n________________________________________\n(b) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme, Time for Reply to Show Cause Notice\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 59(1), C.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2002, S. 2(3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)\n•\nFacts: The complainant was required to respond to 16 queries from the tax department by a specified deadline. The complainant argued that the time provided was unreasonable and impractical.\n•\nConclusion: The time given for replying was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating the principles of natural justice. The Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration due to inadequate time to respond, leading to a recommendation to the CBR to reconsider the matter.\n________________________________________\n(c) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Personal Hearing and Self-Assessment, Audit Selection\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 59(1), C.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2002, Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)\n•\nFacts: The complainant's case was selected for total audit without offering a personal hearing. The complainant argued that they should have been given the right to request a personal hearing.\n•\nConclusion: The Central Board of Revenue’s circular directed that the assessee must be given an opportunity to be heard, regardless of whether a request for a personal hearing was made. The failure to provide an opportunity to be heard violated natural justice, rendering the audit selection invalid.\n________________________________________\n(d) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment, Selection for Audit, Gross Profit Rate Discrepancies\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 59(1), C.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2002, Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)\n•\nFacts: The case was selected for a total audit due to a significant fall in the gross profit rate. The complainant explained discrepancies but the audit was still initiated.\n•\nConclusion: The objections were validly explained, and no evidence was found to support allegations of suppressed income. The audit decision was based on arbitrary grounds, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the audit order be withdrawn.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.510 K of 2003, decision dated: 28-07-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Rehan, F.C.A. and Javed Panjwani for the Complainant. Basharat Ahmed Qureshi, IAC and Badr-ud-Din Qureshi, DCIT for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAVEDAN CEMENT LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 14 = 2004 SLD 14 = 2004 PTD 1423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\n•\nTopic: Addition of Gift through Cross Cheque\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 13(1)(aa) & 63, Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)\n•\nFacts: The complainant received a gift via cheque and provided supporting documents. The tax department insisted on obtaining the donor’s bank statement, which was beyond the complainant’s reach.\n•\nConclusion: The tax authorities failed to consider the evidence provided and continued demanding documents that were unreasonable for the complainant to produce. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended canceling the assessment for the year and issuing a new assessment after due consideration of the documents submitted.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=122 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),63 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.722 of 2003, decision dated: 22-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Anwaar Siddiqui for the Complainant, Jafer Nawaz, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "TAUSEEF AHMED\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 15 = 2004 SLD 15 = 2004 PTD 1424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme, Tax Deduction on Electricity Bills, Under-Construction Property\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 59(1) & 50(7E), C.B.R. Circular No. 11 of 1997\n•\nFacts: The complainant claimed tax deductions on electricity bills during the construction of a building. The tax authority excluded the claim, alleging that the bills were fictitious.\n•\nConclusion: The denial of the deduction was based on insufficient grounds. The tax officer failed to verify the information with the relevant electricity department. The assessment was canceled by the Appellate Tribunal due to lack of proper investigation.\n________________________________________\n(b) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment, Limitation for Acceptance/Rejecting Claims\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 59(4)\n•\nFacts: The tax authorities rejected a claim for the Self-Assessment Scheme after the deadline had passed.\n•\nConclusion: The rejection after the expiration of the statutory period was unlawful. The tax officer’s actions were declared null and void.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7-E),59,59(1),59(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4680/LB of 2003, decision dated: 30-12-2003, hearing DATE : 18-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Abbass for Appellant, Muhammad Zulfiquar Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 16 = 2004 SLD 16 = 2004 PTD 1438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Inspection and Amendment of Assessment\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 122 & 239(4), S. 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n•\nFacts: The taxation officer issued a notice under S. 122 after the Inspecting Additional Commissioner had dropped the case following an inspection.\n•\nConclusion: The notice was issued contrary to law as the case was already dropped. Maladministration was found due to failure to document the proceedings properly.\n________________________________________\n(b) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Jurisdiction of Additional Director and Inspection Powers\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 66A\n•\nFacts: The Additional Director instructed the Inspecting Additional Commissioner to take action under S. 66A, despite not having the legal jurisdiction to do so.\n•\nConclusion: The direction to initiate proceedings was beyond the Additional Director’s jurisdiction and amounted to maladministration.\n________________________________________\n(c) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Failure to Sign Proceedings and Maladministration\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 5, Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)\n•\nFacts: The proceedings under S. 66A were not signed by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner, leading to concerns about the validity of the process.\n•\nConclusion: The failure to sign the proceedings was considered maladministration. This omission raised questions about the authenticity of the decisions made.\n________________________________________\n(d) Issue:\n•\nTopic: Misuse of Inspection Report and Invalid Assessment Revision\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 122(5), S. 66A & 135\n•\nFacts: The Taxation Officer used an inspection report as the basis for revising assessments despite the report being based on presumptions and lacking definitive information.\n•\nConclusion: The use of the inspection report to invoke powers under S. 122 was incorrect and amounted to maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5),239,239(4) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Rules, 2002=68 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,66,66A,135 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C 1073 to 1075 K of 2003, decision dated: 12-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi for the Complainant, Imtiaz Ahmed Barakzai for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HABIB OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nTAXATION OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 17 = 2004 SLD 17 = 2004 PTD 1464", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\n•\nTopic: Tax Amnesty Scheme, Harassment, Circumstantial Evidence\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 59(1), 13(1), 61, & 62\n•\nFacts: The complainant, under the Tax Amnesty Scheme, was subjected to repeated notices and unwarranted scrutiny despite an agreement with tax authorities.\n•\nConclusion: The actions of the taxation officer violated the terms of the agreement, and harassment through repeated notices was proven. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the finalization of the assessment according to the agreement and disciplinary action against the tax officer.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),59,59(1),61,62 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 693 K of 2003, decision dated: 25-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Faqir Muhammad for the Complainant, Sikandar Aslam and Muhammad Ayub for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAZIR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 18 = 2004 SLD 18 = 2004 PTD 1470 = (2004) 89 TAX 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment, Salary Income, Condition for Tax Paid\n•\nLegal Provisions: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 59(1), C.B.R. Circular No. 4 of 2001\n•\nFacts: The complainant's return was set aside for normal assessment despite the fact that salary income was more than 50% of the total income, which should have exempted the complainant from the 20% tax increase condition.\n•\nConclusion: The return met the requirements of the Self-Assessment Scheme and the action of the tax authorities was found to be unjustified. The Appellate Tribunal annulled the decisions of the lower authorities and directed acceptance under the Self-Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 345/KB of 2003, decision dated: 31st October, 2003hearing DATE : 1st October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Udha Ram Rajput for Appellant, Dr. Faiz Ellahi Memon, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 19 = 2004 SLD 19 = 2004 PTD 1475", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Ss. 59(1) & 61\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)\nC.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002, dated 15 6 2002, para. 8 (Self Assessment Scheme)\nSelf assessment - Wealth statement\nInitiation of proceedings under normal law due to the non-filing of the wealth statement along with the return of income, rendering the return invalid and unacceptable under the Self Assessment Scheme.\n•\nValidity: The complainant/assessee filed the return of income within the stipulated time, accompanied by statements of account, tax deduction evidence, tax paid, and a statement under S. 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, supported by evidence of tax deduction.\n•\nDepartment's View: The wealth statement was not filed along with these documents, but the affidavit from the authorized representative confirmed the filing. The possibility of the department misplacing the wealth statement could not be ruled out.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Conclusion: The department's claim that the non-filing of the wealth statement rendered the return invalid was not well-founded.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Ss. 59(1), 61, 58(1) & 55(1)\nIncome Tax Rules, 1982, R. 190\nC.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002, dated 15 6 2002, para. 8 (Self-Assessment Scheme)\nSelf assessment - Initiation of proceedings due to non-filing of wealth statement, treating the return as invalid.\n•\nValidity: The assessee argued that the notice under section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was void as no proper procedure was followed according to para. 8 of the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nDepartment's Claim: The complainant's letter regarding the wealth statement not being received was not substantiated by conclusive evidence.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Recommendation: The return for the year 2002-2003 should be accepted under the Self Assessment Scheme.\n(c) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)\nS. 9(2) - Jurisdiction, functions, and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman: The Federal Tax Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,55(1),58,58(1),59,59(1),61,143,143B Income Tax Rules, 1982=190 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 778 K of 2002, decision dated: 9-09-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khaliqur Rehman, F.C.A. and Shabbir Hashmi, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Sikandar Aslam, I.A.C. and Attique Rehman, T.O. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INDUS FOOD, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 20 = 2004 SLD 20 = 2004 PTD 1487 = (2004) 89 TAX 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 59(1)\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)\nC.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002, dated 15 6 2002, para. 9(a)(ii) (Self Assessment Scheme)\nSelf-assessment - Assessment year 2002-2003. Setting apart of case for total audit based on inflation of expenses.\n•\nValidity: The department had no valid reason to show that expenses were inflated and made unjustified comparisons with the year 2000-2001.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Recommendation: The return should be accepted under the Self Assessment Scheme.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 59(1)\nC.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002, dated 15 6 2002, para. 9(a)(ii) (Self-Assessment Scheme)\nSelf-assessment - Setting apart of case for total audit due to un-verifiability of receipts.\n•\nValidity: The complainant provided details of payments with tax deductions, and the department failed to substantiate the claim that receipts were unverifiable.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Recommendation: The return should be accepted under the Self Assessment Scheme.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nS. 59(1)\nC.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002, dated 15 6 2002, para. 9(a)(ii) (Self-Assessment Scheme)\nSelf-assessment - Setting apart of case for total audit due to a lower declared price of a house.\n•\nValidity: The department’s subjective opinion on the lower side of the house price was not backed by definitive evidence.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Recommendation: The return should be accepted under the Self Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 600 of 2003, decision dated: 30-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmad for the Complainant, Altaf Muhammad Khan, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Dr. ARJUMAND FAISEL\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 21 = 2004 SLD 21 = 2004 PTD 1492 = (2004) 89 TAX 530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 13(1)(d)\nIncome Tax Rules, 1982, R.207A\nAddition made on basis of parallel case:\n•\nValidity: No addition could be made beyond the document registered on the basis of a District Collector notification unless specific proof emerged.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal's Decision: R.207A applies to pending proceedings, and the department's appeal was dismissed.\nMessrs Siemen A.G.'s case 1991 PTD 488 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) Income Tax Rules, 1982=207,207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4061/LB and 4062/LB of 1997, decision dated: 18-11-2003.hearing DATE : 18-11-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AMJAD ALI RANJHA AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Per Mr. Amjad Ali Ranjha, Accountant Member, Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Appellant, Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 22 = 2004 SLD 22 = 2004 PTD 1499 = (2004) 89 TAX 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 62\nIncome Tax Rules, 1982, R.34\nAssessment - Estimation of sales based on incomplete invoices.\n•\nValidity: The assessee argued that cash memos with customer details were compliant with R.34.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal's Decision: The estimate of sales by the assessing officer was not substantiated, and the relief allowed was inadequate.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nThird Sched., R. 5A & R.5 - Depreciation allowance.\n•\nValidity: The service industry, including Internet Service Providers, is entitled to First Year Allowance. The definition of industrial undertaking under R.5A does not exclude service industries.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal’s Decision: Assessee entitled to 40% allowance.\n2002 PTD 470; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 4 and Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,ThirdSched,5,5A Income Tax Rules, 1982=34 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 523(IB) and 526(IB) of 2003, decision dated: 8th January 2004 hearing DATE : 20-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Anwar Kazmi, ITP for Appellant, Abdul Shakoor, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 23 = 2004 SLD 23 = 2004 PTD 1514 = (2004) 89 TAX 409", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 136(1)\nReference to High Court - Condonation of delay.\n•\nValidity: No irregularity was caused when the main appeal was disposed of on the same date as the condonation application.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal’s Decision: Reference application was dismissed.\n(2000) 81 Tax 240 (H. C. Kar.) and PLD 1992 SC 369 rel.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 136(1)\nReference to High Court - Order passed after 8 months from hearing.\n•\nValidity: No legal restriction preventing the Appellate Tribunal from passing an order after a certain period.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal’s Decision: Reference was dismissed.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 136(1)\nReference to High Court - Setting aside of order.\n•\nValidity: A reference cannot be admitted by the High Court if the lower appellate authority has not set aside the assessment order.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal’s Decision: Reference was dismissed.\n1988 PTD 111 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "R. A. No.449/KB of 2003 in Re: I.T.A. No.61/KB of 2002, decision dated: 5-11-2003, hearing DATE : 5-11-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Zafar, A.R. for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 24 = 2004 SLD 24 = 2004 PTD 1543 = (2004) 89 TAX 546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 134(4)\nAppeal to Appellate Tribunal - Condonation of delay.\n•\nValidity: Limitation should not prevent justice. The provision for limitation should only be invoked if the decision is based on reasonable grounds.\n2000 PTD 344 and PLD 1992 SC 369 rel.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Ss. 59(1) & 13(1)(aa)\nC.B.R. Circular No. 9 of 1998, dated 21 7 1998 (Self Assessment Scheme 1998-99), Para. 2(h)\nExclusion of return from Self Assessment Scheme:\n•\nValidity: The raid findings on excess stock were considered as evidence for concealment of income. The first appellate authority failed to provide valid reasons.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal's Decision: Case was excluded from the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Ss. 134(3) & 59(1)\nAppeal to Appellate Tribunal - Limitation.\n•\nValidity: Condonation of delay allowed to ensure justice for the department.\nPLD 1987 SC 436, 1988 PTD 394, 2000 PTD 344, PLD 1992 SC 369 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,134(3),134(4),13,13(1)(aa),59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 61/KB and M.A. (Cond.) No.22/KB of 2002, decision dated: 19-04-2003, hearing DATE : 10-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmed Saeed Siddiqui, I.A.C. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 25 = 2004 SLD 25 = 2004 PTD 1562 = (2004) 89 TAX 541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal and Validity of First Appellate Authority’s Order\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 129; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)\nConclusion: The appeal order by the First Appellate Authority was found to be arbitrary as it did not consider all the grounds of appeal raised by the complainant. The Appellate Authority simply agreed with the Assessing Officer's order without giving independent reasoning. The decision emphasized the universally acknowledged principle that Appellate Courts must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure transparency and allow for the possibility of appeal. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rectify the appeal order by providing a detailed and reasoned decision.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman Recommendation", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),55,80,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.372(IB) and 580(IB) of 2003, decision dated: 9-02-2004, hearing DATE : 11-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Appellant, Noushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Basit, F.C.A. for RespondentAbdul Basit, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 26 = 2004 SLD 26 = 2004 PTD 1572 = (2004) 89 TAX 517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)....S. 62 Assessment on production of accounts, evidence etc. -Rejection of trading accounts on general nature of objections Validity -Large number of purchases pertained to import Sales were effected through broker, agents and distributors Department only laid hand to the quantum of production, variation in rates, utilization of certain material more in quantity than the earlier years All these reasons were of general nature and not a single instance to doubt the purchases or sales was given Department was right in saying that history did not have any bearing but at the same time Appellate Tribunal did not favour the department just for the reason that they claimed to have found variation in rates of the product on the same date and that the production in weight was lower Appellate Tribunal held that there was no proper reason for rejection of accounts and directed for its acceptance. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - \n \n S. 12(18) Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan Loan -Claim Unless the assessee claimed the amount to be loan, same could n be treated as such and the provision of S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 would not come into force. \n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n Ss. 12(18) & 13 Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan -Purpose and background Provision of S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1974 was introduced to tax the fictitious loans shown by certain taxpayers to avoid the incidence of taxation Legislation was obviously not against verifiable amounts, since S.13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had proved to be insufficient, the provision was so drafted to cure the lacunas apparently seen in the said deemed income provision Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 came out with another deemed income changed with the language.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 12(18) Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan Loan Establishment of loan by arguments Validity Emphasis in language of S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was on sum claimed, sum shown and received as loan which established that assessee himself with full clarity shows an amount as loan No other person came into picture so as to declare an amount which had not been posted as loan to establish by arguments that it was a loan Accounting standard did have a clear system for debit and credit in respect of liability and assets Since the introduction of the provision of S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the fact remained that the assessee should claim that he obtained a sum as cash and that the same was a loan and the Department or any other authority did not figure anywhere. \n \n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 12(18) Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan Sister concern Business transaction being payments by one company on behalf of the other sister concern Addition Validity Such was a payment of oneself on behalf of himself though for the accountancy purposes it was so indicated in the accounts of the two different legal persons i.e. separate limited companies Practically this was a payment unto himself Even enlargement of the scope of S.12(18) by way of addition of words advance or gift did not affect the part of provision i.e. where any sum claimed or shown, to have been received as loan for the two reason, firstly, the same were applicable for 1998 99 besides they just came in addition to the words loan and had no effect on the words claimed or shown . \n \n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 12(18) Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan Loan -Claim or shown Department had right to look into the actual nature but for determining the same, the declaration of the assessee was not to be ignored Language of S.12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 starts from the words claimed or shown which even if were seen from the angle of the department, could not be ignored under any method of interpretation of the language of law. \n \n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 12(18) Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan -Interpretation Purposive approach Purposive approach did not find any place in the rules of interpretation and even under International Accounting Standards no one could change the nature of the entry under the garb of such an approach. \n \n(h) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 12(18) Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan Loan Sister concern Amount paid by sister concern on behalf of assessee was definitely a liability but could not be covered within the term loan . \n \n(i) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 12(18) Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan Loan -Sister concern Trading transactions between the two sister concerns was not covered within the definition of `loan'. \n \n(j) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 12(18) Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan Nature of provision - Tendency of indiscriminate use of the deemed income provisions, which in fact were not meant for generation of Revenue on regular basis Provision of S. 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are punitive in character and penal in nature Purpose of the same was more regularization hence should not be considered as a substitute of main charge and regular assessment Such provision could neither be liberally interpreted against the assessee nor the language therein could be ignored by applying it against the intendments which was curling the fictitious loans. \n \n(k) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 12(18) Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan Loan -Assessee and its sister concern had made some inter related entries in their books wherein payments had been made by one company on behalf of the other and the adjustment entries were accordingly made in the books Addition Validity Fact that if the language so permitted the deemed income provision could not be left inapplicable but where under a clear direction the law says that no one could proceed unless, the condition of `shown and claimed' firstly stands fulfilled, one could not just apply the balance part of the provision of law Addition made could not stand on the test and the same was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \n(l) Income tax \n \n Profit & Loss account Add back Principles Department, for add backs in profit & loss account, should not just leap in the dark by making estimates and subjective determinations Facts finding should properly be made by determining the unverifiable element on the basis of documents produced and other allied details in terms of quantity of business, quality required, extent of turnover etc. etc. \n \n(m) Income tax \n \n Profit & Loss account Add back Commission Payment of Commission against sale was neither found excessive nor unverifiable if viewed in comparison to the turnover as well as the documents respectively Add backs in various heads specially in vehicle running and sale commission was not maintainable in any sense. \n \n(n) Income tax \n \n Profit & Loss account Add back Commission Addition just for the reason that claim was excessive than the earlier year Validity -Factors which should have been brought into discussion, were as to whether the same was fake or bogus and in. this regard the documents submitted should have been brought under discussion Mere objection that they were unverifiable was not enough Reduction by way of estimation was also not to be approved Disallowance made was deleted as a whole by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \n(o) Income tax \n \n Profit & Loss account Add back Vehicle Personal use Element of personal use of the vehicle and the history did warrant additions, which were confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),13,62 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1853/LB, 2694/LB of 2001, 276/LB, 277/LB, 707/LB and 708/LB of 2003, decision dated: 28-01-2004, hearing DATE : 19-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shabbaz Butt for Appellant (I.T.As. Nos.1853/LB of 2001, 276/LB and 277/LB of 2003). Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent (I.T.As. Nos.1853/LB of 2001, 276/LB and 277/LB of 2003). Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Appellant (I.T.As. Nos.2694/LB of 2001, 707/LB and 708/LB of 2003). Shahbaz Butt for Respondent (I.T.As. Nos.2694/LB of 2001, 707/LB and 708/LB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 27 = 2004 SLD 27 = 2004 PTD 1593 = (2004) 89 TAX 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income tax Nature of land Whether agricultural or residential Piece of land purchased was part of a residential scheme and there was no claim of being agricultural activity done Claim of assessee that such piece of land was agricultural piece of land was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal in circumstances. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)....S. 13(1)(d) Addition Valuation of property Collector's rate Land having deep ditches Application of Collector's rate Validity Assessee's contention that normal rate as per Collector's rates could not be applied as it was not a level piece of land and the department had accepted and allowed expenses against such development appeared to be correct, however, this did not automatically establish that the declared value was correct. \n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 13(1)(d)- Addition Sale of lease hold right Valuation of property Application of Collector's rate Validity Contention of assessee with regard to valuation of the property that the same was only a sale of lease hold rights in the said piece of land which was held by the seller as a free hold land and the rates of Collector could not be applied was not approved by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n Ss. 12(12) & 13(1)(d) Deemed income Addition Land Stock in trade Interpretation of provisions of S.12(12) and S.13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 Contention of the assessee that provisions of S.12(12) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 came in. way of department in evaluating the piece of land as stock in trade was not approved by the Appellate Tribunal Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1975 was a peculiar section and made certain transaction as part of income although there may or may ,not be any such income Purpose of S.12(12) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was to tax any benefit given to an employee or a Director of a company by way of concessional sale of its assets such as motor vehicles.\n \nI.T.A. No.421/KB of 1991 ref.\n \n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 13(1)(d) Addition Land Enhancement of cost of sales in view of the enhancement of purchase consideration of land under S.13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 would come into play if a gross profit rate is not applied by the Assessing Officer. \n \n2003 PTD 1361 distinguished.\n \n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n S. 65 Additional assessment Issuance of notice under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for the assessment, year for which no return had been filed previously nor any assessment made Validity Action under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 could not be initiated as the assessee had not filed any return for the income year pertaining to assessment year under consideration nor any assessment had been made for such assessment year prior to the issuance of notice under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. \n \n2002 PTD 998 and 2001 PTD 1998 rel.\n \nPLD 2002 Kar. 60 and Muhammad Idrees v. Collector Custom 2001 SCMR 838 ref.\n \n1998 PTD 1387 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),12,12(12),65 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1988/KB of 2000 2001, decision dated: 27-01-2004, hearing DATE : 17-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND SYED HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Athar Saeed for Appellant, Sartaj Yousuf D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 28 = 2004 SLD 28 = 2004 PTD 1607 = (2004) 89 TAX 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal and Validity of First Appellate Authority’s Order\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 129; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)\nConclusion: The appeal order by the First Appellate Authority was found to be arbitrary as it did not consider all the grounds of appeal raised by the complainant. The Appellate Authority simply agreed with the Assessing Officer's order without giving independent reasoning. The decision emphasized the universally acknowledged principle that Appellate Courts must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure transparency and allow for the possibility of appeal. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rectify the appeal order by providing a detailed and reasoned decision.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman Recommendation", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 433 and 444 of 2003, decision dated: 16-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riaz Ahmed for the Complainant, Moazam Bashir, D.C.I.T. for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHZAD JEWELLERS, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 29 = 2004 SLD 29 = 2004 PTD 1618 = (2004) 89 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdiction for Income Tax Assessment\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 56 & 5\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer at Gojra unlawfully assumed jurisdiction over the case despite the complainant regularly filing returns in Faisalabad. The notice issued under S. 56 for assessment year 1999-2000 by the Taxation Officer at Gojra was invalid, as jurisdiction had not been transferred formally. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the withdrawal of the notice and invalidation of the enquiry report by Gojra’s Inspector. The action could only proceed if the case was formally transferred.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman Recommendation", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,56 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.748 of 2003, decision dated: 21st October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem Malik, A.R. for the Complainant Iftikhar Hussain Baloch, Taxation Officer for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FARAS SIZING, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 30 = 2004 SLD 30 = 2004 PTD 1633 = (2004) 89 TAX 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Deduction of Tax at Source (Income Tax and Sales Tax)\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 50; Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)\nConclusion: The complainant objected to tax being deducted on payments that included sales tax. It was concluded that withholding tax was correctly deducted based on the amount mentioned in the bill, including sales tax. The deduction was in accordance with the law, and no relief was granted.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman Closure of Complaint\nTopic (b): Responsibility of Central Board of Revenue for Withholding Tax\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 50\nConclusion: The complainant's income tax was being deducted by the Controller of Military Accounts, but the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) refused to address the issue. The Ombudsman criticized the CBR’s failure to acknowledge its responsibility, as they are the principal in charge of ensuring correct tax deductions. The CBR’s negligence in handling this matter was noted.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Criticism of CBR's Negligence", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.645 of 2003, decision dated: 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sharif for the Complainant, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 31 = 2004 SLD 31 = 2004 PTD 1636 = (2004) 90 TAX 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVEQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes in Income Tax Assessment\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 156 & 134\nConclusion: The Department's reference application was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal due to a delay in filing a condonation application. The Department argued that the reference was erroneously served on the wrong office, leading to a late receipt of the order. The Appellate Tribunal agreed that the order was not properly served and rectified the mistake by re-fixing the hearing.\nReference: CIT v. Maqsood A. Razzak 2000 PTD 344", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect) No.488/KB of 2003 in R.A. No. 180/KB of 2003, decision dated: 28-10-2003, hearing DATE : 28-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal Rana, D.R. for Applicant, Yasmeen Anjani, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 32 = 2004 SLD 32 = 2004 PTD 1638 = (2004) 89 TAX 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Assessment and Business Operations\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 143 B, 80 C, 59A, 59(1), 62, 63, 65 & 156\nConclusion: The complainant filed a statement under S. 143 B but did not submit a return for the year. As no return was filed or notice to file a return served, no regular assessment could be made under the relevant sections of the Income Tax Ordinance. The case highlights the need for proper procedural steps before an assessment is made.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Review of Assessment Process", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),59A,62,63,65,80,80C,143,143B,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos.407/IB of 2003, decision dated: 13-12-2003, hearing DATE : 12-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Waqar for Appellant, Naushad Ali Khan D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 33 = 2004 SLD 33 = 2004 PTD 1642 = (2004) 90 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Estimation of Sales Based on Inspector's Report\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nConclusion: The inquiry report used by the Tax Inspector was found to be general and legally insufficient for estimating sales. The Appellate Tribunal addressed this issue by emphasizing that the Inspector's report could not form a valid basis for estimation due to its lack of specificity.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Evaluation of Inspector’s Report\nTopic (b): Estimation of Sales and Understatement of Personal Expenditure\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 62 & 13\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal rejected the adverse inference made by the Assessing Officer that the sales should be estimated based on the members of the firm underreporting personal expenses. The Tribunal clarified that the firm and its members are separate entities for tax purposes, and any adjustments for understated personal expenses should be handled in the individual assessments.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Ruling on Sales Estimation\nTopic (c): Confrontation with Proposed Tax Treatment\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 62\nConclusion: A notice under S. 62, requesting the assessee to provide detailed sales information, was ruled invalid. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had failed to confront the complainant with the basis for their proposed tax treatment, violating the principles of natural justice.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Emphasis on Confrontation in Tax Assessments\nTopic (d): Wild Estimation of Sales\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 62\nConclusion: The sales were estimated based on arbitrary and fanciful reasoning, which was deemed invalid. The Appellate Tribunal directed that the sales figure be adjusted to reflect historical data and actual declared sales from previous years.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Directive on Sales Estimation", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 441/LB and 896/LB of 2001, decision dated: 30-09-2003, hearing DATE : 11-09-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AMJAD ALI RANJHA AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "None for Appellant, Iqbal Anwar Mehdi, I.T.P, for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 34 = 2004 SLD 34 = 2004 PTD 1653", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Income Tax Assessment\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 156 & 118 E\nConclusion: Income earned from trial production was mistakenly assessed at the normal rate. The Tribunal clarified that income from trial production should be considered part of capital and thus not taxable at the normal rate. The previous assessment order was rectified, and the original order was restored.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Ruling on Trial Production Income", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=118,118-E,156 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 982/LB of 2002, decision dated: 21st October, 2002, hearing DATE : 2-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakhar Majeed, F.C.A. and Mirza Anwar Baig for Appellant, Talat Altaf Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 35 = 2004 SLD 35 = 2004 PTD 1655 = 2004 TAX 1655", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Capital Gains Tax on Sale of Assets\nRelevant Laws: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Third Schedule, Cl. 7(c); Finance Act (XII of 1991)\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that capital gains from the sale of a car before the amendment in the Finance Act of 1991 could not be taxed under the revised provisions. Since the transaction was completed prior to the amendment, the retrospective application of the new tax provisions was invalid.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Ruling on Retrospective Taxation\nTopic (b): Interpretation of Statutes\nConclusion: Charging provisions in tax law are always prospective unless specified otherwise. The Tribunal emphasized that retrospective taxation should not be presumed and can only apply where the statute explicitly allows for it.\nReference: Maxwell on Interpretation of Statute\nTopic (c): Retroactive Taxation and Statutory Competence\nConclusion: The Tribunal reaffirmed that unless explicitly stated, the legislature cannot apply new provisions retroactively, especially if it affects existing rights or causes injustice.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Interpretation of Statutory Provisions", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1991=ThirdSched,Cl.7(c) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. Nos. 1974/LB of 1992 93, decision dated: 20-05-1997, hearing DATE : 24-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Anwar Baig for Appellant, Mrs. Sabiha Mujhaid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 36 = 2004 SLD 36 = 2004 PTD 1666 = (2004) 89 TAX 461", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Exemption under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Second Schedule, Clauses 126 & 128), Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980\nConclusion:\n1.\nExemption Purpose: The main goal of granting tax exemptions was to promote exports and earn foreign exchange for Pakistan, specifically for industrial undertakings in Export Processing Zones (EPZs).\n2.\nIndustrial Undertakings vs. Support Organizations: The Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance and its rules do not extend tax exemptions to support organizations like banks or insurance companies, as exemptions were intended solely for industrial undertakings. Such a change to include these organizations would require a notification by the Federal Government under Section 14(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n3.\nLegislative Domain: Tax exemptions are within the legislative domain, and no statutory provision has authorized support organizations to receive such exemptions under the existing laws.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Second Schedule, Clauses 126 & 128\n•\nExport Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980\n•\nExport Processing Zones Authority Rules, 1981: Rules 5(3), 10, 15(4)\n•\nAppellate Tribunal Decision: No exemption for a bank in EPZ based on clauses 126 & 128.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,14(2),FirstSched.PartIV,SecondSched.Cl.126,Cl.128 Export Processing Zones Authority Rules, 1981=5(3),10,15(4) Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980=26,5(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2804/KB and 2830/KB of 1993 94, decision dated: 31st December, 2003, hearing DATE : 24-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN, S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shabbir Hussain Vejlani, A.C.A. and Muhammad Irshad Ansari, I.T.P. for Appellant, Shabbir Hussain Vejlani, A.C.A. and Muhammad Irshad Ansari, I.T.P. for Appellant. Ali Hasnain, D.R., Muhammad Farid and Khalique ur Rehman, F.C.A. for RespondentAli Hasnain, D.R., Muhammad Farid and Khalique ur Rehman, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 37 = 2004 SLD 37 = 2004 PTD 1682 = (2004) 89 TAX 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Valuation of Property for Tax Purposes\nConclusion:\n1.\nWealth Tax and Income Tax Valuation: Though wealth tax and income tax valuation may be approached differently, the methodology for evaluating property for both purposes is often shared, particularly in relation to property acquisition.\n2.\nCommercial vs. Residential Property: The property, initially purchased as residential, was later converted into commercial property. However, the value as per the District Collector’s rate for residential property could not be disregarded unless there was proof of a different value.\n3.\nValidity of Sale Price: The sale price shown in the registered sale deed, unless proven otherwise, could not be contested simply on assumptions. The evidence, in this case, was insufficient to challenge the stated value in the sale deed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Section 13(1)(d)\n•\nIncome Tax Rules, 1982: Rule 207 A\n•\nCase Reference: (1983) 48 Tax 73 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A,Cl-(ii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 549/IB of 2003, decision dated: 20-01-2004, hearing DATE : 16th January 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Altaf Mahmood Khan, DCIT/DR for Appellant, Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 38 = 2004 SLD 38 = 2004 PTD 1688 = (2004) 89 TAX 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Notice for Production of Books of Account under Section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusion:\n1.\nProcedural vs. Substantive Law: Section 61 specifies the procedure for producing evidence but does not itself form the substantive grounds for assessment. Non-compliance with procedural notices is an issue of procedural deficiency.\n2.\nNon-Compliance and Penalties: Failure to comply with notices issued under Section 61 can result in penalties but does not necessarily invalidate the assessment itself.\n3.\nAssessment Validity: If statutory notices are not served properly, the assessment could be invalidated, leading to annulment of the order. However, this does not render the entire process void from the beginning.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Sections 61, 63, 110, 132\n•\nCase Reference: Appellate Tribunal’s annulment of ex parte assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(2),58,61,62,63,65,110,132,132(1)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2319/LB to 2324/LB of 2003, decision dated: 14-11-2003, hearing DATE : 14-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 39 = 2004 SLD 39 = 2004 PTD 1707", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Audit Selection under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusion:\n1.\nAudit Selection Procedure: The case was selected for audit on the basis of inconsistent financial indicators, including low profit growth and a significant increase in working capital without a corresponding sales increase.\n2.\nLegal Validity: The complainant’s argument that the selection of the case was out of time (after March 31) was not valid as there was no stipulation regarding the service date for the selection order.\n3.\nConclusion: The selection for audit was justified based on the presented grounds, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman found no legal flaw in the process.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Section 59(1)\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2002\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Decision: Complaint rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 448 of 2003, decision dated: 16-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rehman Mir FCA/A.R. for the Complainant, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, IAC HQ, Muhammad Ashfaq, Staff Officer to RCIT and Ms. Iram Sarwar, ALIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PUNJAB BEVERAGE CO. (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 40 = 2004 SLD 40 = 2004 PTD 1710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Best Assessment and Non-Service of Notices under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusion:\n1.\nMaladministration: The failure to serve notices under Sections 56, 61, and 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance resulted in maladministration. This procedural error led to the creation of a tax liability without providing the complainant with the chance to defend their case.\n2.\nInvalid Ex Parte Assessment: The ex parte assessment was invalid due to improper notice service. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended a revision of the assessment under Section 122, ensuring proper reassessment proceedings.\n3.\nRecommendation: The assessment for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98 was to be canceled, and the case reopened for de novo reassessment.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Sections 56, 61, 13\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Recommendation: Assessment cancellation and de novo reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,56,61,63 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 876 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Khalid Javed Bukhari for the Complainant, Asif Rasool, DCIT for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Syed ATTA HUSSAIN BUKHARI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 41 = 2004 SLD 41 = 2004 PTD 1716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVER1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Setting Apart of Self-Assessment Return for Audit\nConclusion:\n1.\nAudit Selection Grounds: The audit selection was based on discrepancies between declared sales and the survey team’s findings. However, the complainant demonstrated that the sales were higher than surveyed, and vehicles were correctly declared.\n2.\nInvalid Selection: The basis for selecting the case for audit was not valid. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended excluding the complainant’s case from the audit list and accepting the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n3.\nOutcome: The Federal Tax Ombudsman’s recommendation for exclusion from audit and acceptance of the self-assessment return was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: Sections 59(1), 24(ff)\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2002\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Recommendation: Exclusion from audit.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,21(l) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(ff),59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 271 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz M. Idrees for Petitioner, Mansoor Ahmad Bajwa, A.I.C. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAN MARKETING SERVICES, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 42 = 2004 SLD 42 = 2004 PTCL 74 = 2004 PTD 1719 = (2004) 90 TAX 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self Assessment Scheme under Income Tax Ordinance 1979\nSubtopics:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 55, 59 (1 A) & 62: Scrutiny and jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities under the Self Assessment Scheme.\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 55, 59 (1 A) & 62 with Circular No. 4 of 2001: Application of the scheme in selecting cases for detailed scrutiny.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Self Assessment Scheme functions as a promise by the Revenue, accepting the declared version of an assessee if conditions are met. Revenue retains the privilege to select certain cases for detailed scrutiny under the normal law if evidence supports income suppression.\n•\nSelection for audit based solely on an opinion without evidence or tangible information is invalid. Discretion must be exercised judiciously, balancing the taxpayer’s duty to make accurate declarations and the Revenue’s obligation to honor the Self Assessment Scheme.\n•\nIn this case, the Regional Commissioner’s decision to deny the Self Assessment Scheme concession without supporting evidence was deemed illegal, and the petition was allowed.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance 1979, Ss. 55, 59(1A), 62, Circular No. 4 of 2001", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,59,59(1A),62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7746 of 2002, decision dated: 1st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Azeem for Petitioner, Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUPER ELECTRONICES\nvs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF I/T & W/T and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 43 = 2004 SLD 43 = 2004 PTD 1728", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Delayed Refunds under the Income Tax Ordinance\nSubtopics:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 102 & 96: Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman and additional payment for delayed refunds.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe complainant had their refund delayed without legal justification, despite the assessment being finalized. The failure of the Commissioner and Inspecting Additional Commissioner to respond to correspondence or provide relief amounted to maladministration.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended compensation to the complainant for the delayed refund under the relevant sections of the law.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance 1979, Ss. 102 & 96, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,102 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 714-L of 2003, decision dated: 25-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Baig for the Complainant, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "AZMAT SULTANA HAYEE BUTT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 44 = 2004 SLD 44 = 2004 PTD 1750 = (2004) 89 TAX 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration in Tax Settlement and Non-Compliance with Orders\nSubtopics:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 138 E(4)(5), 89 & 85: Role of Settlement Commission and the obligation of the Assessing Officer to follow the settlement order.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Settlement Commission's orders were ignored by the Assessing Officer who levied additional taxes based on the income determined by the Assessing Officer, not the Commission’s order. This was deemed a violation of S. 85 and S. 89 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that maladministration occurred due to negligence in following the Settlement Commission’s directions, and recommended that the Assessing Officer’s actions be reversed and the correct demand notices be issued.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance 1979, Ss. 138 E(4)(5), 89 & 85, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) S. 2(3), 2002 PTD 1918", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,85,89,138,138-E(4),138-E(5) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 763 L of 2003, decision dated: 10-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Manzoor Ahmad for the Complainant. Mehmood Jaffari, D. C.I.T. for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "FATEH TEXTILE INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 45 = 2004 SLD 45 = 2004 PTD 1755 = (2004) 89 TAX 292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalties for Concealment of Income and Non-Compliance with Tax Procedures\nSubtopics:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 111 & 13, S. 122 A: Imposition of penalties for the concealment of income.\nConclusions:\n•\nPenalties had been levied based on reassessments that were later nullified by the First Appellate Authority. Since the reassessments had shown no taxable income, the basis for penalties under S. 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance no longer existed.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the deletion of penalties in accordance with S. 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance 1979, Ss. 111, 13, S. 122 A, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(30 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=122,122A Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=13,108,110,111 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 789 of 2003, decision dated: 29-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Complainant, Asem Iftikhar, D.C.I.T. and Nasim Ilyas, A.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "IRSHAD BEGUM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 46 = 2004 SLD 46 = 2004 PTD 1763", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessments and Validity of Information\nSubtopics:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 65: Initiation of additional assessments based on balance sheets and financial statements.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe case involved additional assessments based on financial statements prepared by a Chartered Accountant, even though these documents were not signed by any company official. The complainant argued that these should not be considered as valid information.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman concluded that the information provided by the Chartered Accountant could be deemed valid and did not constitute maladministration. The complaint was closed on these grounds.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance 1979, S. 65, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) S. 2(3), (1993) 68 Tax 1 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 208 L of 2003, decision dated: 17-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ajmal Khan and Amir Umar Khan for the Complainant, Hassan Kamran, D CIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "EVER GREEN PESTICIDES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 47 = 2004 SLD 47 = 2004 PTD 1779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Random Balloting and Discrepancies in Tax Selection\nSubtopics:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S. 59(1): Random selection of cases for audit and errors in the selection process.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe complainant’s case was selected for total audit through a computer random ballot, but errors such as mismatched names, incorrect NIC numbers, and missing NTN led to doubts about the authenticity of the selection.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that in the case of discrepancies, the benefit should go to the taxpayer, and recommended that the complainant’s return be accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance 1979, S. 59(1), Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 708 L of 2003, decision dated: 5-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Armughan Ali for the Complainant, Anwar Jillani, D CIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ABRAR UD DIN NASEER\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 48 = 2004 SLD 48 = 2004 PTD 1781", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Tax at Source and Maladministration in Tax Assessment\nSubtopics:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 50(5A)(7G)(7E)(7F), 53, 143 B, 59A, 156: Credit for tax paid at source and assessment discrepancies.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe complainant’s claim for deductions under several sections was denied because of issues with utility bills being under the names of non-associates. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer failed to make proper assessments based on the filed statements.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman determined there was maladministration, recommending that the application for rectification be processed and any refund due be issued.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance 1979, Ss. 50(5A)(7G)(7E)(7F), 53, 143 B, 59A, 156, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170,221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5A),50(7G),50(7E),50(7F),50(713),50(717),53,59,59A,80,80CC,143,143B,156 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 206 L of 2003, decision dated: 12-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the ComplainantNemo for the Complainant. Muzammil Hussain, WIT for RespondentMuzammil Hussain, WIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ASIF CERAMICS, SHEIKHUPURA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 49 = 2004 SLD 49 = 2004 PTD 1784", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 154\n•\nTopic: Service of Notice\n•\nConclusion: Section 154 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 provides two modes of notice service: by post and via the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code. Service by registered post with acknowledgment due is essential for ensuring proper service. Acknowledgment due must be annexed with the envelope to prove receipt of the notice, ensuring its validity.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 154 & 65\n•\nTopic: Validity of Notice\n•\nConclusion: The service of a notice is a jurisdictional requirement before action can be taken under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance. The authorities cannot proceed unless it is proven that the statutory notice was issued and served on the assessee.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 65 & 154\n•\nTopic: Additional Assessment and Service of Notice\n•\nConclusion: Proper service of notice under Section 65 is crucial for the validity of any additional assessment. If acknowledgment receipts are not attached to the registered letter, the service cannot be considered valid, and any assessment based on such service would be unsustainable.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 65 & 154\n•\nTopic: Service of Notice\n•\nConclusion: If the statutory notice under Section 65 is not properly served, it implies that no assessment can be made.\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 65 & 154\n•\nTopic: Requirement of Notice\n•\nConclusion: Issuance and service of a notice under Section 65 is a prerequisite for any subsequent action under the Income Tax Ordinance. Without this notice, the authorities cannot proceed with the assessment.\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 61\n•\nTopic: Notice for Production of Books\n•\nConclusion: In the absence of a filed return or service of a notice to furnish the return, no notice under Section 61 can be issued for production of books or documents.\n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 65, 63 & 154\n•\nTopic: Service of Notice and Ex Parte Assessment\n•\nConclusion: If the statutory notice under Section 65 is not served properly (e.g., without acknowledgment receipts), any subsequent ex parte assessment would be invalid. The annulment of such an assessment by the First Appellate Authority was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,63,63,65,154 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.V,R.10A,15 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2764/LB of 2003, decision dated: 18-02-2004.hearing DATE : 18th February 2001", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Javed Ur Rehman, D.R. for Appellant, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 50 = 2004 SLD 50 = 2004 PTD 1788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 156\n•\nTopic: Rectification of Mistakes\n•\nConclusion: The assessment was rectified by enhancing sales to match the actual declared gross profit, as the original assessment had made an error in deducting the incorrect gross profit amount. However, the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of rectification under Section 156 by changing the estimate of sales. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended further rectification of the order and the acceptance of the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme for the year 2002-2003.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 588 of 2003, decision dated: 30-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir Nawaz Mufti, ITP, AR for the Complainant, Gul Rehman, Taxation Officer for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MIAN TOYS FAROSH, SARGODHA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 51 = 2004 SLD 51 = 2004 PTD 1792", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVESFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance - Section 9(2)(b)\n•\nTopic: Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman\n•\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman has the authority to address cases involving maladministration even if these cases involve assessment-related matters.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 62\n•\nTopic: Assessment on Production of Accounts\n•\nConclusion: The assessment of a joint business operated by two brothers was made as an Association of Persons. The assessee’s failure to produce documents or provide an affidavit to substantiate separate operations for each brother led to the rejection of the complaint for maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,9(2)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 362 L of 2003, decision dated: 9-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Aslam for the Complainant, Hussain, DCIT for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MUNAWAR HUSSAIN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 52 = 2004 SLD 52 = 2004 PTD 1812 = (2004) 90 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 134\n•\nTopic: Appeal to Appellate Tribunal\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s argument regarding the validity of the Commissioner of Income Tax filing the appeal instead of the Deputy Commissioner, affirming the Commissioner's right to file such appeals.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Section 239(1)\n•\nTopic: Application of Provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nConclusion: The provisions of the 1979 ordinance apply only to the computation of total income and tax payable, according to Section 239(1) of the 2001 ordinance.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 59(1)\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Audit\n•\nConclusion: The Self-Assessment Scheme's guidelines for selection of returns for total audit were valid. There was no contradiction in the provisions, and the selection of returns for audit was in accordance with the scheme’s framework.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 59(1 A)\n•\nTopic: Total Audit of Returns\n•\nConclusion: The assessment of a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme could proceed if it met the requirements of the scheme, and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the procedure for selecting returns for audit.\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 64\n•\nTopic: Limitation of Assessment\n•\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer is not barred by the two-year limitation for completing the assessment before the end of the assessment year under Section 64.\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nTopic: Selection of Cases for Audit\n•\nConclusion: The selection of cases for audit based on the National Tax Number and name of the assessee was upheld. The mistake in the name fed into the computer did not invalidate the selection for audit.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=239,239(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),59(1A),64,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 321/IB and 368/IB of 2003, decision dated: 6-03-2004, hearing DATE : 4-03-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 321/IB of 2003). Mir Ahmed Ali for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 321/IB of 2003) Mir Ahmed Ali for Appellant (in T.A No. 368/IB of 2003) Muhammad Iqbal Ahmed, D.R for Respondent (in I.T.A No. 368/IB of 2003)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 53 = 2004 SLD 53 = 2004 PTD 1825 = (2004) 89 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 134(3)\n•\nTopic: Condonation of Delay in Appeal\n•\nConclusion: The application for condonation of a one-day delay in filing the appeal was rejected as the reasons given were insufficient. The Department misrepresented facts regarding the date of communication, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(3),139,139(8),217 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=20(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4245/LB of 2002 and M.A. (Cond.) No.437/LB of 2003, decision dated: 13-09-2003, hearing DATE : 13-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant, Ch. Muhammad Tahir for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 54 = 2000 SLD 54 = 2000 PTD 1916 = (1999) 235 ITR 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 139 & 217\n•\nTopic: Waiver of Interest\n•\nConclusion: The differing treatment of two brothers’ interest waiver applications was challenged. The court found that there was no sufficient reason for unequal treatment. Both brothers were entitled to similar relief regarding the waiver of interest, correcting the inconsistency in the treatment of their cases.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petitions Nos.13865 and 13599 of 1996, decision dated: 6-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": "V.K. BALI AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amanullah Khan, F.C.A. G.M. Finance and Tahir Razaq Khan, F.C.A. for the Complainant. Muhammad Saleem, Deputy Collector Sales Tax and Muhammad Ishtiaq, Law Officer for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "MOHD. YOUSUF and another\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 55 = 2004 SLD 55 = 2004 PTD 1850", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 59(1) - Self-Assessment Scheme (2002-03)\nConclusion:\nThe complainant's case was selected for a total audit due to a reduction in the gross profit rate (from 23% in the assessment year 1996-97 to 18% in the current year). However, the Federal Tax Ombudsman found that this selection was unreasonable. The gross profit in the current year was higher than many subsequent years, and the complainant's sales were also higher compared to 1996-97. The Ombudsman recommended that the complainant’s return be excluded from the audit and the declared income be accepted.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 59(1)\n•\nSelf-Assessment Scheme 2002-03, Para. 9(a)(ii)\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 7 of 2002, dated 15 June 2002", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 274 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd July, 2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Basit, F.C.A., A.R. for the Complainant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FRIENDS VENEER CO., PESHAWAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 56 = 2004 SLD 56 = 2004 PTD 1852 = (2004) 90 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 66A - Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner\nConclusion:\n(a) Disagreement in Assessment: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner cannot invoke Section 66A merely due to a disagreement with the Deputy Commissioner’s order. It must be established that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.\n(b) Poor Quality of Assessment: The mere poor quality of the assessment order is not sufficient to invoke Section 66A. There must be evidence that the order was erroneous in law and prejudicial to revenue.\n(c) Lack of Material Evidence: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner must have concrete evidence to show the assessment order was incorrect and resulted in revenue loss. Merely assuming these conditions without evidence is insufficient.\n(d) Jurisdiction of Inspecting Additional Commissioner: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner cannot reconsider matters already examined by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 66A. The review must be based on factual information, not assumptions. The case was remanded for further examination.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 66A\n•\nPLD 1964 SC 410\n•\n1984 PTD 137\n•\n1990 PTD 914\n•\nPLD 1988 Kar. 587\n•\n2001 PTD 2274", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(ff),65,66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2328/LB of 1999, decision dated: 12-01-2004, hearing DATE : 10-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Ahmed Butt for Appellant, Mian Javed ur Rehman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 57 = 2004 SLD 57 = 2004 PTD 1868 = (2004) 89 TAX 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unexplained Expenditure and Deemed Income\nTopic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 13(1)(e) - Unexplained Investment\nConclusion:\n(a) Meaning of Incurred : The word “incurred” in Section 13(1)(e) clearly refers to actual expenditures, not notional or imaginary figures. The Assessing Officer cannot base an addition on notional expenses.\n(b) Notional Expenses in Civil Suit: The addition based on a civil suit claiming staff salaries and vehicle rental payments that were not actually made was invalid. The claim was to exert pressure on the authorities to award a contract, not an actual expense.\n(c) Factual Remand: The assessment was vacated for a de novo reconsideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify whether the expenses had truly been incurred and whether any supporting documentary evidence was provided by the assessee.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 13(1)(e)\n•\n1989 59 Tax 112 (High Court)\n•\nPLD 2001 SC 2274", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=144 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4114/LB and 14115/LB of 2001, decision dated: 2-06-2003. DATE , of hearing: 30-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Arshad, I.T.P., for Appellant, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 58 = 2004 SLD 58 = 2004 PTD 1883 = (2004) 89 TAX 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale Promotion Expenses and Penalties\nTopic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Various Provisions (Sections 12(18), 24(ff), etc.)\nConclusion:\n(a) Sale Promotion Expenses: The Tribunal confirmed that the sale promotion expenses, allowed to the extent of 45%, were valid under the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n(b) Penalty for Late Filing: No penalty was warranted for the late filing of statements showing Nil tax deduction since no payment was made to parties that would trigger tax deduction under Section 50(4).\n(c) Advance Payments in Ticket Sales: Money received for the purchase of tickets, though paid in advance, was not considered an advance under Section 12(18). It was simply part of the ordinary course of business.\n(d) Deductions Under Section 24(ff): The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the addition for cash payments exceeding Rs. 50,000 that violated the requirements for deductions under Section 24(ff).\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 12(18), 24(ff), 50(4)\n•\nIncome Tax Rules 1982, Rule 53\n•\nPLD 1991 SC 280", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),24,24(ff),50,50(1),50(4),108,108(b),116,139,142 Income Tax Rules, 1982=53,61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1031/LB and 210/LB to 212/LB of 2001, decision dated: 30-09-2003.hearing DATE : 25-09-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Bashir Malik for Appellant, Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 59 = 2004 SLD 59 = 2004 PTD 1890 = (2004) 89 TAX 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Rebate and Rectification of Mistake\nTopic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 156 & 80D - Rectification of Mistake and Export Rebate\nConclusion:\nThe case revolved around the treatment of export rebates. The Assessing Officer had failed to properly examine the nature of the rebate (which was a duty drawback deducted from the cost of sales) and incorrectly included it in the turnover. The Tribunal ruled that the export rebate should not be treated as compensatory rebate on exports but rather a refund, and the rectification under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance was not valid. The case was remanded for further scrutiny to accurately determine the factual position regarding turnover inclusion for tax purposes.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 156 & 80D\n•\n2001 PTD 1649", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4471/LB and 4472/LB of 1996, decision dated: 26-08-2003.hearing DATE : 13-08-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zia ul Islam for Appellant..Ashraf Ahmad Ali D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 60 = 2004 SLD 60 = 2004 PTD 1901 = (2004) 90 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Income Tax Assessment - Definite Information and Accounting Method\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner challenged the reopening of the income tax assessment. The Assessing Officer had initially accepted the method of accounting used by the assessee (income on receipt basis) for Government securities, but later sought to change the basis for the reopening of the assessment, citing a misapplication of law. The High Court ruled that the reopening was based on a change of opinion, not on definite information as required by Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The court also stated that misapplication or ignorance of law did not constitute valid grounds for reopening the assessment.\nCitations/References:\n•\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner and Chairman, Penal 20 Companies and another v. Pakistan Herald Ltd. 1997 SCMR 1256\n•\nMessrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 493\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. GEO Tech Construction Corporation 1998 PTD 479\n•\nTamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2002 PTD 1421", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=17,17(1)(a),32,32(1),65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "C. P. No. D 1574 of 1994, decision dated: 3rd April, 2004, hearing DATE : 27-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J. AND. GHULAM RABBANI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Salman Pasha for Petitioners, Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 61 = 2004 SLD 61 = 2004 PTD 1949", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Entitlement to Rural Industrial Development Incentives Scheme\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner sought Rural Area Certification for a project located 13 km from the Sheikhupura Municipal limits but within 30 km of Lahore Municipality. The petitioner argued for eligibility under the Rural Industrial Development Incentives Scheme. The High Court concluded that the term concerned meant the municipality under whose jurisdiction the project fell. The Court ruled that the project was located in the Rural Area as defined by the applicable policy and should be entitled to the benefits under the scheme.\nCitations/References:\n•\nInterpretation of Statutes: Where ambiguity exists, the interpretation most beneficial to the citizen should be adopted.\n•\nOxford Advanced Dictionary of Current English by A.S. Hornby.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,14(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14029 of 2003, decision dated: 29-03-2004, hearing DATE : 15-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Shahid Waheed for Petitioners, Salma Malik A.A. G. for Respondents Nos.1 to 3, Ch. Abdul Wadood for Respondent No. 4", + "Party Name:": "OLYMPIA SYNTHETIC\nvs\nSECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT PUNJAB and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 62 = 2004 SLD 62 = 2004 PTD 1973 = (2004) 90 TAX 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Assessment and the Duty of Public Functionaries\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner challenged the decision of the Revisional Authority for wrongly declaring him as an agent of an international company. Despite assurances to the High Court that the grievance would be decided in accordance with the law, the Revisional Authority merely endorsed the original decision without application of independent thought. The High Court ruled that public functionaries must apply their independent mind when deciding disputes and set aside the order of the Revisional Authority, remanding the case for fresh decision.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCo op: Insurance Society v. State Life Insurance 1999 SCMR 2799\n•\nCommissioner of Income tax v. Smith Kline and French 1991 PTD 999\n•\nMessrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(5),78,80,80AA Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4,199 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12709 of 1997, heard on 20-04-2004, hearing DATE : 20-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant, Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE through Chaudhry Shamim Anwar\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES ZONE I, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 63 = 2004 SLD 63 = 2004 PTD 1978", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference to High Court - Absence of Party at whose Instance the Question Was Referred\nConclusion:\nThe issue pertained to the party at whose instance a question of law was referred to the High Court. The Court ruled that if the party at whose request the question was referred fails to appear, the High Court is not bound to answer the questions. This was in line with the principle that the hearing of a case must occur before the Court can resolve any legal questions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nDada Bhai H. Mama and Sons Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) 16 Tax 43\n•\nM.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax 1955 27 ITR 188", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,136,151 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.48 of 1996, decision dated: 16-04-2001, hearing DATE : 16-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner, Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S. M. MOHSIN\nvs\nC.I.T. COMPANIES 1, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 64 = 2004 SLD 64 = 2004 PTD 1986", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Export Rebate Claim by Partner of Registered Firm\nConclusion:\nThe issue involved the entitlement of a partner in a registered firm to claim export rebate. The High Court affirmed that such a claim is allowable to the partner of the firm, which was in line with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Nasir Ali and others (1999) 79 Tax 428", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,151 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 45 of 1996, decision dated: 16-04-2001, hearing DATE : 16-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ryas Khan for Petitioner, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nWORLD MASTER GLOVES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 65 = 2004 SLD 65 = 2004 PTD 1993", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Assessment and Reference to High Court Regarding CIF Sales\nConclusion:\nThe High Court declined to answer questions referred by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the use of CIF sales in income computation, stating that the matter was not a question of law but rather a factual issue. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld, and the High Court refused to entertain the matter.\nCitations/References:\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax Zone, Gujranwala v. Messrs Anwar Enterprises 1999 PTD 1329", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,32(3),136,136(1) Income Tax Rules, 1982=216,216(3)(a) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 57 of 1996, decision dated: 17-04-2001, hearing DATE : 17-04-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs FINE MOOT INTERNATIONAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 66 = 2004 SLD 66 = 2004 PTD 2012 = (2004) 90 TAX 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Share of Super Tax Payable by Registered Firm\nConclusion:\nThe Court ruled that the share of super tax payable by a registered firm could not be apportioned with reference to the share of the partner as computed under Section 16(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income tax, Central Zone, East Zone and West Zone, Karachi v. Anweraly Haji Noor Muhammad and others (1992) 65 Tax 195", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,16(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 13 of 1993, decision dated: 20-03-2001, hearing DATE : 20-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner, Zia Haider Rizvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs MEHMOOD A. QAZI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 67 = 2004 SLD 67 = 2004 PTD 2017 = (2004) 89 TAX 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption from Workers Welfare Fund Levy\nConclusion:\nThe First Appellate Authority had allowed the exemption of the levy of the workers welfare fund to a unit exempt from income tax. The Department filed an appeal, ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the decision be implemented in accordance with the law, emphasizing that ignoring the decision of the higher courts amounts to maladministration.\nCitations/References:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 9(2)\n•\nSupreme Court decision on the exemption from levy of the workers welfare fund.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,Cl-118 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),9,9(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 877 L of 2003, decision dated: 29-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervez Jami for the Complainant, Nawab Khan, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mian IFTIKHAR AHMAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 68 = 2004 SLD 68 = 2004 PTD 2019 = (2004) 90 TAX 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Exemption for Flying Club\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal had granted an exemption to a flying club under Clause 86 of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Department contested the Tribunal’s ruling, questioning whether the club should be considered an educational institution for tax purposes. The High Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was correct, as the flying club was indeed engaged in educational activities.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Second Schedule, Part I, Cl. (86)\n•\nPLD 1962 (W.P.) Kar. 635", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80C,136,SecondSched,Cl-86 ", + "Case #": "R.A. No. 258/IB of 2003, decision dated: 14-04-2004, hearing DATE : 13-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Javed, DR for Appellant, Khalid Majeed, FCA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 69 = 2004 SLD 69 = 2004 PTD 2024", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Assessment and Maladministration in the Issuance of Notices\nConclusion:\nThe High Court found that when the return was not filed, no notice under Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, had been issued after the First Appellate Authority’s set-aside order. Subsequent notices were also defective, leading to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had disregarded the law and committed maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the cancellation of the assessment order and action against the negligent officer.\nCitations/References:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 56, 58, 61, 62, 63, 154", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,58,61,62,63,154 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1257 L of 2003, decision dated: 4-10-2003.Complaint No. 1257 L of 2003, decision dated: 4-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Complainant, Muzammil Hussain, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KHAIR DIN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 70 = 2004 SLD 70 = 2004 PTD 2035", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Best Assessment\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) received a complaint against an ex parte assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The assessment was based on an Inspector's report, which was not provided to the assessee. The assessee claimed that the assessment was invalid and requested the FTO to intervene.\nThe FTO held that the Assessing Officer's failure to provide the Inspector's report to the assessee was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The FTO recommended that the Commissioner issue a directive to provide a copy of the Inspector's report to the assessee, enabling them to rebut it.\nConclusion:\nThe FTO's recommendation emphasized the importance of transparency and fairness in the assessment process. The Assessing Officer's failure to provide the Inspector's report to the assessee was deemed maladministration.\nCitation:\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,63 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 526 of 2003, decision dated: 22-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the ComplainantNemo for the Complainant, Anwar ul Haq Jillani, D CIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "USMAN GARMENTS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 71 = 2004 SLD 71 = 2004 PTD 2038", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVERlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistake\nThe Appellate Tribunal dismissed a rectification application filed by the assessee, holding that the ground not agitated before the First Appellate Authority could not be rectified. The assessee had raised a new ground in the rectification application, which was not part of the original appeal.\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee's attempt to raise a new ground in the rectification application was not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the rectification application was not a fresh appeal, but rather a mechanism to correct errors apparent on the face of the record.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of raising all relevant grounds in the original appeal. The rectification application is not a means to introduce new grounds or reargue the case.\nCitation:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 221", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M. A. (Rect.) No. 431/KB of 2003 in I.T.A. No. 1350/KB/SB of 1996 97, M. A. (Rect.) No. 432/KB of 2003 in I.T.A. No.1351/KB/SBof 1996 97M. A. (Rect.) No. 433/KB of 1003 in I.T.A. No. 1352/KB/SB of 1996 97, decision dated: 27-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, ITP for Applicant, Gohar Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 72 = 2004 SLD 72 = 2004 PTD 2040", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Best Assessment\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) received a complaint against an ex parte assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The assessment was made without providing the assessee with an opportunity to rebut the Inspector's report.\nThe FTO held that the Assessing Officer's failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to rebut the Inspector's report was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The FTO recommended that the Commissioner cancel the assessment framed on 30-6-2003 and accept the Return filed by the Complainant under the Self Assessment Scheme.\nConclusion:\nThe FTO's recommendation emphasized the importance of transparency and fairness in the assessment process. The Assessing Officer's failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to rebut the Inspector's report was deemed maladministration.\nCitation:\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)\nReferences:\nM.B. Qureshi's case 1975 PTD 126, Anwar & Co. (1976) 33 Tax 219", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,63 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1105 L of 2003, decision dated: 4-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Shuja Khan for the Complainant, Muhammad Nadeem Arif, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Dr. ABDUL WAHEED KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 73 = 2004 SLD 73 = 2004 PTD 2043 = (2004) 89 TAX 504 = (2004) 90 TAX 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistake\nThe Appellate Tribunal refused to rectify an order, holding that the assessee's attempt to reargue and improve on the arguments already preferred was not maintainable. The assessee had filed a rectification application, claiming that the Appellate Tribunal's order was erroneous and required rectification.\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that the rectification application was an attempt to reargue the case and introduce new grounds, which was not permissible. The Tribunal emphasized that the rectification application was only meant to correct errors apparent on the face of the record.\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of raising all relevant grounds in the original appeal. The rectification application is not a means to introduce new grounds or reargue the case.\nCitation:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 221\nReferences:\n2000 PTD (Trib.) 2668, 1996 PTD (Trib.) 244, 1983 PTD 246, PLD 2001 SC 201", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1),66,66A,156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No.406/LB of 2003, decision dated: 16-03-2004, hearing DATE : 6-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Applicant. Waqar Mehmood Khilji, D.R.and Shahid Jami Khan, LA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 74 = 2004 SLD 74 = 2004 PTD 2048", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ex parte assessment in discontinued business\nDetails: The complainant had discontinued his business and left the country without informing the tax department. An ex parte assessment was conducted despite evidence indicating that the complainant had ceased operations. The Ombudsman found that the inquiry conducted was superficial, lacking proper investigation into the business's status.\nConclusion: The assessments were characterized as maladministration, with recommendations to cancel the consolidated assessments for multiple years. The Ombudsman also suggested monitoring the officials involved for a year.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 72, 63 & 56; Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.119; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,63,72 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=119,122,122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.766 L of 2003, decision dated: 22-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Muneer Hussain for the Complainant, Moazzam Bashir, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mian SHABBIR AHMAD FAROOQI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 75 = 2004 SLD 75 = 2004 PTD 2051 = (2004) 90 TAX 352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment of non-resident income from technical services\nDetails: The complainant provided mud logging services to oil exploration companies and filed a return under S.55 of the Income Tax Ordinance. However, the assessment was made under S.62/80AA, treating gross receipts as fees for technical services without proper notice or consideration of the complainant's claims. The Tribunal annulled the assessment due to procedural violations and failure to provide an opportunity for the complainant to be heard.\nConclusion: The assessment order did not comply with legal requirements, leading to its annulment by the Appellate Tribunal.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 80AA/62, 55, 22 & 23.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,23,55,62,80,80AA,80AA(2),80AA(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 705/IB of 2003, decision dated: 12-04-2004, hearing DATE : 9-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aaqib Hussain, ITP for Appellant, Khalid Javed, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 76 = 2004 SLD 76 = 2004 PTD 2057", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Confirmation of assessment order by First Appellate Authority\nDetails: The First Appellate Authority confirmed an assessment order that was contrary to law, disregarding clear evidence of mala fide intentions and administrative lapses. The Ombudsman highlighted failures in administrative control and recommended actions to ensure adherence to legal standards in tax assessments and timely issuance of refunds.\nConclusion: Recommendations included ensuring rule of law among tax officers and issuing overdue refunds with compensation for delays. The Ombudsman emphasized the need for accountability within tax administration.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 59A, 62, 96; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),2(3)(1)(d),2(3)(ii) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,59,59A,61,62,96,102,129,156 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,121,122,159 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 779 K of 2003, decision dated: 28-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant in person Sultan Nazir, IAC, Basit Saleem Shah, T.O. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SOHAIL ZAHEER LARI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 77 = 2004 SLD 77 = 2004 PTD 2074 = (2004) 90 TAX 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of assessments based on previously available information\nDetails: The reopening of assessments was based on information already available during the original assessment under S.59A. The Assessing Officer failed to recognize that detailed proceedings had already been conducted and notices issued regarding these transactions. This led to a misapplication of the law concerning self-assessment and concealment issues.\nConclusion: The appeal by the Department was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal due to improper reopening procedures and reliance on previously considered information without new evidence justifying such actions.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 65, 59A & 59(1). These cases illustrate significant challenges within tax administration, particularly concerning adherence to legal procedures and principles of natural justice in assessments. Recommendations from the Federal Tax Ombudsman aim to enhance accountability and rectify instances of maladministration within tax authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,59(1),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 791/IB of 2003, decision dated: 7-04-2004hearing DATE : 7-04-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Javed, DR for Appellant, Ghulam Sarwar and G. Abbas Chatha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 78 = 2004 SLD 78 = 2004 PTD 2078 = (2004) 90 TAX 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 65(3A)\nAdditional Assessment Limitation\n•\nTopic: Limitation for assessment and constitutional petition.\n•\nIssue: Whether the period consumed in a constitutional petition before the High Court should be excluded while computing the limitation period under S. 65(3A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the period consumed in the constitutional petition, from the date of filing to disposal by the High Court, should indeed be excluded when calculating the limitation under S. 65(3A). The assessment, made on 28th June 1999, was within the time limit as it was made before the expiry of the extended deadline (30th June 2000). Therefore, the assessment was valid.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 65(3A).\n•\nOutcome: The appeal filed by Revenue was accepted, and the order passed by the First Appellate Authority was vacated by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=64,65,65(3A),65(1),66,66(1),111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3014/LB of 2000 and 2456/LB of 2003, decision dated: 10-03-2004hearing DATE : 10-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zulfiquar Ali, D.R. for Appellant, Miss Ayesha Qazi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 79 = 2004 SLD 79 = 2004 PTD 2087 = (2004) 90 TAX 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Income deemed to accrue or arise in Pakistan – Bonus Shares (S. 12(9A) & Second Sched., Part IV, Cl. (59))\n•\nDetails: The distribution of bonus shares does not satisfy the conditions of Cl. (59) of Part IV of the Second Schedule. Bonus shares are not categorized as dividends under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nConclusion: Bonus shares are not treated as dividends under the Ordinance.\n•\nCitation: (2003) 87 Tax 524 (Trib.) distinguished.\n________________________________________\n(b) Topic: Definition of Dividend (S. 2(20))\n•\nDetails: Section 2(20) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, explicitly excludes bonus shares from the definition of dividend. \n•\nConclusion: Bonus shares cannot be treated as dividends as per the legal definition.\n________________________________________\n(c) Topic: Bonus Shares as Income (S. 12(9))\n•\nDetails: Under the scheme of the Income Tax Ordinance during the relevant period, bonus shares were treated as the income of the company, not the shareholders.\n•\nConclusion: Bonus shares are considered income of the company under S. 12(9).\n________________________________________\n(d) Topic: Legislative Purpose of S. 12(9A)\n•\nDetails: Subsection 12(9A) was introduced to ensure the payment of cash dividends to shareholders, addressing their concerns about non-distribution of cash by companies. It also aimed to secure 10% tax revenue for the government on dividends. Issuance of bonus shares did not achieve these objectives.\n•\nConclusion: Bonus shares fail to meet the legislative purpose of S. 12(9A).\n________________________________________\n(e) Topic: Tax Implications of Bonus Shares (S. 12(9A) & Second Sched., Part I, Cl. (108))\n•\nDetails: Bonus shares represent a capitalization of profits without any cash transfer to shareholders. This deprives the government of tax revenue, as profits are tax-exempt under Cl. (108).\n•\nConclusion: Bonus shares create a tax loophole as income remains untaxed.\n________________________________________\n(f) Topic: Reserves and Bonus Shares (S. 12(9A) & S. 66A)\n•\nDetails: Bonus share reserves created from accumulated profits are included as reserves for tax computation purposes, contrary to the assessee's claim that they are capital reserves.\n•\nConclusion: Bonus reserves are taxable, and the Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s computation was upheld.\n•\nCitation: (2003) 87 Tax 524 (Trib.); I.T.A. No. 1117/LB of 2002 ref.; I.T.A. No. 4304/LB of 2001 per incuriam.\n________________________________________\n(g) Topic: Precedents in Supreme Court Observations\n•\nDetails: Observations recorded by the Supreme Court of Pakistan carry legal authority, even when they are in the nature of obiter dicta.\n•\nConclusion: Obiter dicta from the Supreme Court hold binding legal weight.\n________________________________________\n(h) Topic: Definition of Reserves under S. 12(9A)\n•\nDetails: Reserves, as per S. 12(9A), exclude capital reserves, share premium reserves, and statutory reserves.\n•\nConclusion: Bonus share reserves are included in taxable reserves.\n________________________________________\n(i) Topic: Meaning of “Pay” (S. 25(e))\n•\nDetails: The term “pay” encompasses monetary payment or compensation in goods, shares, or property.\n•\nConclusion: Payment can take various forms, including goods or property.\n•\nCitations: Oxford Dictionary; New Webster's Dictionary; Chambers 20th Century Dictionary; Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. LXX, p. 70.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(20),12,12(9),12(9A),23,25,25(c),65,66,66A,66A(1A),SecondSched.PartIV,Cl.59,PartI,Cl.108,ThirdSched.,8,8(8)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2097/LB of 2002, decision dated: 28-02-2004, hearing DATE : 14-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiquar Ali, A.C.A. and Shahzad Hussain, F.C.A. for Appellant, Zulfiquar Ali, D.R. and Shahid Jamil Khan, L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 80 = 2004 SLD 80 = 2004 PTD 2105 = (2002) 254 ITR 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Tax at Source for Salaries Paid by Foreign Companies (S. 201(1), (1A))\n•\nDetails: Japanese employees working under a collaboration agreement in India received salaries directly from a Japanese company. A notice was issued for failure to deduct tax at source. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that legal jurisdiction was proper.\n•\nConclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's ruling, directing the appellants to reply to the notice and defend their case before the tax authority.\n•\nCitation: Indo Asahi Glass Co. v. I.T.O, (1996) 222 ITR 534.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2040 of 1997, decision dated: 11-09-2001(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 17, 1996 of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No.2278 of 1996)", + "Judge Name:": "B. N. KIRPAL, K. G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Debi Pal, Senior Advocate Rahul Dave Anant Kumar, Ms. Priya Hingorani, and Pradeep Kumar Bakhsi, Advocates with him for Appellants Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate, Ms. Lakhsmi Iyengar, B.V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri. Advocates with him for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "INDO ASAHI GLASS CO. LTD. and another\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 81 = 2004 SLD 81 = 2004 PTD 2107 = (2002) 254 ITR 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVES1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable Trust and Tax Exemption (Ss. 11, 13(1)(b) & Expln. 2)\n•\nDetails: A trust for Muslim community welfare attempted to broaden its beneficiary scope. However, it lacked the legal authority to amend its objectives as per the original trust deed.\n•\nConclusion: The trust was not exempt as its benefits were not limited to backward classes in Kerala, and changes to the objectives were unauthorized.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust (1999) 236 ITR 722 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4294 to 4303 of 2000 with Civil Appeal No. 5021 of 2000, decision dated: 19-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate, Rajiv Tyagi, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Sushma Suri. Advocates with him for AppellantE.M.S. Anam, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nPALGHAT SHADI MAHAL TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 82 = 2004 SLD 82 = 2004 PTD 2111 = (2002) 254 ITR 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appellate Tribunal’s Fact-Based Decisions (S. 256(2))\n•\nDetails: Tribunal found an income addition unsustainable as it was based on pure guesswork. No legal question arose for reconsideration.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal’s factual conclusions are final, and no remand for reassessment was necessary.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 6384 of 2001, decision dated: 14-09-2001(Appeal by Special Leave from the order, dated August 16, 2000 of the Allahabad High Court in I.T.A. No.35 of 1999)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (R.K. Raghavan, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mrs. Shomita Bakhsi and Ms. Aishwarya Rao for AppellantRanbir Chandra and B.V. Balram Das for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "J. J. ENTERPRISES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 83 = 2004 SLD 83 = 2004 PTD 2116 = (2002) 254 ITR 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Bogus Purchases and Sales (S. 256(2))\n•\nDetails: Additions related to bogus purchases and unaccounted sales were deleted by the Tribunal. These findings were based solely on evidence appreciation.\n•\nConclusion: No legal question arises, and Tribunal’s decision stands.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 823 and 824 of 2002, decision dated: 29-01-2002(Appeals by special leave from the order, dated February 28, 2001 of the Karnataka High Court in Civil Petitions Nos. 132 and 132 A of 1999)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, C.J.I., K. T. THOMAS AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. S.R. Anuradha Pradeep, Ms. Kavitha Wadra Mahinder Singh and Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh Advocates for AppellantSoli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General of India (Ranbir Chandra and B.V. Balram Das, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SARASWATHI OIL TRADERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 84 = 2004 SLD 84 = 2004 PTD 2118 = (2002) 254 ITR 434 = (2004) 89 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deemed Profits and Cessation of Liability (S. 41(1))\n•\nDetails: Purchase tax liability contested by the sales tax department could not be deemed to have ceased due to unilateral write-back by the assessee.\n•\nConclusion: Liability remains until fully resolved with the Sales Tax Department.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 362.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1581 of 2001, decision dated: 19-03-2002(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 19, 1999 of the Kerala High Curt in I.T.R. No. 16 of 1997)", + "Judge Name:": "S. RAJENDRA BABU, K. G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Tyagi and B.V. Balram Das, Advocates for AppellantMs. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nKESARIA TEA CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 85 = 2004 SLD 85 = 2004 PTD 2125 = (2002) 254 ITR 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Allowability of service charges as business expenditure\n•\nDetails: The question was whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deductions for service charges amounting to ₹1,82,03,470 or a portion thereof. The Tribunal found the agreements genuine, and the payments were substantiated. The High Court expressed suspicion but ruled out reassessment since the Tribunal had investigated facts thoroughly.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal’s findings were upheld as it is the final authority for factual determinations. No reassessment was required.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Balaji Enterprises (1999) 236 ITR 589 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals No. 4413 of 2001, decision dated: 20-07-2001(Appeal by special leave from the order, dated February 8, 1999 of the Madras High Court in T.C.P. No.820 of 1997)", + "Judge Name:": "B.N. KIRPAL AND S. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. A. Subhashini and B, V.B. Das, Advocates, for the Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nBALAJI ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 86 = 2004 SLD 86 = 2004 PTD 2127 = (2002) 254 ITR 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxation of undistributed profits and dividends\n•\nDetails: Taxation on a company's undistributed profits under Section 104 does not constitute double taxation when shareholders are taxed on dividends received. The nature of income changes when it is received by shareholders.\n•\nConclusion: Taxation of dividends in shareholders’ hands is valid and distinct from corporate tax.\n•\nCitation: S. Radhakrishnan v. I.T.O. (1985) 156 ITR 538 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 6050 to 6052 of 1990, decision dated: 10-12-1998(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 9, 1982 of the Madras High Court in C. R. Ps. Nos. 129 to 131 of 1980)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (C.V.S. Rao and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellants, Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER and another\nvs\nS. RADHA KRISHNAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 87 = 2004 SLD 87 = 2004 PTD 2130 = (2002) 254 ITR 785", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Sale of unyielding rubber trees\n•\nDetails: Agreements splitting consideration between latex and fuel value were scrutinized. For agreements lacking explicit division, the High Court presumed a bifurcation based on past agreements, which was overturned by the Supreme Court.\n•\nConclusion: Latex value is income, and fuel value is capital where explicitly stated. No presumption of latex value is allowed without evidence.\n•\nCitation: High Court decision dated January 4, 1984.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1763 to 1765 of 1987, decision dated: 3rd December, 1998(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated January 4, 1984 of the Madras High Court in T.C. Nos. 1602 of 1981 and 392 and 393 of 1982)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.A Dave, Senior, Advocate K.J. John for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "KANTHIMATHI PLANTATIONS LTD.\nvs\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 57 = 2000 SLD 57 = 2000 PTD 3639 = (1999) 238 ITR 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of unremitted sales tax\n•\nDetails: Sales tax collected but not remitted forms part of the trading receipt and is taxable as income. The Tribunal ruled that ₹2,40,513 of unremitted sales tax was liable for taxation.\n•\nConclusion: Sales tax collection is a taxable revenue receipt if not paid.\n•\nCitation: Chowringhee Sales Bureau (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 87 ITR 542.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.200 of 1984, decision dated: 10-02-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "J. N. BHATT AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Naik with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nAHMEDABAD EAGLE ENGG. (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 58 = 2000 SLD 58 = 2000 PTD 1920 = (1999) 235 ITR 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Validity of penalty on surrendered income\n•\nDetails: Penalty was imposed for non-disclosure of income discovered during a survey. The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of penalties, citing a lack of strict adherence to voluntary disclosure rules.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal was justified in canceling penalties; the question of law was referred.\n•\nCitation: Banaras Chemical Factory v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 96.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.62 and 63 of 1989 and 3 of 1990, decision dated: 28-11-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "G. S. SINGHVI AND K. S. KUMARAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. S. Mahajan and Ms. Aparna Mahajan for Petitioner, G. S. Sandhawalia for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBEDI KARYANA STORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 88 = 2004 SLD 88 = 2004 PTD 2134 = (2002) 254 TAX 791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Validity of reassessment notice\n•\nDetails: The assessee had disclosed all facts regarding interest on doubtful loans in the original assessment. Reassessment under Section 147(a) was deemed invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Reassessment notices issued without new information are invalid.\n•\nCitation: State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.4733 of 1991 and 4584 to 4590 of 1990, decision dated: 3rd February, 1999.(Appeal by special leave from the judgments and orders dated September 20, 1983, October 28, 1983 October, 21, 1983, October 25, 1983, November 2, 1983, November 8, 1983 a-11-10, 1983", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate, S. Rajappa and B.K. Prasad Advocates with him for Appellant. S.N. Bhatt, Advocate for Respondent (in C.A. No. 4733 of 1991).Mrs. Janki Ramchandran, Advocate for Respondent (in C.As. Nos.4584 to 4590 of 1990)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCORPORATION BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 89 = 2004 SLD 89 = 2004 PTD 2138 = (2002) 254 ITR 772", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVETFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Retrospective application of amendment\n•\nDetails: Amendments to Section 150 extending reassessment limits were prospective and did not apply to cases already barred by limitation before April 1, 1989.\n•\nConclusion: Retrospective application of limitation provisions is invalid.\n•\nCitation: K.M. Sharma v. ITO (1996) 221 ITR 202 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 7742 of 1997, decision dated: 11-04-2002(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated May 24, 1996, of the Delhi High Court in C. W. P. No. 1152 of 1996)", + "Judge Name:": "S.P. BHARUCHA, C.J.I., N.SANTOSH HEGDE AND D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (R.R. Dwivedi, Durgainder Singh and Ramdhir Singh Jain, Advocates) for Appellant. R.P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, Ms. Lakhsmi Iyengar, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "K. M. SHARMA\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 90 = 2004 SLD 90 = 2004 PTD 2147 = (2002) 253 ITR 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Public issue expenses as capital expenditure\n•\nDetails: A company increased capital as directed by the Reserve Bank to reduce non-residential holdings. Expenses incurred were deemed capital in nature.\n•\nConclusion: Public issue expenses for increasing capital are capital expenditure.\n•\nCitation: Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 6853 of 1999, decision dated: 17-09-2001(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated March 20, 1997 of the Bombay High Court in I. T. R. No. 97 of 1988)", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Soli J. Sorabji, Attorney General of India (Pritesh Kapur, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Susma Suri, Advocates with him) for AppellantF.V.Irani, Senior Advocate (S. Balakrishnan, Atul Y. Chitale and Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKODAK INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 91 = 2004 SLD 91 = 2004 PTD 2149 = (2002) 253 ITR 800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Export Business Deduction\nTopic: Deduction under Section 80HHC\n•\nDetails: The question involved whether deductions under Section 80HHC should be calculated before or after adjusting unabsorbed losses. The Supreme Court directed this to be decided by the High Court.\n•\nConclusion: The calculation method for deductions constitutes a legal question.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Gogineni Tobacco Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 970 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3790 of 1999, decision dated: 15-07-1999(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 16, 1998 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Income tax Case No.45 of 1998)", + "Judge Name:": "B.N. KIRPAL AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General of India (Tara Chand Sharma and S. K. Dwivedi, Advocates with him) for AppellantA. Subba Rao, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nGOGINENI TOBACCO LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 92 = 2004 SLD 92 = 2004 PTD 2150 = (2002) 253 ITR 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Allowability under Section 37\n•\nDetails: Incentive bonuses not admissible under Section 36(1)(ii) were debated for admissibility under Section 37. The matter was referred for adjudication.\n•\nConclusion: Applicability under Section 37 constitutes a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.545 of 2002, decision dated: 18-01-2002.(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 15, 1999 of the Allahabad High Court in I.T. Application No. 155 of 1997)", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S. N. VARIAVA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General of India (Rajiv Tyagi and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates with him) for AppellantRakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate (Vishwajit Singh and Ravi Kumar Verma, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKISAN SEHKARI CHINI MILL LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 93 = 2004 SLD 93 = 2004 PTD 2156 = (2002) 255 ITR 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Validity of provisions for loans and deposits\n•\nDetails: Section 269SS mandating account payee transactions was upheld as constitutional. The provisions aimed to curb false accounting and unaccounted money.\n•\nConclusion: Provisions of Section 269SS are valid and within legislative competence.\n•\nCitation: Kumari A.B. Shanthi v. Assistant Director of Inspection (1992) 197 ITR 330 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 1992 with Civil Appeal No.4478 of 2000, decision dated: 3rd May, 2002Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2001(Civil Appeal No.4478 of 2000 is from the judgment and order, dated March 25, 2000, of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.5447 of 1999).", + "Judge Name:": "IESENTR. P. SETHI AND K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Attorney General of India; Soli J. Sorabjee. Senior Advocates. S. Ganesh and T.L.V. Iyer.", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION (INVESTIGATION)\nvs\nKUM. A.B. SHANTHI CHAMUNDI GRANITES (PV0T.) Ltd.\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 94 = 2004 SLD 94 = 2004 PTD 2166 = (2002) 255 ITR 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of agricultural land within municipal limits\n•\nDetails: Sale of agricultural land within municipal limits of Pathankot was held taxable under capital gains provisions.\n•\nConclusion: Capital gains from such sales are taxable.\n•\nCitation: Singhal Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 150.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Transferred Cases Nos. 19 to 24 of 1990, decision dated: 21st March, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nada, Ajay Sharma, B.V.B. Balaram Das and P. Parameshwaran, Advocates, with him) for the Commissioner. Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM.L. MAHAJAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 95 = 2004 SLD 95 = 2004 PTD 2168 = (2002) 255 ITR 647", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Treatment of statutory compensation\n•\nDetails: Compensation for the injurious effect on unacquired land under Section 23(1) was included in the full value of consideration for capital gains.\n•\nConclusion: Statutory compensation forms part of capital gains.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Smt. P. Mahalakshmi (1982) 134 ITR 428.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.3468 to 3476 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd April, 1996.(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October, 13 and 14, 1981, of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.R. Nos.83, 101 to 105, 113, 114 and 118 of 1978)", + "Judge Name:": "B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Gopal Jain, Advocate, for Mukul Mudgal, Advocate for Appellant36Manoj Arora, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Smt. P. MAHALAKSHMI and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 96 = 2004 SLD 96 = 2004 PTD 2170 = (2002) 255 ITR 508 = (2003) 87 TAX 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Scope of Section 133(6)\n•\nDetails: The tax authority's power to seek information was upheld even in the absence of pending proceedings, provided approval from the Director or Commissioner was obtained.\n•\nConclusion: Section 133(6) allows information collection without pending proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 3804, 3898, 4076 and 4074 of 2002, decision dated: 25-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "B. N. KIRPAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Sarangan, Senior Advocate (Sanjay Kunur and N.N. Keshwani, Advocates with him) for Petitioners.", + "Party Name:": "KARNATAKA BANK LTD. and others\nvs\nSECRETARY, GOVENRMENT OF INDIA arid others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 97 = 2004 SLD 97 = 2004 PTD 2176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Boards established for educational purposes\n•\nDetails: Income tax deductions for educational boards were disallowed initially. The Court ruled that such boards were educational institutions and exempt from taxation.\n•\nConclusion: Boards serving educational purposes are tax-exempt.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinances of 1979 & 2001, Sched. II.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=53,Sched.II,ItemNo.86 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,SecondSched.II,ItemNo.86 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1974 of 2001 and 121 of 2004, heard on 7-04-2004hearing DATE : 7-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afnan Karim Kundi and Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Petitioners, Arshad Majeed Malik and Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI through Secretary\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE 27, RAWALPINDI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 98 = 2004 SLD 98 = 2004 PTD 2199 = (2004) 90 TAX 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Notice of attachment during pending appeals\n•\nDetails: The assessee, a cooperative society, challenged the attachment of its bank accounts while appeals were pending. The High Court ruled that factual disputes could not be addressed under constitutional jurisdiction but recognized the urgency of the situation, as attachment hindered daily operations.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court directed the Commissioner to resolve the appeal or decide the application for interim relief within one month.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 138(2); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=138,138(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8178 of 2004, decision dated: 28-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Hammad Aslam for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "E.M.E. COOPERATIVE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 57 = 2000 SLD 57 = 2000 PTD 1923 = (1999) 240 ITR 355 = (2000) 82 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Consistency in stock valuation methods for banks\n•\nDetails: A nationalized bank valued investments at cost for balance sheets (per the Banking Regulation Act) and at cost or market value (whichever lower) for tax purposes for 30 years. The Department rejected this method for a specific year, but the court found the practice valid.\n•\nConclusion: The method consistently followed by the bank for income tax was valid and could not be rejected.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. UCO Bank (1993) 200 ITR 68 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 11888 of 1995, decision dated: 29-09-1999.(Appeal from the judgment and, order, dated July 25, 1991 of the Calcutta High Court in I.T.R. 73 of 1989).", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. WADHWA AND M. B. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramesh Singh, Ms. Bina Gupta, J. S. Goswami and Ms. Vanita Bhargaua, Advocates for Appellant.Ranbir Chandra and S. K. Dwivedi, Advocates for Respondent. Dr. D. P. Pal, Senior Advocate (Ms. Somitra Choudhari, Ms. Priya Hingorani and Aman Hingorani, Advocates with him) for the Intervener", + "Party Name:": "UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 99 = 2004 SLD 99 = 2004 PTD 2219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Validity of concealment allegations under the Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nDetails: The Department alleged concealment of a bank balance under the Self-Assessment Scheme without adhering to procedural safeguards, including the approval of senior officers. The Appellate Tribunal overturned the concealment order, citing incompetence and procedural lapses.\n•\nConclusion: Allegations of concealment lacked merit, and the declared income under the Self-Assessment Scheme was accepted.\n•\nCitation: Blacks Law Dictionary, p. 208; Lakhmichand Baijnath v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959) ITR 35.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),59,62,111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2228/LB and 454/LB of 1998, decision dated: 10-10-1998hearing DATE : 6-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Afzal for Appellant, Asad Ali Jan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 100 = 2004 SLD 100 = 2004 PTD 2225 = (2004) 90 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax treatment of gain from the sale of an Association of Persons (AOP) share\n•\nDetails: The assessee's 10% share in an AOP was sold, realizing a capital gain. The Assessing Officer treated it as business income, but the Tribunal annulled the order, stating that the gain was clearly capital in nature.\n•\nConclusion: The gain was correctly classified as a capital gain and not business income.\n•\nCitation: I.T.A. No. 5572/LB of 2002.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,27,27(2)(a)(1)(ii),ThirdSched,7 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 552/LB of 2002, decision dated: 10-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Ali Shah, DR for Appellant. Mirza Saleem Baig for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 58 = 2000 SLD 58 = 2000 PTD 2228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment on joint accounts and Federal Tax Ombudsman’s intervention\n•\nDetails: The assessee and his father maintained a joint account and were assessed as an AOP without filing returns. The Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the proceedings lacked legal sanction and were influenced by undue pressure on the complainant.\n•\nConclusion: The Ombudsman recommended an independent audit and departmental action for procedural irregularities.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,80C,143B Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 855 L of 2003, decision dated: 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Complainant. Dr. Khalid Malik, (D. C.I.T.) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AFNAN INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 101 = 2004 SLD 101 = 2004 PTD 2231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Legality of rejecting accounts for unverifiable transactions\n•\nDetails: The Assessing Officer rejected accounts citing unverifiability but failed to quantify or substantiate claims. The Tribunal ruled that sales estimation lacked a basis, and ad hoc additions were impermissible.\n•\nConclusion: The accounts should have been accepted, and additions were invalid without specific evidence.\n•\nCitation: 2003) 88 Tax 48 (Trib.); Messrs Ayenbee (Pvt.) Ltd. v. ITAT (2002) PTD 407.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3561/LB, 3562/LB, 4105/LB and 4106/LB of 2002, decision dated: 25-03-2004, hearing DATE : 13-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmed Shad, D.R. for Appellant. Sajid Ejaz Hotiana for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 102 = 2004 SLD 102 = 2004 PTD 2250 = (2004) 90 TAX 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction at Source and Rental Income\nTopic: Obligation to deduct tax on rental payments\n•\nDetails: The assessee failed to deduct withholding tax on rental payments exceeding ₹100,000. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty, rejecting the argument that the payments were to individual co-owners rather than an AOP.\n•\nConclusion: Tax deduction was obligatory as the rent was paid to an AOP and not individual co-owners.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Packages Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (1993) SCMR 1224.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24C,50,50(7B),21,19,2(32),2,52,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 264/KB of 2003, decision dated: 3rd April, 2004, hearing DATE : 2-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. A. MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nizam-ud-Din, ITP for Appellant. Gohar Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 103 = 2004 SLD 103 = 2004 PTD 2255 = (2004) 90 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Electric Power Projects\nTopic: Income classification for exemption purposes\n•\nDetails: Interest on share capital deposits was claimed as exempt under Item 176, Second Schedule. The court clarified that only profits from power generation activities qualify for exemption, not interest from share capital deposits.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption under Item 176 does not apply to interest income on share capital deposits.\n•\nCitation: Messrs Packages Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (1993) SCMR 1224 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Item176,80B(2)(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1357 of 1999 alongwith Civil Appeals Nos.916 918, 1069, 1070 of 2000 and Civil Appeal No. 1295 of 2001, decision dated: 18-05-2004. dates of hearing: 17th and 18-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, RANA BHAGWANDAS AND KHALIL UR REHMAN RAMDAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ejaz Muhammad Khan Advocate on-Record (absent) and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos. 1357, 916 of 1999, 9.17, 918, 1069, 1070 of 2000 and 1205 of 2001).\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Mahmood ul Islam, Advocate on-Record (absent) and Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate on-Record for Respondents (in Civil Appeals Nos. 1357, 916 of 1999, 917, 1069, 1070 of 2000 and 1295 of 2001).\nMalik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate on-Record for Respondents (in Civil Appeal No. 918 of 2000).", + "Party Name:": "GENERTECH PAKISTAN LTD. and others\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1 = 2003 SLD 1 = 2003 PTD 1 = (2003) 87 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Nature of excise duty based on production capacity\n•\nDetails: Excise duty levied on production capacity was claimed as a profit and loss expense. The court ruled it as part of the manufacturing and trading account since the levy method did not change the nature of the duty.\n•\nConclusion: Excise duty is a manufacturing expense and should be debited to the trading account.\n•\nCitation: Muhammad Younis v. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1964 SC 113).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,3(4),3(1)(4) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 1 of 1983, decision dated: 4-09-2002, hearing DATE : 18-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Saleem Ch., M. Iqbal Hashmi and Manzoor Ahmad Sh. For Appellants. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Mian Ashiq Hussain for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TANZEB TEXTILE INDUSTRIES, FAISALABAD\nvs\nC.I.T., FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 2 = 2003 SLD 2 = 2003 PTD 9 = (2003) 87 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withdrawal of exemption certificate and recovery of taxes\n•\nDetails: The exemption certificate issued to the assessee was withdrawn retroactively, and recovery proceedings were initiated. The Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration, noting that retroactive withdrawal of certificates caused undue hardship and violated the law. The responsibility to determine tax exemption during assessment rested solely with the Assessing Officer.\n•\nConclusion: Recommended that the Commissioner invoke jurisdiction under Section 138 to provide relief, allow the assessee to present claims, and resolve issues following the proper legal framework.\n•\nCitation: Central Insurance Co. v. C.B.R. (1993) SCC 1049 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52A,52,50(2A),56,138,SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(86) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1369 of 2001, decision dated: 6-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BANNU\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 3 = 2003 SLD 3 = 2003 PTD 27 = (2003) 87 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Grant Exemption\nTopic: Arbitrary denial of tax exemption\n•\nDetails: The assessee's claim for an 8-year exemption under Clause (118C) was rejected. Despite appellate remand, exemption was denied again. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended invoking Section 138 to provide relief and criticized the department's failure to act on the recommendation proactively.\n•\nConclusion: Maladministration was established, and the Commissioner was directed to rectify the denial and grant the exemption.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.138.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138,SecondSched.,Cl.(118C) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 350 of 2002, decision dated: 7-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shafqat for the Complainant. Taj Hamid, D.C.I.T., Company, Circle 12, Peshawar for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NISAR ICE & COLD STORAGE (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 4 = 2003 SLD 4 = 2003 PTD 46 = (2003) 88 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Appeal Issues\nTopic: Refund pending reassessment due to appellate references\n•\nDetails: The assessee claimed a refund based on appellate orders. The Federal Tax Ombudsman noted that a refund could not be granted while reassessment was pending. The Department failed to communicate this clearly to the assessee.\n•\nConclusion: While the refund claim was dismissed, the department was advised to explain legal positions promptly to avoid confusion.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.100, 102.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),50(5),13,13(1)(aa),100,102 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 169 of 2002, decision dated: 7-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. Naeem Rao, A.R. for the Complainant. Ahmad Hussain Khan, D.C.I.T., Circle 19, Faisalabad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GHAUSIA METAL CLOSURES, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 5 = 2003 SLD 5 = 2003 PTD 68 = (2003) 87 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit for Azad Jammu & Kashmir Residents\nTopic: Transfer of tax credits for cross-border assessees\n•\nDetails: Taxes deducted at the source were not credited to Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) due to intergovernmental issues. The Federal Tax Ombudsman highlighted the need for coordination between the Governments of Pakistan and AJK to resolve such matters.\n•\nConclusion: Recommended that the Revenue Division engage with relevant ministries to address the issue systematically.\n•\nCitation: C.B.R. Circular No. 13 of 1998.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 109 L of 2002, decision dated: 10-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt and Nazir Ahmad, General Manager for the Complainant. Muhammad Tahir, D.C.I.T., Companies Zone I for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "DIAMOND POLYMERS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 6 = 2003 SLD 6 = 2003 PTD 71 = (2002) 86 TAX 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Invalid assessments due to procedural flaws\n•\nDetails: Assessments based on reports from Inspectors were found invalid due to errors and procedural lapses, including the misattribution of looms and improper service of demand notices.\n•\nConclusion: Recommended cancellation of assessments, initiation of fresh inquiries, and potential disciplinary action against inspectors for false reporting.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.63, 132.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,132 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 328 of 2002, decision dated: 5-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant in person. Muazzam Bashir, D.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "UMAIR IBRAHIM PROPRIETOR MESSRS USMAN WEAVING FACTORY, HAFIZABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 7 = 2003 SLD 7 = 2003 PTD 77 = (2003) 87 TAX 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Petition for Appeal and Settlement\nTopic: Settlement of tax disputes through consent\n•\nDetails: The petitioner agreed to pay the assessed amount in a demand notice while requesting the court to ensure no penalties or criminal actions were initiated.\n•\nConclusion: The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and directed compliance with the agreed terms.\n•\nCitation: Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.864 L to 867 L of 2001, decision dated: 22-06-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate on-Record for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Mian HANIF MUNNOO through his Legal Heirs\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 8 = 2003 SLD 8 = 2003 PTD 99 = (2003) 87 TAX 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nTopic: Dismissal of complaints under Section 156 for non-apparent errors\n•\nDetails: The assessee sought rectification of interest income additions, but the Federal Tax Ombudsman found no apparent error that could be addressed under Section 156.\n•\nConclusion: The complaint was dismissed as rectification provisions could not address substantive disagreements.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.156", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),62,80,80B,138,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 528 L of 2001, decision dated: 30-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "None for the Complainant. Wajid Akram, D.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SPECIAL FABRICS LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 9 = 2003 SLD 9 = 2003 PTD 101 = (2003) 87 TAX 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Calculations\nTopic: Basis of penalty for failure to maintain accounts\n•\nDetails: The dispute concerned whether penalties should be calculated on the basis of tax payable or tax chargeable. The Tribunal clarified that penalties must reflect the tax chargeable on specific income sources for which accounts were not maintained.\n•\nConclusion: Penalties were recalibrated based on tax chargeable, emphasizing intent (mens rea) in assessments.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.109, 32.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,109 Income Tax Rules, 1982=28,29 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 611/IB and 612/IB of 1998 99, decision dated: 15-06-2002, hearing DATE : 4-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Ghulam Hussain, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 10 = 2003 SLD 10 = 2003 PTD 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Procedural Lapses\nTopic: Validity of reassessments after jurisdiction transfer\n•\nDetails: Reassessment was conducted without addressing earlier annulments and technical lapses. The Tribunal criticized the lack of procedural compliance but upheld reassessment rights within jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: Reassessment was allowed with caveats for correcting procedural flaws.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.65.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),65 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1578/KB of 1999 2000, decision dated: 20-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. S. Jafri for Appellant. Amjad Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 11 = 2003 SLD 11 = 2003 PTD 125 = (2003) 87 TAX 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding of Refunds\nTopic: Legitimacy of withholding refunds pending appeals\n•\nDetails: The department withheld a refund citing a pending appeal but failed to justify the delay or the basis for withholding.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman advised reviewing departmental practices to prevent unnecessary hardships.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.103.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=103 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 322 of 2002, decision dated: 12-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Masood Ishaq for the Complainant. Manzur Ahmed, D.C.I.T. for respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AHMAD JAUHARABAD (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 12 = 2003 SLD 12 = 2003 PTD 128 = (2003) 87 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Order Validity\nTopic: Written orders in self-assessment cases\n•\nDetails: Taxpayer challenged the validity of assessments processed under IT-30 forms, arguing they lacked formal written orders. The Tribunal upheld the need for explicit written orders.\n•\nConclusion: Assessments without formal written orders were deemed invalid.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.59, 62.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),59(1)(3),62,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6625/LB, 6625 A/LB and 6625 B/LB of 1996, decision dated: 3rd May, 2002, hearing DATE : 26-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Memo for Appellant. Muhammad Asif for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 13 = 2003 SLD 13 = 2003 PTD 132 = (2003) 87 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Senior Citizen Rebate\nTopic: Eligibility for tax deduction benefits\n•\nDetails: A senior citizen applied for a tax deduction certificate, citing eligibility for a 50% rebate. However, changes in law invalidated the claim.\n•\nConclusion: Recommended priority processing of the assessment to issue appropriate refunds.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.50(7B).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(7B),FirstSched.PartIpara.A,Cl.(iii),PartIV,Cl.(46) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 311 L of 2002, decision dated: 17-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD,) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant in person. Nemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SALEEM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 14 = 2003 SLD 14 = 2003 PTD 134 = (2003) 87 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery from Salary and Reassessment Lapses\nTopic: Procedural flaws in salary attachment and reassessment\n•\nDetails: Reassessment orders ignored appellate directions and were delayed excessively, leading to procedural deficiencies.\n•\nConclusion: Recommended a de novo reassessment and procedural improvements.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.92.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),92 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.450 of 2002, decision dated: 17-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAR OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant in person. Zubair Bilal, D.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. SARWARY BEGUM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 15 = 2003 SLD 15 = 2003 PTD 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revising Agreed Assessments\nTopic: Revision of assessments previously agreed upon\n•\nDetails: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner attempted to revise an agreed assessment, citing legal errors. The Tribunal held this action invalid due to the prior agreement.\n•\nConclusion: Revision under Section 66A was deemed illegal.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.66A.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3906/LB of 2000, decision dated: 31st August, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ijaz Hottiana; Muhammad Maqbool, A.C.A. for Appellant. Mian Javed ur Rehman, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 16 = 2003 SLD 16 = 2003 PTD 141 = (2003) 87 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Rectification of Mistakes\nTopic: Loss assessed, refund withheld due to maladministration\n•\nDetails: Refund was delayed as tax deductions were not incorporated in the IT-30 form. Applications for rectification remained unresolved due to the department's loss of records.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended verification and issuance of refunds within 30 days, disciplinary actions against responsible officers, and accountability for the loss of records.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.156, 50(4), and 92.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),92,156 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C 93/K of 2002, decision dated: 14-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Naqi for the Complainant. Chaudhry Muhammad Tariq, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "PERAC RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 17 = 2003 SLD 17 = 2003 PTD 145 = (2003) 87 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Tax Amnesty Scheme\nTopic: Delay in complaint resolution and misuse of Tax Amnesty Scheme provisions\n•\nDetails: Complaint involved reopening assessments despite declarations under the Tax Amnesty Scheme. Delay in filing complaints was condoned as the assessee had valid reasons.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended dropping proceedings initiated under Section 65 and canceling framed assessments, reaffirming the finality of the Tax Amnesty Scheme declarations.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.65; Complaint No. 1433 of 2001 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2)(b),10(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C 251/K of 2002, decision dated: 1st July, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khaliquzzaman, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Sheikh Muhammad Hanif, I.A.C. and Muhammad Aslam A.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AZIM DYEING & BLEACHING WORKS, PROPRIETOR MOHAMMAD SAMI, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 18 = 2003 SLD 18 = 2003 PTD 167 = (2003) 88 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction at Source and Additional Tax\nTopic: Clarification of procedural explanations in tax deduction laws\n•\nDetails: Explanation added to Section 50(4)(a) clarified procedural aspects without retrospective effects. The assessee's failure to deduct tax under Section 50(4) was highlighted.\n•\nConclusion: Recommended charging additional tax under Section 86 for failure to deduct, while rectifying any variance in the quantum of additional tax.\n•\nCitation: 1999 PTD 4147 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4)(a),Explanation,50(4),50(7A),52,86 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 401 of 2001, decision dated: 31st May, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Sheikh for the Complainant. Farooq Nasir, D.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMJAD, Messrs RAWALPINDI METAL CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., RAWALPINDI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 19 = 2003 SLD 19 = 2003 PTD 179 = (2003) 87 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Misreporting by Inspectors and Notices\nTopic: Issuance of income tax notices based on unfounded inspector reports\n•\nDetails: Inspectors wrongly reported that the complainant conducted business for years, leading to unwarranted notices.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended reprimanding involved officers and rectifying administrative excesses.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.56.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 305 of 2002, decision dated: 30-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAR OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Sattar for the Complainant. Mehmood Aslam, Secretary, C.B.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD IRFAN SATTAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 20 = 2003 SLD 20 = 2003 PTD 192 = (2003) 87 TAX 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction Misuse\nTopic: Unauthorized revision of orders concerning sale of opening stock\n•\nDetails: Inspecting Additional Commissioner attempted revisions despite compliance with applicable provisions.\n•\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal annulled the order, asserting that revisions must adhere to statutory limits.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.66A.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59A,66,66A,80,80C,80C(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.479/KB of 1996 97, decision dated: 23rd August, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar, I.T.P. for Appellate. Javed Iqbal Rana, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 21 = 2003 SLD 21 = 2003 PTD 194 = (2003) 87 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Maladministration\nTopic: Exclusion of cases from Universal Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nDetails: Tax authorities excluded the complainant from the scheme citing unfounded clarifications, despite compliance.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended accepting the return under the scheme and dropping normal assessment proceedings.\n•\nCitation: C.B.R. Letter No.7(55) S.Asstt./29.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=54,Explanation,61,62,59,59(1),80,80D Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,9(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.273 of 2002, decision dated: 5-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Abdul Ghafoor, ITP and Imran Rashid, A.Rs. for the Complainant. Mian Munawar Ghaffar, IAC, for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NISAR HAMEED WEAVING (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 22 = 2003 SLD 22 = 2003 PTD 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Assessments\nTopic: Validity of notices issued under Sections 65 and 66(2)\n•\nDetails: Appellate Tribunal upheld deletion of additions made for prior years, affirming the time limits under Section 66.\n•\nConclusion: Notices issued under Section 65 were validated but required adherence to prescribed limitations.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.65, 66(1), 66(2)(i).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),66(1),66(2)(i),65 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "C complaint No. 359 of 2002, decision dated: 28th August. 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Abbas for the Complainant. S.M. Ali, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "M. ISLAM QURESHI, PROPRIETOR MESSRS QURESHI CLOTH HOUSE, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 23 = 2003 SLD 23 = 2003 PTD 228 = (2003) 87 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Orders and Tax Credits\nTopic: Validity of computerized IT-30 forms as assessment orders\n•\nDetails: Computerized forms were deemed valid assessment orders, but adjustments to tax credits could be made through Section 156 rectifications.\n•\nConclusion: The order under Section 65 was canceled, restoring the rectified Section 59(B) order.\n•\nCitation: 1992 PTD 513 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(1)(c),59(B),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3831/KB of 1993 94, decision dated: 5-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Yousuf for Appellant. Mr. Umer Farooq, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 24 = 2003 SLD 24 = 2003 PTD 242 = (2002) 86 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Service of Notices\nTopic: Failure to properly serve statutory notices\n•\nDetails: Appellate Tribunal annulled assessments where service of notice was deemed invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Directed acceptance of declared versions by the assessee.\n•\nCitation: PLD 1964 SC 410 rel", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),59A,61,66,66A,154 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3249/LB to 3254/LB of 2002, decision dated: 18-05-2002, hearing DATE : 8-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rasheed Gill for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 25 = 2003 SLD 25 = 2003 PTD 246 = (2003) 87 TAX 63 = (2004) 90 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Agent's Default\nTopic: Embezzlement of withheld taxes\n•\nDetails: Tax recovery officers harassed assessees instead of taking legal actions against defaulting withholding agents.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended urgent recovery of withheld taxes and disciplinary actions against responsible officers.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.143B.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),51,52,80,80C,86,143,143B,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=3(2),9,10(4) Income Tax Rules, 1982=49,50,64A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 250 of 2002, decision dated: 8-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sagheer Tirmizey for the Complainant. S. M. Athar, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Akram, Safdar Hussain, Syed Shujjat Hussain, Mian Munawar Ghafoor and Ijaz Ahmad Faizi for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ITTEFAQ GINNING FACTORY, TOBA TEK SINGH\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 26 = 2003 SLD 26 = 2003 PTD 268 = (2003) 87 TAX 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nTopic: Validity of penalty without proper satisfaction and notice\n•\nDetails: Penalty imposed without the Assessing Officer indicating intent in assessment orders.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty orders were set aside for non-compliance with procedural requirements.\n•\nCitation: 1994 PTD (Trib.) 688 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2044/KB and 2045/KB of 19 95 96, decision dated: 28-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mukhtar for Appellant. Saheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 27 = 2003 SLD 27 = 2003 PTD 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Specialized Zones for Tax Assessments\nTopic: Arbitrary selection of Lahore for specialized tax zones\n•\nDetails: Decision to centralize tax assessments in Lahore was criticized for being unreasonable and discriminatory.\n•\nConclusion: Recommended shifting the zone base to Faisalabad to ensure equitable administration.\n•\nCitation: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.9, 10(4).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,10(4) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 188 and 751 of 2001, decision dated: 12-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ashraf Hashmi for the Complainant. M. Abdul Rauf, C.I.T. Special Zones for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF HASHMI, ADVOCATE, PRESIDENT ALL PAKISTAN TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, FAISALABAD and another\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 28 = 2003 SLD 28 = 2003 PTD 279 = (2002) 86 TAX 403", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction on Association of Persons\nTopic: Misuse of revisional jurisdiction for unexplained investments\n•\nDetails: Inspecting Additional Commissioner acted on flawed analyses, equating individual member resources with association assets.\n•\nConclusion: Revisional jurisdiction exercised improperly was annulled.\n•\nCitation: 1998 PTD 3319 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2956/LB of 2001, decision dated: 27-08-2002, hearing DATE : 20-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Sarwar Khawaja for Appellant. Agha Hadayat Ullah Khan, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 29 = 2003 SLD 29 = 2003 PTD 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Admission of New Evidence in Appeals\nTopic: Violation of mandatory provisions for evidence admission\n•\nDetails: First Appellate Authority admitted new evidence without justifying special circumstances.\n•\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal remanded the case for proper adjudication.\n•\nCitation: 1993 PTD (Trib.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=131(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1734/KB and 1735/KB of 2001, decision dated: 28-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Ahmed, D.R. for the Complainant. Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 30 = 2003 SLD 30 = 2003 PTD 322 = (2003) 87 TAX 507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Portfolio Management and Tax Implications\nTopic: Setoff of interest income against capital expenditure\n•\nDetails: Interest income was treated as income from other sources, not eligible for setoff against capital expenditure.\n•\nConclusion: First Appellate Authority's order was set aside, restoring the Assessing Officer's decision.\n•\nCitation: PLD 1962 SC 128 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(vii),30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 492 to 494(PB) of 1999 2000, decision dated: 29-09-2001, hearing DATE : 31st May, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "FAZLUR REHMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikram Ghani, D.R. for Appellant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 31 = 2003 SLD 31 = 2003 PTD 332 = (2003) 87 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Corporate Assets Tax\nTopic: Penalty for delayed filing of returns\n•\nDetails: Appellate Tribunal deleted penalties due to procedural defects and ambiguous circulars.\n•\nConclusion: Maintained the Corporate Assets Tax while remanding additional tax issues.\n•\nCitation: 2000 PTD 532 rel", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1991=12,12(6),12(7),12(8) ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 1955/LB and 1954/LB of 2000, decision dated: 6-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Vishno Raja Qavi, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 32 = 2003 SLD 32 = 2003 PTD 335 = (2003) 87 TAX 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Ignoring Directions and Amnesty Scheme\nTopic: Maladministration in ignoring senior officers’ directions\n•\nDetails: Declaration under Tax Amnesty Scheme was finalized, but show-cause notices contradicted the immunity.\n•\nConclusion: Recommended cancellation of additional assessments and adherence to amnesty provisions.\n•\nCitation: Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3),2(3)(ii),9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62,65 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1430/1, of 2001, decision dated: 30-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Shuja Khan for the Complainant. Mujtaba Bhatti, I.A.C. and Nabeel Rana, A.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "LIAQAT ALI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 33 = 2003 SLD 33 = 2003 PTD 343 = (2003) 87 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Refunds and Compensation\nTopic: Compensation for delayed refunds\n•\nDetails: Assessee entitled to compensation for delayed refunds despite departmental negligence.\n•\nConclusion: Directed payment of compensation under Section 102.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.102, 156.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=99,99(3),100,102,102(2),156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 329/K of 2002, decision dated: 3rd June, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Naqi for the Complainant. Haider Ali Dharejo, D.C.I.T., Circle E 16, Zone E, Karachi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SAMEER HAMID DODHY, PROPRIETOR, INDUS BASIN COMPANY, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 34 = 2003 SLD 34 = 2003 PTD 346 = (2003) 87 TAX 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Statement Defaults\nTopic: Procedural errors in levying penalties\n•\nDetails: Assessing Officer imposed penalties without providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld that penalties must be levied sequentially and not arbitrarily.\n•\nCitation: 1999 PTD 1661 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=182 Income Tax Rules, 1982=61 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,86,108,108(b),142 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 417/KB to 420/KB of 2000 2001, decision dated: 27-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bakht Zaman, D.R. for Appellant. Yaqub Ali, F.C.A. and A.R. Nizami for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 35 = 2003 SLD 35 = 2003 PTD 352 = (2002) 86 TAX 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Assessment Amendments\nTopic: Amendment of incorrect assessments under new laws\n•\nDetails: Regional Commissioner failed to use expanded powers under the new Ordinance to correct assessments.\n•\nConclusion: Recommended inquiry and amendment under Section 122 of the 2001 Ordinance.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S.122", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 369 of 2002, decision dated: 9-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant in person. Zafar Abbas, A.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASLAM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 36 = 2003 SLD 36 = 2003 PTD 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection under Self-Assessment\nTopic: Arbitrary audit selection based on outdated data\n•\nDetails: Selection of cases for audit contradicted self-assessment privileges.\n•\nConclusion: Directed exclusion from audit lists and acceptance of returns under the scheme.\n•\nCitation: C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 2001", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 928 L of 2002, decision dated: 22-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (REID.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam for the Complainant. Shahid Jamil Khan, Legal Adviser for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. SHAHNAZ ASHRAF\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 37 = 2003 SLD 37 = 2003 PTD 368 = (2003) 87 TAX 446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exchange Loss and Accounting Methods\nTopic: Nature of exchange loss and method of accounting\n•\nDetails: Exchange losses linked to capital assets were treated as capital expenditures. Changes to accounting methods were rejected for being inconsistent.\n•\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal affirmed departmental actions in most cases but directed re-computation where necessary.\n•\nCitation: 2000 PTD 2446 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,2(3),2(12),11,24,24(b),25,25(c),32,49,50,50(3),54,55,88,ThirdSched.,8(8)(c),3(2),3 Income Tax Rules, 1982=216(1)(b),216(3)(b)(ii),2016(3)(b)(iii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1158/IB, 1159/IB of 1986 87, 223/IB, 224/IB of 1989 90, 230/IB; 64/IB of 1990 91, 366/IB and 367/IB of 1996 97, 11/IB, 12/IB of 1987 88, 253/IB of 1989 90, 328/IB, 206/IB of 1990 91 and 499/IB of 1992 93, decision dated: 30-07-2002, hearing DATE : 4-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Sadiq, F.C.A. and Nadeem Ayaz, A.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1158/IB, 1159/IB of 1986 87, 223/IB, 224/IB of 1989 90, 230/IB, 64/IB of 1990 91, 366/IB and 367/IB of 1996 97). Malik Muhammad Nawaz, L.A., Abdul Jaleel, D.R. and Khalid Javed, D.C.I.T. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1158/IB, 1159/IB of 1986 87, 223/IB, 224/IB of 1989 90, 230/IB; 64/IB of 1990 91, 366/IB and 367/IB of 1996 97). Malik Muhammad Nawaz, L.A., Abdul Jaleel, D.R. and Khalid laved, D.C.I.T. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 11/IB, 12/113 of 1987 88, 253/IB of 1989 90, 328/IB, 206/IB of 1990 91 and 499/IB of 1992 93). Shahid Sadiq, F.C.A. and Nadeem Ayaz, A.C.A. for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos. 11/IB, 12/IB of 1987 88, 253/IB of 989 90, 328/IB, 206/IB of 1990 91 and 499/IB of 1992 93).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 38 = 2003 SLD 38 = 2003 PTD 403 = (2003) 87 TAX 352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax and Rectification of Mistakes\nTopic: Applicability of minimum tax under Section 80D\n•\nDetails: Society not classified as a company under Section 80D, and minimum tax was not applicable. Department's rectification request citing Finance Act, 1999 amendments was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nConclusion: Minimum tax did not apply to artificial juridical persons, including societies, as clarified by the Tribunal.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.156 & 80D.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80B,156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect.) No.418/KB of 2002 in I.T.A. No. 415/KB of 2001, decision dated: 20-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmed Sethi, D.R. for Appellant. Mazharul Hasan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 39 = 2003 SLD 39 = 2003 PTD 405 = (2003) 87 TAX 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Deduct Tax\nTopic: Additional tax and demand due to non-deduction of tax\n•\nDetails: Assessing Officer imposed a demand without specifying amounts or persons liable for deduction. Delay of five years invalidated the proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal annulled the entire demand and additional tax as proceedings were unjust and delayed.\n•\nCitation: 2001 PTD 1094 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,62,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1297/LB and 1298/LB of 2002, decision dated: 21st September, 2002, hearing DATE : 18-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saeed Chaudhry for Appellant. Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 40 = 2003 SLD 40 = 2003 PTD 436 = (2003) 87 TAX 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Rates for Trusts and Revenue Expenditure\nTopic: Classification and tax rate for trusts\n•\nDetails: Trust classified as a public company per CBR instructions, with applicable public company tax rates.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal directed that trust income be taxed at public company rates. Capital expenditure claims were upheld as non-admissible.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.23(1)(iii).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartsV,IV,Para.B(2),2(16)(31),47,S.23(1)(iii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 744/KB of 1997 98, decision dated: 26-10-2002, hearing DATE : 23rd October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. NASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anthony Santamaria, I.T.P. for Appellant. Abdul Salam, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 41 = 2003 SLD 41 = 2003 PTD 447 = (2003) 87 TAX 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Audit Selection\nTopic: Contradiction in audit exemptions under self-assessment schemes\n•\nDetails: Case selected for audit despite exemptions for prior audits under earlier schemes.\n•\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal upheld self-assessment acceptance and nullified audit selection based on earlier scheme protections.\n•\nCitation: C.B.R. Circular No.16 of 1992.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=29,59,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4337/LB of 1996, decision dated: 22-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R. for Appellant. Ahmed Shujah Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 42 = 2003 SLD 42 = 2003 PTD 459 = (2003) 87 TAX 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Relief for Teachers\nTopic: Denial of tax relief to government teachers\n•\nDetails: Central Board of Revenue denied 50% tax relief, contrary to its earlier interpretations.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended refunding excess tax deducted and withdrawal of contradictory CBR letters.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Second Sched., Cl.1B(2).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.PartIII,Cl.1B(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 468 of 2002, decision dated: 29-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Waseem for the Complainants. Syed Nadeem Hassan, Secretary C.B.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASIF and others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 43 = 2003 SLD 43 = 2003 PTD 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Petroleum Exploration Companies’ Exemptions\nTopic: Tax exemptions for foreign employees of petroleum licensees\n•\nDetails: Department disputed exemptions under S.3B of the Mines and Oilfields Act and related clauses.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld exemptions, rejecting claims of redundancy in legislative provisions.\n•\nCitation: 1994 PTD 1370 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66A,SecondSched.,Cls.(7),(8) Regulation of Mines and Oil-Fields and Mineral Development (Federal Control) Act, 1948=3B,Sched.,Cl.(13) Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(xii)(xiii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 34(IB)/2000 01 and 946(IB)/2000 01, decided 8-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashid Ibrahim F.C.A. and Khalid Mehmood, A.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 34(IB) of 2000 01). Naushad Ali Khan, D.R. and Malik Muhammad Nawaz, L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 34(IB) of 2000 01). Naushad Ali Khan, D.R. and Malik Muhammad Nawaz, L.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 946(IB) of 2000 01). Rashid Ibrahim, F.A.C. and Khalid Mehmood, A.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 946(IB) of 2000 01).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 44 = 2003 SLD 44 = 2003 PTD 471 = (2003) 88 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Refunds and Compensation\nTopic: Delay in refund issuance and compensatory payments\n•\nDetails: Refund delay violated Section 156(3) timelines; compensation was due from 1996 onward.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman directed payment of compensation for delayed refunds.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.102 & 156.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=120,59(b),50(4),100,99(1),62,63,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C 354 K of 2002, decision dated: 15-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Yousaf for the Complainant. Mrs. Shaista Abbas, IAC Range III, Zone A and Riaz Ali Shah, I.T.O. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SHAFFAT RASOOL CHAUDHARY\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 45 = 2003 SLD 45 = 2003 PTD 473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Tax Orders\nTopic: Validity of orders under limitation provisions\n•\nDetails: Tribunal held that limitation begins from the date of order, not service, invalidating delayed orders.\n•\nConclusion: Orders barred by limitation were canceled.\n•\nCitation: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1971 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(20),156(4),66A(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 529/KB to 531/KB and 408/KB to 411/KB of 1997 98, decision dated: 16-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUE BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raeesul Hassan for Appellant. Mrs. Rukhsana Saeed, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 46 = 2003 SLD 46 = 2003 PTD 478 = (2003) 88 TAX 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection under Self-Assessment\nTopic: Justification for selecting cases for audit\n•\nDetails: Audit selection due to apparent decline in income proportionate to turnover was justified.\n•\nConclusion: No maladministration was found; selection criteria were upheld.\n•\nCitation: C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 852 L of 2002, decision dated: 2-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Naqvi for the Complainant. Shahid Jamil, Legal Adviser for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DELUX DYEING INDUSTRIES, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 47 = 2003 SLD 47 = 2003 PTD 484 = (2003) 87 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax on Non-Deduction\nTopic: Nexus between Sections 86, 52, and 52A\n•\nDetails: Additional tax under Section 86 applied to withholding agents but not deductees.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal annulled additional tax demands against deductees.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.86, 52 & 52A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=86,52,52A,50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.836/LB to 838/LB of 2002, decision dated: 3rd August, 2002, hearing DATE 2-08-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Amad, A.C.M.A. for Appellant. Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 48 = 2003 SLD 48 = 2003 PTD 494 = (2003) 87 TAX 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies and Capital Gains\nTopic: Income classification for securities transactions\n•\nDetails: Gains from securities held for investment classified as capital gains; trading gains treated as business income.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal directed reassessment to classify securities transactions accurately.\n•\nCitation: 1995 PTD (Trib.) 807 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(12),15 Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=7(1)(a),13(1)(2),(4),29 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 293/KB of 1995 96, decision dated: 16-09-2002, hearing DATE : 10-09-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Hasnain, D.R. for Appellant. E.U. Khawaja for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 49 = 2003 SLD 49 = 2003 PTD 530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Assessments\nTopic: Arbitrary assessments and ill-arranged records\n•\nDetails: Assessment repeated without justification, defying appellate instructions.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended suo motu action, stringent warnings, and record organization.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.63 & 132.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,132 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1379 L of 2001, decision dated: 22-09-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Tabassum, F.C.A., A.R. for the Complainant. Mrs. Laila Ghafoor, D C.I.T., and Aamir Bashir, Special Officer for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "RECRUITING AGENCY LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 50 = 2003 SLD 50 = 2003 PTD 589 = (2003) 87 TAX 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\nTopic: Scope of legal fiction and question of law\n•\nDetails: Fiction of law in fiscal statutes is restricted; only substantial legal questions merit High Court references.\n•\nConclusion: Interpretation upheld strict adherence to statutory language.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.136(1).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1),Expln.(b),18,24,31,32 & 50(6A),136(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Cases Nos. 103 and 104 of 2002, decision dated: 13-11-2002.hearing DATE : 13-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES I, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 51 = 2003 SLD 51 = 2003 PTD 593 = (2003) 88 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Justice and Tax Administration\nTopic: Justice vs. technicalities in tax refunds\n•\nDetails: Tribunal rejected technical objections to refund claims for taxes deemed dividends.\n•\nConclusion: Refunds allowed as consequential relief despite procedural objections.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.99 & 156.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(20)(e),96(2),99,100,156(4) & 136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.869 of 1999, decision dated: 3rd October, 2002.hearing DATE : 3rd October, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Saadat Khan for Appellant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SALEEM HAJI REHMATULLAH DADA, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES V, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 52 = 2003 SLD 52 = 2003 PTD 602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Receivership Misconduct\nTopic: Duties and limits of appointed receivers\n•\nDetails: Receiver overstepped authority by harassing family members for tax dues.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman condemned misconduct and recommended systemic improvements for appointing receivers.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.93(2).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=93(2) Income Tax Rules, 1982=158,159 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 518 of 2002, decision dated: 2-09-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad with Shakil Ahmad- for the Complainant. Sajjad Haider Khan, I.A.C. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD TUFAIL\nVs.\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 53 = 2003 SLD 53 = 2003 PTD 605 = (2003) 87 TAX 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction and Limitations\nTopic: Starting point for limitation in revised orders\n•\nDetails: Tribunal ruled that limitation begins from the original assessment order unless the revision explicitly alters appeal-related matters.\n•\nConclusion: Limitations upheld, distinguishing revisional jurisdictions.\n•\nCitation: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 2294 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66A(2),132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos. 65/IB and 66/IB of 2001 2002, decision dated: 3rd September, 2002, hearing DATE : 17-08-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SAEED AHMED ZAIDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anjum A. Sheikh, F.C.A. and Imtiaz Ahmad, C.M.A. for Appellants. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, L.A. and Shahid Zaman, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 54 = 2003 SLD 54 = 2003 PTD 611 = (2003) 87 TAX 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Delay and Condonation\nTopic: Delay in filing appeals and Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendations\n•\nDetails: Appellate Authority failed to consider reasons for the delay in filing appeals, including delayed receipt of Federal Tax Ombudsman decision.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the Appellate Authority to recall the order, address reasons for delay, and proceed per law. Registrar was tasked with investigating dispatch delays.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.129 & 156.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 507 of 2002, decision dated: 25-06-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant in person. Raza Muhammad, I.A.C. and Mazhar Iqbal, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "GHULAM MUHAMMAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 55 = 2003 SLD 55 = 2003 PTD 613 = (2003) 87 TAX 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Preference of Special Over General Laws\nTopic: Interpretation of statutes in special vs. general provisions\n•\nDetails: Business income assessed under specific provisions (Section 26) rather than presumptive taxation (Section 80C). No ambiguity warranted invoking general laws.\n•\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal upheld specific provision application and declined the Department’s High Court reference request.\n•\nCitation: PLD 1961 SC 373 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26(c),80C,66A,136(1) ", + "Case #": "Reference Applications Nos. 52(IB) and 53(IB) of 2002, decision dated: 2-08-2002.hearing DATE : 2-08-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ishfaq Ahmad, D.R. for Applicant. Khalid Majid, FCA/AR for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 56 = 2003 SLD 56 = 2003 PTD 619 = (2003) 87 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Irregularities in Tax Recovery\nTopic: Maladministration in recovery and assessment\n•\nDetails: Irregular assessments and undue pressure for recovery from an unrelated party. No link established between businesses.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended annulment of assessments, halting recovery proceedings, and performance counseling for involved officers.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.93 & 63.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=93,63,138 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 183 L of 2002, decision dated: 7-06-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sajid Ali, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Mrs. Nabeela Iqbal, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARSHAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 57 = 2003 SLD 57 = 2003 PTD 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Paid Under Minimum Tax Regime\nTopic: Interaction of Sections 80C and 80D\n•\nDetails: Tax paid under Section 80C included in turnover for minimum tax under Section 80D.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the inclusion of turnover and tax paid under Section 80C in minimum tax calculations.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.80C & 80D.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4050/LB of 1998, decision dated: 18-11-1999.hearing DATE : 12-11-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javaid Iqbal Rana, D.R. for Appellant. Shaukat Amin, F.C.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 58 = 2003 SLD 58 = 2003 PTD 625 = (2003) 87 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment on Books of Accounts\nTopic: Compliance with statutory obligations under Section 62(1)\n•\nDetails: Assessing Officer failed to issue notice as per the proviso to Section 62(1) before discarding accounts.\n•\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal directed the acceptance of the returned version, declaring the assessment invalid.\n•\nCitation: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 1583 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62(1),Proviso ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 414/LB of 2002, decision dated: 27-07-2002.hearing DATE : 27-07-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHAIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MEHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Abdul Ghafoor, I.T.P. for Appellant. Javed ur Rehman, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 59 = 2003 SLD 59 = 2003 PTD 632", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Processing\nTopic: Refund redress through Federal Tax Ombudsman\n•\nDetails: Assessee’s grievance about delayed refunds was resolved, and vouchers were promptly issued.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman closed the case as grievances were resolved.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.96.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 142 L, of 2002, decision dated: 20-06-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zafar Iqbal for the Complainant. Khadim Hussain Zahid, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MIRZA ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SERVICES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 60 = 2003 SLD 60 = 2003 PTD 634 = (2003) 87 TAX 515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Agent Liability\nTopic: Non-deduction of tax at source and additional tax\n•\nDetails: Withholding agent obligated to deduct tax unless recipient provided a certificate of exemption.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal justified the imposition of additional tax due to the withholding agent’s failure to deduct as required.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.52 & 50(4).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(3),50(4),52,86,89 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1535/KB to 1537/KB of 2002, decision dated: 9-09-2002.hearing DATE : 7-09-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadim Tirmizi and Khaliq ur Rehman, F.C.As. for Appellant. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. and Saeed Ahmed, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 61 = 2003 SLD 61 = 2003 PTD 643", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Assessment\nTopic: Fabrication and backdating of assessment orders\n•\nDetails: Assessment finalized after the time limit, with manipulated dates and notices served to a deceased assessee.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended annulment of the assessment and disciplinary action against the responsible officer.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.63, 85 & 116", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,85,116 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 697 of 2002, decision dated: 22-08-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Abdul Haq, A.R. for the Complainant. Muhammad Asif, A.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Ch. SHAH DIN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 62 = 2003 SLD 62 = 2003 PTD 656 = (2003) 88 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds and Withholding Agents' Default\nTopic: Maladministration by withholding agents\n•\nDetails: Withholding agents delayed depositing deducted tax, leading to refund delays for the complainant.\n•\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended refunds, penalties for withholding agents, and reforms to ensure timely deposits.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.96 & 50.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,96 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1596 of 2001, decision dated: 10-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Ghulam Asghar for the Complainant. Zubair Bilal, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ZAFAR FARHAT INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., RAJANPUR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 63 = 2003 SLD 63 = 2003 PTD 661 = (2003) 87 TAX 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Loans as Dividend\nTopic: Tax treatment of loans under Section 2(20)(e)\n•\nDetails: Loan to a director treated as dividend under Section 2(20)(e) and taxed accordingly.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the treatment of loans as dividend and their inclusion under Section 80B.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.80B(1) & 50(6A).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80B(1),2(20)(e),50(6A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1770/KB of 1996 97, decision dated: 6-06-2002.hearing DATE : 24-05-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND, JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bakht Zaman, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Siddiqui Ragadia for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 64 = 2003 SLD 64 = 2003 PTD 664 = (2003) 87 TAX 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Powers and Notices\nTopic: Revisional jurisdiction and validity of notices\n•\nDetails: Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s revision powers under Section 66A scrutinized.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal declared proceedings void due to procedural lapses.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.66A, 59A & 143B.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(3),56,62,66A,59A,80B,143B,155 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1056/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 3rd September, 2002, hearing DATE : 3rd September, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Iqbal and Hameedullah, I.T.P. for Appellant. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 65 = 2003 SLD 65 = 2003 PTD 679 = (2003) 87 TAX 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Powers and Notices\nTopic: Revisional jurisdiction and validity of notices\n•\nDetails: Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s revision powers under Section 66A scrutinized.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal declared proceedings void due to procedural lapses.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.66A, 59A & 143B.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(50 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 76 of 2002, decision dated: 6-06-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Hadi, Chartered Accountant for the Complainant. Habib Ahmad, D C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Yasin\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 66 = 2003 SLD 66 = 2003 PTD 692 = (2002) 86 TAX 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Assessment\nTopic: Validity of orders under expired limitations\n•\nDetails: Revisional and assessment orders were passed after the legal time frame, rendering them invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal annulled time-barred orders and subsequent proceedings.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.66A & 59(A).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),59(A),66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3398/LB of 2000, decision dated: 29-07-2002.hearing DATE : 13-06-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noor Muhammad Qureshi for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 67 = 2003 SLD 67 = 2003 PTD 698 = (2003) 87 TAX 409", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading Liabilities and Additions\nTopic: Treatment of unpaid trading liabilities\n•\nDetails: Liabilities unpaid for three years added as income under Section 25(c).\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld additions but allowed deductions for liabilities not previously allowed.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.25(c) & 23.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,23,25(a),25(aa),25(ab),35 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1713/KB of 1996 97, decision dated: 28-10-2002, hearing DATE : 24th October. 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED HASSAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shakir, F.C.A. for Appellant. Abdul Salam, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 68 = 2003 SLD 68 = 2003 PTD 711 = (2002) 86 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Dismissal Due to Technicalities\nTopic: Signing of appeal documents\n•\nDetails: Appeal dismissed as documents were not signed by the authorized officer.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld dismissal, stating the procedural requirement was mandatory.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.134(2)(5).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,134(2),134(5),134(2)(5),136,155 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 254/LB of 2002, decision dated: 22-07-2002, hearing DATE : 17-07-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad Ansari for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 69 = 2003 SLD 69 = 2003 PTD 714 = (2002) 86 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definite Information for Reassessment\nTopic: Basis for invoking reassessment\n•\nDetails: Adjacent property valuation cannot serve as “definite information.”\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal annulled reassessment based on insufficient evidence.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.13(1)(d) & 65.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(2),13(1)(d),65 Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1125/LB of 1994, decision dated: 4-06-2002.hearing DATE : 4-06-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Tariq Javed Raja for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 70 = 2003 SLD 70 = 2003 PTD 720 = (2002) 86 TAX 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay Against Reassessment\nTopic: Tribunal’s powers to stay reassessment\n•\nDetails: Assessee argued for stay against reassessment, citing jurisdictional powers of the Tribunal.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld its power to grant stay against reassessment proceedings.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.134(6).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,68A,134(6) ", + "Case #": "M. As. (Stay) Nos.324/LB and 325/LB of 2002, decision dated: 15-06-2002, hearing DATE : 1st June, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asif Hashmi and Mrs. Talat Altaf, D. Rs. for Appellant. Shahbaz Butt for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 71 = 2003 SLD 71 = 2003 PTD 722 = (2002) 86 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Depreciation and Deductions\nTopic: Allowability of unclaimed deductions\n•\nDetails: Depreciation and expenses not claimed in returns were not permissible.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the denial of unclaimed allowances.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.136 & 23(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1),32,34,136 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 161/LB of 2002, decision dated: 22-06-2002.hearing DATE : 22-06-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Jamal Sukheera for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 72 = 2002 SLD 72 = 2002 PTCL 463 = 2003 PTD 728 = (2002) 86 TAX 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax and Rectification\nTopic: Imposition of additional tax and procedural lapses\n•\nDetails: Additional tax imposed under the same provision without mandatory notices.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal vacated the order due to procedural violations.\n•\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.86 & 156", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85,86,156(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4764/LB of 2001, decision dated: 31st May, 2002.hearing DATE : 16-05-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Ilyas, A.C.A. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 73 = 2003 SLD 73 = 2003 PTD 731 = (2002) 86 TAX 196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)].....Ss.136 & 50(4)(b), proviso (i) Reference to High Court Deduction of tax at source Purchase and buy back arrangement Question whether Appellate Tribunal was justified to reject the plea of the Department that deduction under S.50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by leasing company on buy and lease back was not the final discharge of liability of the assessee by referring a case decided by the High Court holding that such deduction was covered under S.80 C of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Validity Fact that the Department had not contested the said in higher forum on which the Tribunal had relied and the unreported of High Court having never been placed before the Tribunal for checking of its contents could not go to favour the Department Language of S.50(4)(b), proviso (i) speaks of non charging of withholding tax on certain assets specifically Said provision was not containing the words or to the purchase of an asset under a lease and buy .back arrangement by a Modarba or leasing company as the same were inserted in 1998, but this could not be ignored that said proviso was of remedial nature as the same had provided relief to the taxpayers from deduction of the tax chargeable under S.50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which had provided remedy against the deduction hence was applicable on all pending proceedings including appeal at any stage Even if there was a different finding with regard to application of S.50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on purchase and buy back arrangement, such amend-ment had come to the rescue of the same Department was considering such arrangement to be a supply, which impression had been reversed through the said amendment wherein exemption had been provided -Provision in its nature being curative and remedial was applicable to the present case Departmental application being devoid of any merit was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \nSundara Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala and another 17 STR 489 (SC); Shah Nawaz Limited's case 1993 SCMR 73; 1970 SCMR 872 and Statutory Construction by Crawford, 1940 Edn., para. 282 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),50(4)(b),proviso(i),136 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No. 153/LB of 2002, decision dated: 24-04-2002, hearing DATE : 24-04-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Dr. Ikramul Haq for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 74 = 2003 SLD 74 = 2003 PTD 735", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)].....Ss. 80 C, 50(5) & 156 Tax on income of certain contractors and importers Deduction of tax at source Sales tax and customs duty -Inclusion of in the value of imported goods for purpose of income tax deduction under S.50(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 Validity -Sales tax and customs duty shall not be added in the value of imported goods for the purpose of assessing income of the assessee under S.80 C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 Tax liability was to be worked out after deducting sales tax and customs duty paid by the assessee Appeal of the assessee was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \nMessrs Ramma Pipe and General Mills (Pvt.) Limited through its Director v. The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others 1994 PTD 848 and Writ Petition No. 18286 of 2001 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,50(5),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 198/LB and 199/LB of 2002, decision dated: 26-09-2002.hearing DATE : 24-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Abbas and Muhammad Hamid for Appellant. Javed ur Rehman, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 75 = 2003 SLD 75 = 2003 PTD 739 = (2003) 88 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]....Ss. 80 C, 61 & 62 Presumptive tax regime Entirely different from normal assessment of tax Neither any total income is computed nor any expenses are allowed in such regime, rather entire sales are deemed to be income, on which fixed tax is recovered No concept of probe, inquiry or proceedings in such regime, thus, question of issuance of notice under Ss.61 & 62 of the Ordinance would not arise. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n Ss.80 C, 65, 61 & 62 Presumptive tax regime Re opening of assessment Issuance of notice to assessee under Ss. 61 & 62 of the Ordinance Requirement of Assessee did not opt to appear and file return before Assessing Officer after having been served with notice for re opening of assessment, but only addressed letter to Deputy Commissioner of Income tax Assessing, Officer proceeded to finalise assessment under S.80 C of the Ordinance Validity Assessee had disentitled himself from benefit, which he could have availed by making compliance of notice issued to him by Assessing Officer, who had no option but to finalize assessment in absence of assessee No body could be allowed to take advantage of his wrong Where assessment had been finalized under S.80 C of the Ordinance, the question of issuance of notice under Ss.61 & 62 of the Ordinance would not arise No substantial question of law requiring any consideration or interpretation by High Court had been raised High Court dismissed appeal in limine.\n \n(c) Practice and procedure \n \n No body could be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,65,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 859 of 2000, decision dated: 25-09-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ather Saeed for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GEAR ROBBING LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 76 = 2003 SLD 76 = 2003 PTD 752 = (2003) 87 TAX 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]....Ss. 66A(1A)(a)(b), 129, 134 & 137 Decision in appeal filed against order of Deputy Commissioner of Income tax Rule of merger Applicability Extent Rule of merger is restricted to the extent of a point or issue, which is subject matter in appeal Merely by filing of an appeal on one point, the entire order of Deputy Commissioner of Income tax would not merge in order of Appellate Authority. \n \nPLD 1992 SC 49 = 1992 PTD 932 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A(1A)(a)(b),129,134,136(1),137 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 411 of 1999, decision dated: 26-09-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi anli Miss Lubna Pervez for Appellant. Muhammad Farid for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs B.C.C.I. (OVERSEAS) LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 77 = 2003 SLD 77 = 2003 PTD 754 = (2002) 86 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]....Ss. 66 A & 80C Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioner's order Assessee used to file return/statement under S. 143B of the Ordinance in a circle which had jurisdiction over the contractors Assessee opted out of the Self-Assessment Scheme and filed return being manufacturers for the next years in a circle having territorial jurisdiction over the case and got refund in consequence of finalization of assessment under normal law -Inspecting Additional Commissioner considered the assessments as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue ,on the ground that assessee's jurisdiction was with the circle having jurisdiction over the contractor and assessment was finalized in a circle having territorial jurisdiction over the case in connivance with the Assessing Officer of that circle as assessee was not a manufacturer Validity Opting from Self Assessment Scheme being a manufacturer, was only to opt for a normal assessment which did not give right to assessee to change suo Motu his jurisdiction at his own sweet will by saying that the area of his business fell in a particular jurisdiction Jurisdiction of the case remained with the same circle where assessment for the earlier years were made Filing of return in a different circle was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue in term of proviso to S.66 A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which provided that an order without jurisdiction becomes prejudicial to the interest of revenue suo motu -Order had rightly been held to be an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the nature of the assessee's business even after opting out remains the same and its assessment under normal law was also to be made by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the cases of contractors Cancellation of order by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner under S.66 A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not interfered by the Appellate Tribunal in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,80C,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 632/LB and 633/LB of 2001, decision dated: 30-05-2002.hearing DATE : 28-03-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muhammad Akram for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 78 = 2003 SLD 78 = 2003 PTD 769 = (2002) 86 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)]......Second Sched., Part I, Cl. (86) C.B.R. Circular No.2 of 1996, dated 18 2 1996 Exemption Educational institution Payment of salary to teachers related to the Members of the Board of Directors was termed as not for purpose of education but for personal benefit and exemption was disallowed Validity Institution was separate from its administration Method of running the institution had nothing to do with the purpose of its establishment If the Board of Trustees had employed some staff related to them but the .staff was being paid salaries suitable to their qualification and it did not give the impression that the same were disproportionate to their abilities and the work assigned to them that could not be used as a tool to disallow the exemption. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n Second Sched., Part I, Cl. (86) Exemption Educational insti-tution. Test and points to see for grant of exemption. \n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n Second Sched. Part I, Cl. (86) Exemption Educational institution Use of surplus for educational purpose No profit motive -Where the sole object of an institution was education, and the surplus was used for educational purposes only, no profit motive would come in by the mere presence of the surplus as no prudent institution can work without having some idle funds at its disposal for unforeseen contingencies. \n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) \n \n Second Sched., Part I, Cl. (86) Exemption Educational institution Employees related to Board of Governors or Board of Trustees Surplus used for improvement of institution No bungling in accounts Disallowance of exemption Validity If the purpose was imparting education and the working of the organization had been so proved then some employees being relation of the Board of Governors or Board of Trustees could not be of any damage for the claim of exemption If accounts showed profit it also did not become a disqualification for the claim Requirement of exemption being the purpose i.e. imparting education, if was being fulfilled and thus the exemption could not be denied Exceptions which could be fatal for the claim were bungling in accounts for personal benefits of the sponsor and distribution of profit directly or indirectly If the accounts were prepared as per rules and regulations and there was no reason to believe that some manipulation had been done for transfer of profit for personal gains, exemption could not be denied Keeping the surplus for improvement of the institution was no reason for disallowing the exemption Damage to the claim was personal gains in actuality Salary paid was proportionate to the job and qualifications of the said persons and amount paid looked reasonable which did not give the impression that they were exceptional or excessive Exemption allowed by the First Appellate Authority was fully justified and appeal of the Department was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(86) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 4949/LB of 2001, decision dated: 11-05-2002.hearing DATE : 10-05-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Noor Muhammad Qureshi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 79 = 2003 SLD 79 = 2003 PTD 783", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Finance Act (XII of 1991)]....S.12(6) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), S.17A, Corporate Assets Tax Assessment of Corporate Assets Tax Rectification Merger -Limitation Assessee pleaded in appeal that the order passed was barred by limitation in terms of S. 17A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 Validity -Soon after the receipt of the assessment order, assessee moved rectification application challenging the order sought to be rectified -Order originally made under S.12(6) of the Finance Act, 1991 having merged with the rectifying order, reckoning from the date of the order under S.12(6)(10) of the Finance Act, 1991 same was passed within the statutory limit of time. \n \n(b) Income tax \n \n Acknowledgment receipt without rubber stamp of concerned office -Evidentiary value In absence of rubber stamp of the concerned office affixed on acknowledgment receipt/letter head pad same could not he accepted as valid piece of evidence.\n \nPer Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry (Accountant Member), Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik (Judicial Member) agreeing with different reasons \n \n(c) Finance Act (XII of 1991) \n \n S.12(6)(7)(8) Corporate Assets Tax Non filing of return voluntarily Confusion by Circulars of C.B.R. Levy of penalty and additional tax Validity Assessee did not file its return nor paid tax alongwith the return Penalty under S.12(7) and additional tax under S.12(8) of the Finance Act, 1991 was rightly charged by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority Without indicating the circulars and without pointing out and identifying the confusion in such circulars, Appellate Tribunal could not hold that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Revenue created confusion in the minds of the taxpayers Assessee could not be supposed to be confused and that he was under a bona fide impression that return was not required to be filed Assessee having neither taken such plea in its grounds of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal nor in grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Authority nor during his arguments its contention regarding filing of returns of Corporate Assets Tax under S.12(2) of the Finance Act, 1991 was not proved No ambiguity existed on the issue that the appellant being a public limited company, quoted on stock exchange and running a textile unit, having the value of its fixed assets exceeding Rs.50 million was required under S.12(2) of the Finance Act, 1991 to file its return of Corporate Assets Tax and pay the said tax alongwith the return under S.12(5) of the Finance Act, 1991 -Penalty and additional tax levied by the Assessing Officer under S.12(7) & (8) of the Finance Act, 1991 was, maintained by the Appellate Tribunal as the assessee failed to file its return of its Corporate Assets Tax. \n \nI.T.A. No. 1872/LB of 1997; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 2969 and W.T.A. No. 154/LB of 1999 distinguished.\n \nICC Textile Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2001 PTD 1557 = 2001 SCMR 1208 rel.\n \nPer Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry (Accountant Member) \n \n(d) Finance Act (XII of 1991) \n \n S.12(6) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), S.17A Corporate Assets Tax Application of S. 17A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 to a case of Corporate Assets Tax Section 17A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was not applicable to a case of Corporate Assets Tax Section 12(6) of the Finance Act, 1991 clearly mentioned that only Ss.32, 23, 24, 25 & 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 shall be applicable to Corporate Assets Tax. \n \nPer Rasheed Ahmad Sheikh (Judicial Member) [Minority view] \n \nI. T. A. No. 1872/LB of 1997 ref.\n \n2001 PTD (Trib.) 2969 and W.T.A. No. 154/LB of 1999 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1991=12(5),12(6),12(7),12(8),12(10),12(2) ", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 1230/LB of 2000, decision dated: 15-04-2002.hearing DATE : 13-03-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID AHMED SHEIKH, MUHAMMAD TAQUIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Sarshar Hussain for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 80 = 2003 SLD 80 = 2003 PTD 808 = (2003) 87 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessment and Reopening Based on Declared Land Value\nConclusion:\n•\nThe mere reference to a value declared by another assessee does not constitute definite information to justify reopening a completed assessment under Section 65.\n•\nIn cases involving public limited companies, higher payment proof must be legally acceptable and sourced. The Tribunal rejected the reopening attempt based on conjectures and surmises.\nCitations/References:\n•\nE.F.U. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 700)\n•\nCentral Insurance Co. v. Central Board of Revenue (1993 SCMR 1232)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. N.32 of 1996, heard on 23rd September, 2002.hearing DATE : 23rd September, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ikramul Haq for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SAITEX SPINNING MILLS, LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE 3, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 81 = 2003 SLD 81 = 2003 PTD 812 = (2003) 87 TAX 362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Retrospective Application of Benevolent Amendments\nConclusion:\n•\nClauses (118C) and (8) introduced in the Second Schedule through S.R.O. 1283(I)/98 were inseparable and applicable retrospectively.\n•\nAmendments, being benevolent in nature, must benefit the assessee, even in pending cases, without express mention of retrospective effect.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Shah Nawaz Ltd. (1993 SCMR 73)\n•\nCIT, East Pakistan v. Noor Hussain (PLD 1964 SC 657)", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(118C),PartIV,Cl.(8),136 ", + "Case #": "T. R. No.44 of 1997, decision dated: 14-02-2002, hearing DATE : 23rd January, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Petitioner. Eid Muhammad Khattack for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN ALVI\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES CIRCLE 2, PESHAWAR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 82 = 2003 SLD 82 = 2003 PTD 822", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Profits from Sale of Inherited Agricultural Land\nConclusion:\n•\nConversion of agricultural land into residential plots, along with obtaining NOCs and selling them, constitutes a trade activity. Profits are taxable as business income rather than exempt capital gains.\n•\nTribunal upheld the view that such transactions were an adventure in the nature of trade.\nCitations/References:\n•\n1994 PTD (Trib.) 103\n•\n1989 PTD 594, PLD 1990 SC 399", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 24/KB, 96/KB, 2052/KB and 2053/KB of 2000 2001, decision dated: 30-04-2002. dates of hearing: 12th March and 15 August, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIRUL HASAN, S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.S. Jafri and Kh. Mazhar-ud-Din for Appellant. Sajjad Ahmed, D.R. and Amjad Jashmed, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 83 = 2003 SLD 83 = 2003 PTD 835 = (2002) 86 TAX 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Scope of Revision Powers under Section 66A\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 66A does not permit revising issues that were neither examined nor settled by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. Fresh assessments on such issues are outside its scope.\n•\nThe Tribunal followed earlier precedents to cancel improper revisions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nMessrs Moin Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. Case (2002 PTD (Trib.) 141)\n•\nI.T.As. Nos. 156, 157, 158, and 167/IB of 1993-94", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(18),66A,59A & 133(7) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=189,201 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 382/IB to 390/IB of 2000 2001, decision dated: 13-11-2001, hearing DATE : 13-11-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, SYED MASOODUL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND SYED AQEEL ZAFARUL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Hussain for Appellant. Saleem Akhtar, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 84 = 2003 SLD 84 = 2003 PTCL 213 = 2003 PTD 863 = (2003) 87 TAX 360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVQTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Substantial Legal Questions in Appeals\nConclusion:\n•\nIssues restricted to Self-Assessment Schemes for specific years do not raise substantial questions of law.\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the Appellate Authority’s decision to set aside the cancellation of the return.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Messrs Imminan International, Lahore (PTR No. 20 of 1991)\n•\nThe Lungla Tea Co. Ltd. Case (1970 SCMR 872)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,66A,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 7774/LB of 1996, decision dated: 24-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs IBRAHIM & SONS, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 85 = 2003 SLD 85 = 2003 PTD 865 = (2003) 88 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deemed Income from Gift Transactions\nConclusion:\n•\nTransactions involving gifts must adhere to prescribed payment channels (e.g., cross-cheques) to avoid being treated as taxable income.\n•\nThe Tribunal emphasized adherence to statutory requirements and dismissed the complaint.\nCitations/References:\n•\n2002 PTD 63, 2000 PTD 2594", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(3),12(18) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=227A,2A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 850-L of 2002, decision dated: 5-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for the Complainant. Qaiser Mehmood for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Sh. SHAMAS ALI, MULTAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 86 = 2003 SLD 86 = 2003 PTD 869 = (2002) 86 TAX 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Applicability of Turnover Tax and Revisions under Section 66A\nConclusion:\n•\nTurnover tax applies to the commission amount, not the total purchases. The Tribunal cancelled the revision order under Section 66A, restoring the Assessing Officer’s decision.\nCitations/References:\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 12 of 1991, dated 30-6-1991", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,80C,80D,50(4) & 50(4A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4465/LB of 1996, 1418/LB of 1997, 3212/LB and 3213/LB of 2000, decision dated: 15-05-2002.hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ijaz Ali Bhatti for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 87 = 2003 SLD 87 = 2003 PTD 874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Audit Selection via Ballot System\nConclusion:\n•\nAllegations of maladministration in audit selections through computerized ballots were dismissed. No human design or manipulation was found, and the process was declared lawful.\nCitations/References:\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 4 of 2001, para. 9(a)(i)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 276, 385, 521, 722, 834, 840 and 883 of 2002, decision dated: 26-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munir Ahmad, Kashif Dildar Bhatti, Riaz Mohay ud Din, Ghias Ahmed Malik and Mr. Zafar for the Complainants. Asghar Ali Ch., Senior Project Manager, Lahore, Mujahid Naeem, Manager, Faisalabad, Ahsanul Haq, Manager DPU (Faisalabad) and Iftikhar Ahmad, Manager, Sargodha for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHIEF STORES, SAHIWAL and 6 others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 89 = 2003 SLD 89 = 2003 PTD 880 = (2002) 86 TAX 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding of Refunds and Revisions under Section 66A\nConclusion:\n•\nRevisions delaying refunds based on discrepancies were found unlawful, constituting a change of opinion. Original assessments were restored.\nCitations/References:\n•\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 14, 1992 SCC 910", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59A,62,66A,92,50(4),50(4A),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 322/LB to 324/LB of 2000, decision dated: 10-06-2002, hearing DATE : 27-04-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Yousaf, I.T.P. for Appellant. Anwarul Haq, I.A.C. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 90 = 2003 SLD 90 = 2003 PTD 903 = (2003) 88 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration in Refund Processing\nConclusion:\n•\nErrors or delays in refund determinations amounted to maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed timely corrective actions and adherence to commitments.\nCitations/References:\n•\nNot specified for unique precedents.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=92,96,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 372 L of 2002, decision dated: 16-07-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam, A.R. for the Complainant. Ms. Nabeela Iqbal, DCIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHABIR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 91 = 2003 SLD 91 = 2003 PTD 909 = (2002) 86 TAX 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Deduction on Golden Handshake Payments\nConclusion:\n•\nPayments under golden handshake schemes are treated as salaries, making them subject to tax deduction under Section 50(1). Tribunal directed reassessment for gratuity components.\nCitations/References:\n•\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 879, 1997 SCMR 1232", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,24(c),50(1),62,SecondSched.,Cl.(27) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3700/LB of 2000, decision dated: 20-07-2002, hearing DATE : 5-01-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Muhammad Yousaf for Appellant. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 92 = 2003 SLD 92 = 2003 PTD 938 = (2002) 86 TAX 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Dividend Payment and Deemed Income\nConclusion:\n•\nDeclared profits must account for adjustments like depreciation. The Tribunal deleted additional tax liability for non-compliance with dividend distribution rules.\nCitations/References:\n•\nJohn Smith & Sons v. Moore (12 TC 266)\n•\nWrit Petition No. 9665 of 2001", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(9A),SecondSched.,PartIV,Cl.(59) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.51/LB of 2002, decision dated: 14-05-2002, hearing DATE : 2-05-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Aftab Hamid and Fayyaz Siddique, F.C.As. for Appellant. Mian Ashiq Hussain and Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 93 = 2003 SLD 93 = 2003 PTD 958", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ignoring Correspondence Constituting Maladministration\nConclusion:\n•\nIgnoring letters and reminders amounts to maladministration. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended finalizing fee payments within one month.\nCitations/References:\n•\nNot applicable for case-specific precedents.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 975 of 2001, decision dated: 23rd August, 2001.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "IQBAL HAIDER, COST & MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANT, BAHAWALPUR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 94 = 2003 SLD 94 = 2003 PTD 975 = (2002) 86 TAX 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Tax on Exempt Receipts\nConclusion:\n•\nTax deduction on sales to specific agencies is mandatory unless exempted. Revisions under Section 66A without jurisdiction were cancelled, restoring original assessments.\nCitations/References:\n•\nUnion Bank Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (1998 PTD 2114)\n•\n1999 SCMR 1442", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4A),66A,80C,59(1),62 & SecondSched.,PartIV,Cl.(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 864/LB to 867/LB of 2002, decision dated: 30-05-2002, hearing DATE : 18-04-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem Rathor for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 95 = 2003 SLD 95 = 2003 PTD 980 = (2003) 87 TAX 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Presumptive Tax Regime and Late Filing of Option\nConclusion:\n•\nFiling an option to opt out of the presumptive tax regime must be timely and with the return of income. Late filings disqualify assessees from the regime. The Tribunal restored the original assessment under presumptive tax.\nCitations/References:\n•\nS.R.O. 829(I)/91, dated 24-8-1991", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartIV,Cl.(9),80C,62,55(1),59A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos. 6274/LB and 6275/LB of 1998, decision dated: 27-09-2002, hearing DATE : 18-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Hadayat Ullah, D.R. for Appellant. Shamim A. Syed, C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 96 = 2003 SLD 96 = 2003 PTD 1010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refunds and Maladministration – Applicability of Tax Rates\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nMaladministration under S.2(3), Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000): Failure to refund an excess amount deducted without reason constitutes maladministration.\n2.\nTax Deduction Rates: Tax deducted at 5% instead of the notified 2% under S.R.O. 600(I)/94 violated established rules.\nConclusion: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the Commissioner of Income Tax examine the excess deductions and refund the overpaid amount.\nReferences: S.80C, 96, 143B, Income Tax Ordinance (1979); S.2(3), Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000); S.R.O. 600(I)/94.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,80C,143B,129 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1057/L of 2001, decision dated: 12-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem for the Complainant. Malik Ghulam Rasool, DCIT, Circle 27, Zone B, Lahore for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Ch. MERAJ UD DIN & CO., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISIQN, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 97 = 2003 SLD 97 = 2003 PTD 1040 = (2003) 88 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Unexplained Investment – Burden of Proof\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nS.13(1)(d), Income Tax Ordinance (1979): Addition is permissible only if the investment source remains unexplained.\n2.\nCompany vs. Directors: Investments made by directors cannot be attributed to the company unless disproven.\nConclusion: The addition of unexplained investments was deleted as the funds were claimed to originate from directors, and the authorities failed to confront the directors or disprove their capacity.\nReferences: S.13(1)(b), 13(1)(d), 136, Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),13(1)(b),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.360 of 1998, decision dated: 21st November, 2002, hearing DATE : 23rd September, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAZIA SIDDIQ (PVT.) LTD. (FORMERLY SSRS K.J.M. INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (LAHORE BENCH), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 98 = 2003 SLD 98 = 2003 PTD 1044", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme – Threshold for New Taxpayers\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nPara. 2(vi), Self-Assessment Scheme (2000–2001): Requires declared income to be at least 1/3 of declared capital.\n2.\nReasonableness: The threshold was upheld as neither arbitrary nor perverse, with precedence from the 1999–2000 scheme.\nConclusion: Complaint against the income-capital threshold was rejected as devoid of merit.\nReferences: C.B.R. Circular No. 21 (2000); Self-Assessment Scheme (1999–2001).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 816 of 2001, decision dated: 22-08-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siddique Ahmad Chaudhry for the Complainant. Zulfiqar Ali, DCIT, Circle 20, Gujranwala for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AADIL CERAMICS, GUJRANWALA\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 99 = 2003 SLD 99 = 2003 PTD 1053 = (2003) 87 TAX 382", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Export Sales and Gross Profit Allocation\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nR.216, Income Tax Rules (1982): FOB value of exports determines profit allocation for tax purposes.\n2.\nPro-ration of Expenses: Expenses not attributable directly to exports or local sales must be prorated.\nConclusion: The tribunal directed reassessment using FOB value and a clear allocation of expenses.\nReferences: R.216, Income Tax Rules (1982); C.B.R. Circular No.5 (2000).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80CC Income Tax Rules, 1982=216 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1779/KB of 1999 2000, decision dated: 17-05-2001, hearing DATE : 15-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawed Zakaria for Appellant. Qamar-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 100 = 2003 SLD 100 = 2003 PTD 1068 = (2003) 87 TAX 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Single Appeal Against Multiple Orders – Validity\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nS.65, Income Tax Ordinance (1979): Definite information is required for reopening assessments.\n2.\nMultiple Appeals: A single appeal against multiple orders is procedurally defective but was allowed in the interest of justice.\nConclusion: The proceedings initiated under suspicion were deemed ab initio illegal and set aside.\nReferences: S.65, 13(1)(aa), Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65,13(1)(aa),59(A),134 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 149/KB of 2000 2001, decision dated: 22-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaki Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Javaid Zakaria for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 101 = 2003 SLD 101 = 2003 PTD 1081 = (2003) 87 TAX 378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemptions for Single-Object Companies\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nStray Transactions: Incidental sales do not violate single-object clauses for exemptions.\n2.\nInterpretation of Exemptions: Exemptions must be construed liberally to avoid penalizing minor deviations.\nConclusion: The disallowed exemption was restored as the incidental sale was within permissible limits.\nReferences: C.B.R. Circular No.7 (1992); S.66A, Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,SecondSched.Cl.(118E),PartIV,Cl.(9) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1778/KB of 1999, decision dated: 15th, May, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Zakaria for Appellant. Qamar-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 102 = 2003 SLD 102 = 2003 PTD 1085 = (2003) 87 TAX 426", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty Proceedings – Mens Rea Requirement\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nPenalty as Criminal in Nature: Requires evidence of deliberate suppression or intent.\n2.\nAgreement Not Binding: An assessee’s agreement to a penalty does not exempt authorities from proving intent.\nConclusion: The penalty was canceled due to a lack of evidence proving mens rea.\nReferences: S.111(2)(c), 13(1)(d), Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111(2)(c),13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1144/KB of 1997 98, decision dated: 8-11-2002, hearing DATE 30-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Appellant. Taher Moochhala, C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 103 = 2003 SLD 103 = 2003 PTD 1093 = (2003) 88 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Change of Opinion – Reopening of Assessments\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nScrutiny and Finalization: Filing a Wealth Tax Return with an Income Tax Return precludes reopening without new material.\n2.\nChange of Opinion: Revisiting identical material without new evidence constitutes a change of opinion.\nConclusion: The tribunal upheld the original assessment and dismissed the reopening as unlawful.\nReferences: Messrs National Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, 2001 PTD 633.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),59(1),65,65(1)(c),1326(1),136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 173 of 2002, decision dated: 19-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES II, KARACHI\nvs\nSyed KHALID JAMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 104 = 2003 SLD 104 = 2003 PTD 1097 = (2003) 87 TAX 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision of Returns – Impact on Tax Liability\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nS.12(18), Income Tax Ordinance (1979): Tax liability cannot be altered retroactively through contrived revisions.\n2.\nCorporate Compliance: Form III filings and timely submissions are crucial for validity.\nConclusion: The tribunal upheld the addition, rejecting the revised balance sheet as an afterthought.\nReferences: Companies Ordinance (1984), S.73.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),30,Second Scheduleclause(118D) Companies Ordinance, 1984=73 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4620/LB of 1994, decision dated: 16-07-2002, hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rasheed, D.R. for Appellant. Zia Ullah Kayani for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 105 = 2003 SLD 105 = 2003 PTD 1103 = (2003) 88 TAX 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption Claims – Existing Undertakings\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nEligibility for Exemption: Requires clear evidence that the enterprise qualifies as a new undertaking.\n2.\nRevisional Jurisdiction: Documents directly tied to operations justified revisional action.\nConclusion: The exemption claim was rejected based on factual misrepresentation.\nReferences: S.66A, Second Schedule Cl. (118D), Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14(1),62,66A,136(2),SecondSched.Cl.(118D) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 572 of 1999, heard on 6-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. S. Babar for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHKOT FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD ROAD, SHAHKOT\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10, COMPANY ZONE I, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 106 = 2003 SLD 106 = 2003 PTD 1121 = (2003) 87 TAX 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment Without Mandatory Notices\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nJurisdictional Prerequisites: Mandatory notice under S.65, 56, or 61 is a condition precedent for assessments.\n2.\nInvalid Actions: Assessment orders issued without statutory compliance are void ab initio.\nConclusion: The tribunal annulled the assessment and penalty orders due to procedural non-compliance.\nReferences: S.62, 61, 56, 65, Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,61,56,65,13(1)(aa),147 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1926/KB of 1999 2000 and 95/KB of 2000 2001, decision dated: 20-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIRUL HASSAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Jawaid Zakaria for Appellant. M. Umer Farooq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 107 = 2003 SLD 107 = 2003 PTD 1126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessments Based on Agreements – Validity\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nBinding Nature of Agreements: Agreements between associations and CBR are non-binding on non-members.\n2.\nDe Novo Action: Cases must be reassessed based on the assessee’s accounts and law.\nConclusion: The tribunal remanded the case for reassessment, invalidating reliance on the association agreement.\nReferences: C.B.R. Circular No.63 (1994).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,50(4A),ChapterVII[50,51,52,5354],ChapterVIII[68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84] ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.636/LB of 1997, decision dated: 16-08-2002, hearing DATE : 25-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER, IMTIAZ ANJUM AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nauman Yahya, I.T.P. for Appellant. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 108 = 2003 SLD 108 = 2003 PTD 1135 = (2003) 87 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deterioration vs. Depreciation – Allowable Deductions\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nTerminology in Accounts: Synonyms like deterioration and depreciation cannot alter substantive rights.\n2.\nLease-Back Arrangements: Taxability depends on the source of deferred income.\nConclusion: The assessment order was restored, and deferred income taxation was remanded for verification.\nReferences: S.66A, Third Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(v),66A,Third Schedule,Rr.3,7 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As, Nos. 477/LB and 1136/LB of 2002, decision dated: 28-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Ali Ch., I.T.P. and Iqbal Hashmi for Appellant. Najum ud Din, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 109 = 2003 SLD 109 = 2003 PTD 1146 = (2003) 87 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Securities – Double Taxation\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nAccrual vs. Receipt Basis: Consistency in accounting methods is key to avoiding double taxation.\n2.\nImpact on Revenue: Errors that don’t prejudice revenue do not justify revisional actions.\nConclusion: The tribunal annulled the revisional order to prevent double taxation.\nReferences: S.66A, Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=17,66A,66A(1) ", + "Case #": "LT.A. No.3121/LB of 2001, decision dated: 6-09-2002, hearing DATE : 18-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ikramul Haq for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 110 = 2003 SLD 110 = 2003 PTD 1155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Bar of Suits Against Government Officials\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nProper Party Requirement: Non-impleadment of Pakistan renders suits against officials invalid.\n2.\nStatutory Bars: S.162 prohibits such suits in civil courts.\nConclusion: The plaint was rejected for being barred under law and improperly filed.\nReferences: S.162, Income Tax Ordinance (1979); O.VII, R.11, Civil Procedure Code (1908).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=162 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=79,O.VII,R.11 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=174 ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1649 of 1999, decision dated: 16-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendant No. 1. Muhammad Farid for Defendant No. 2", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax RECOVERY OFFICER and 2 others\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 111 = 2003 SLD 111 = 2003 PTD 1158 = (2003) 87 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revisional Jurisdiction – Audit Objections\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nDual Conditions for S.66A: Orders must be both erroneous and prejudicial to invoke S.66A.\n2.\nAudit Objections: Cannot solely justify revisional actions.\nConclusion: The tribunal canceled the revisional order and restored the assessment.\nReferences: S.66A, Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,62,50(4),50(5),80C,80C(2)(ii),143,143B,SecondSched.,PartIV,Cl.9,Para.4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 927/LB and 928/LB of 2001, decision dated: 30-09-2002, hearing DATE : 15-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zafar Dar for Appellant. Mehboob Alam, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 112 = 2003 SLD 112 = 2003 PTD 1167 = (2003) 87 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdictional Limits and Retrospective Liability\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nJurisdictional Overreach: Authorities cannot issue findings on irrelevant matters or periods.\n2.\nLimitation Periods: Assessments beyond the statutory timeline are void.\nConclusion: The tribunal canceled the orders for exceeding jurisdiction and statutory limits.\nReferences: S.52, 61, Income Tax Ordinance (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,52,61,86,142,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 740/LB to 744/LB of 2002, decision dated: 26-09-2002, hearing DATE : 21st September, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja M. Iqbal and Faisal Iqbal Khawaja, F.C.A. for Appellant. Shahid Jamil Khan, Legal Advisor for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 113 = 2003 SLD 113 = 2003 PTD 1189 = (2003) 87 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Bonus, Dividend Income, Lease Rentals, and Depreciation Allowance\nConclusion:\n1.\nBonus liability under mercantile accounting is deductible if ascertainable. Disallowance for provisions was invalid.\n2.\nDividend income taxed at 5% as a separate block of income was correctly treated.\n3.\nLease rentals reassessed with directions to consider actual receipts and allow depreciation under the Third Schedule.\n4.\nAd hoc disallowance of depreciation for missing schedules overturned; reassessment directed.\nCitations: 1985 PTD 413; 1990 PTD 248; 1996 PTD 276; 1994 PTD (Trib.) 1051.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10(2)(x),10(5),12,12(19),16(2),17,18,24,31,32,23(1)(viii),23(1)(xxii)(b),66A,FirstSched.,PartV,Para.A,12(19),Third ScheduleR.1,R.7,SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(91) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5703/LB, 5704/LB of 1999, 1252/LB to 1256/LB, 1446/LB, 3190/0 and 3191/LB of 2000, decision dated: 12-08-2002, hearing DATE : 2-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khaliq ur Rehman, F.C.A. for Appellant/Assessee. Mian Ashiq Hussain for Respondent/Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 114 = 2003 SLD 114 = 2003 PTD 1204 = (2003) 87 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Administrative Expenses During Business Inactivity\nConclusion: Expenses to maintain office, staff, and equipment during non-operational periods were deemed necessary and allowable for future business potential. The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision.\nCitations: Not cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 772/PB of 1999 2000, decision dated: 10-11-2001, hearing DATE : 8-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "FAZALUR REHMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ABIDA ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qaiser Ali, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Riaz, C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 115 = 2003 SLD 115 = 2003 PTD 1222 = (2003) 87 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme (1997–98) Compliance\nConclusion: Assessment cancellation upheld due to failure to meet the “tax paid” criterion. Scheme clarified to include all taxes, including those under presumptive regimes, rather than solely declared income.\nCitations: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 2168.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),66A,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2649/LB of 2000, decision dated: 16-11-2002, hearing DATE : 12-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Anwar Baig for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 116 = 2003 SLD 116 = 2003 PTD 1226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Employee Classification and Taxation\nConclusion: The taxpayer, with dual roles as salaried employee and business owner, was rightly classified as salaried. This classification allowed exemptions for salary income while accommodating independent business activities.\nCitations: 1988 PTD 563; 2000 PTD 497.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,136 Income Tax Rules, 1982=3(2)(c),49(2) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 118 of 1997, decision dated: 6-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMAZHAR HAKEEM COREJA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 117 = 2003 SLD 117 = 2003 PTD 1228 = (2003) 87 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment and Excess Income\nConclusion:\n1.\nExcess income over presumptive income was correctly reassessed.\n2.\nTribunal directed comprehensive investigation to validate unexplained income claims.\nCitations: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1201; 1997 PTD 1555.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),50AA,62,59A,65(1)(c),80C(1),80CC,80CC(1),80CC(4),116B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4023/LB, 5034/LB and 5035/LB of 1999 decided on 28-06-2000. dates of hearing: 11th May and 13-06-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rizwan Bashir, A.C.A. for Appellant/Assessee. Mrs. Talat Altaf, D.R. for Respondent/ Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 118 = 2003 SLD 118 = 2003 PTD 1238 = (2003) 87 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Procedural Compliance in Additions\nConclusion: Addition under S.13(1)(aa) invalidated as procedural requirements for approval were not met. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural integrity.\nCitations: 1994 PTD (Trib.) 1288; 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1935.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No.347/LB of 2002, decision dated: 15-08-2002, hearing DATE : 13-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abid Raza Kazmi for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 119 = 2003 SLD 119 = 2003 PTD 1264 = (2003) 88 TAX 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Definition of Company Under Tax Laws\nConclusion: Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act are not classified as “companies” for tax purposes and are exempt from minimum turnover tax under S.80-D.\nCitations: 2000 PTD 3388.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(16)(b),80D Societies Registration Act, 1860=1 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 180, 181 and 182 of 1998, decision dated: 18-02-2003, hearing DATE : 14-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Farooqui for Appellants. Rehan Hassan Naqvi and Miss Lubna Parvez for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs SPRING FIELD SECONDARY SCHOOL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 120 = 2003 SLD 120 = 2003 PTD 1285 = (2003) 88 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Amalgamation and Jurisdiction in Taxation\nConclusion: Notices issued under S.62 regarding asset revaluation during mergers were valid. The High Court emphasized statutory remedies over constitutional petitions.\nCitations: CIT v. Amsons Dairies Ltd. 1971 PTD 1075; CIT v. Bufco Tanneries PLD 1966 Lah. 244.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(12),62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,285,286,287,288 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1225 of 2000, decision dated: 21st March, 2003. dates of hearing: 28th and 29-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND M. MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Shaikh, Sirajul Haq Memon and Hashim Padhiar for Petitioners. Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi alongwith DCIT Sajidullah Siddiqui for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SITARA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. and another\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 121 = 2003 SLD 121 = 2003 PTD 1309 = (2003) 88 TAX 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Zakat Deduction on Assets\nConclusion: Zakat paid on Khas Deposit Certificates is deductible under S.25(1)(a) of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980. Tribunal upheld the statutory allowance.\nCitations: 1980 Zakat Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=18,136 Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980=25(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.64 of 1994, decision dated: 13-11-2002, hearing DATE : 13-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Moton for Applicant. Z.H. Jafri for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-III, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs AZLAK ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 122 = 2003 SLD 122 = 2003 PTD 1321 = (2003) 88 TAX 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Insurance Company Taxation\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the exclusive computation of profits and gains under the Fourth Schedule, excluding general provisions like S.12(9-A). The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was deemed limited.\nCitations: 1989 PTD 142; PLD 1981 SC 293.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FourthSched.,R.5,12(9A),136(2),25(c),26(6) Income Tax Act, 1922=10(7) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 175 of 2002, decision dated: 19-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-III, KARACHI\nvs\nCENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 123 = 2003 SLD 123 = 2003 PTD 1343 = (2003) 88 TAX 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Non-Payment of Deducted Tax\nConclusion: Prosecution and additional tax under S.117 and S.86 were upheld for non-payment of deducted taxes. Both actions were deemed independent and legally valid.\nCitations: 2002 PTD.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=117,117(a),124,86,50 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Rules, 1982=50,50(4)(a),50(8)(c) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.20218 to 20221 of 2002, heard on 27-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioners. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SULEMAN SPINNING MILLS LTD., LAHORE through Manager Finance\nvs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 125 = 2003 SLD 125 = 2003 PTD 1361 = (2003) 87 TAX 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment of Property Valuation\nConclusion: Tribunal validated reassessment where declared property values were significantly below collector rates. Case remanded for compliance with valuation standards.\nCitations: Not cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,13(1)(d),55,58,58(1),59A,59(3) Stamp Act, of 1899=32 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1360/KB of 1999-2000 and 2057/KB of 2002, decision dated: 11-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Siraj for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 126 = 2003 SLD 126 = 2003 PTD 1370 = (2003) 88 TAX 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Forfeiture of Advance Money\nConclusion: Forfeited advance from property sales was deemed capital receipt, not taxable casual income.\nCitations: 2002 PTD 728.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(vii),12B,136(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.79 of 1994, decision dated: 14-02-2003, hearing DATE : 21st January, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Arif Moton for Appellant. Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONEA, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs. TARIQ MULTIPURPOSE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 127 = 2003 SLD 127 = 2003 PTCL 196 = 2003 PTD 1383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision of Self-Assessment Orders\nConclusion: Revisional powers under S.66-A were misapplied for a professional firm's super tax liability. Original assessment order was restored.\nCitations: 1999 PTD 2940.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59(1),80D,FirstSched.,ParaIV,Cl.2(b) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1181/LB of 2002, decision dated: 31st October, 2002, hearing DATE : 26-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajud Din Khalid for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 128 = 2003 SLD 128 = 2003 PTD 1436 = (2003) 88 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Interest on Delayed Land Payment\nConclusion: Interest on delayed payments for land sales was deemed revenue income, not capital. Such interest compensated for deferred payments.\nCitations: 1997 PTD 2018.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 198 of 1998, decision dated: 15-01-2003, hearing DATE : 16-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MODEL TOWN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 129 = 2003 SLD 129 = 2003 PTD 1449 = (2003) 87 TAX 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Borrowed Capital for Tax-Free Investments\nConclusion: Tribunal directed verification of borrowed funds used for investments in tax-free securities. Expenses disallowed without evidence were overturned.\nCitations: Not cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1545/KB to 1548/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 30-01-2003, hearing DATE : 30-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUE BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Haider, A.C.A. for Appellant. Jawed Iqbal Rana, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 130 = 2003 SLD 130 = 2003 PTD 1464 = (2003) 87 TAX 497", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation and Loss Set-Off\nConclusion: Tribunal clarified that unabsorbed depreciation could be set off before current losses, ensuring compliance with statutory time limits for loss carryovers.\nCitations: 1996 PTD (Trib.) 292.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,35,36,36(2),37,38(1),38(5),38(7),38(6),35,23(1)(v),59,59A,62,63,65,66A,69(1)(B)(ii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.585/KB and 586/KB of 2002, decision dated: 30-01-2003, hearing DATE : 26-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUE BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amin Malik, A.C.A. for Appellant. Ali Hasnain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 131 = 2003 SLD 131 = 2003 PTD 1482 = (2003) 88 TAX 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Recovery from Public Company Directors\nConclusion: Recovery of public company taxes from deceased directors was deemed unlawful. Tribunal recommended restitution and penalties for maladministration.\nCitations: 1999 PTD 2940.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=77,74,FirstSched.,PartIV,Para.B(2),Cl.(2) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 Income Tax Rules, 1982=74,159 Companies Ordinance, 1984=2(28),2(30) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.918-L of 2002, decision dated: 28-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Parvez for the Complainant. Abdur Rehman Warraich for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mian ASGHAR ALI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 132 = 2003 SLD 132 = 2003 PTD 1492 = (2003) 88 TAX 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Arbitrary Selection for Total Audit\nConclusion: Selection of returns for total audit without clear criteria was deemed arbitrary and maladministration. Tribunal recommended acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme.\nCitations: Not cited.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.786-L of 2002, decision dated: 26-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for the Complainant. Aftab Fahim, Taxation Officer for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAHIB JEE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 133 = 2003 SLD 133 = 2003 PTD 1498 = (2003) 88 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding Refund Due to Pending Status Disputes\nConclusion: Refunds granted by appellate authorities cannot be withheld due to unrelated pending disputes. Tribunal recommended immediate release with compensation for delays.\nCitations: Not cited.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(32),2(16)(b),62,135,96,102,103,171,177 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.932-L of 2002, decision dated: 25-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar H. Naqvi for the Complainant. Nawab Khan, DCIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TECH SOCIETY LTD.\nVs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 134 = 2003 SLD 134 = 2003 PTD 1503", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Lease Arrangement and Income Assessment\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld the lease arrangement despite familial links, rejecting assessments based on assumptions of tax avoidance.\nCitations: Not cited.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,31 ", + "Case #": "I..T. As. Nos. 4466/LB and 4467/LB of 2002, decision dated: 18-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 135 = 2003 SLD 135 = 2003 PTD 1506", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Legal Issues in Tax Proceedings\nConclusion: Procedural lapses, such as failure to confront defects in accounts, led to deletion of additions. Tribunal emphasized adherence to legal norms.\nCitations: 1996 PTD 263.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,25(c),62,62(1),proviso,132 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=187(i) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4226/LB to 4229/ LB of 2000, 5177/LB and 5178/LB of 2001, decision dated: 1st October, 2002, hearing DATE : 19-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant. D.R. Younas Khalid, I.T.P. Ahmed Kamal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 136 = 2003 SLD 136 = 2003 PTD 1513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment and Audit Selection\nConclusion: Arbitrary audit selection based on disputed survey data was rejected. Tribunal emphasized fairness and adherence to guidelines.\nCitations: Not cited.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 706 of 2002, decision dated: 26th January 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for the Complainant. Muhammad Asif, ACIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "AKHLAQ CLOTH, HOUSE, FAISALABAD.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 137 = 2003 SLD 137 = 2003 PTD 1516 = (2003) 88 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Service of Notices\nConclusion: Notices issued under postal certificates must adhere to S.27 of the General Clauses Act to presume delivery. Tribunal remanded cases for compliance.\nCitations: PLD 1955 Lah. 417.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "General Clauses Act, 1897=27,134,136(2),154,154(1),154(6) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=20(2) General Clauses Act, 1897=27 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 11 of 2002, decision dated: 19-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HUSSAIN FOOD CORPORATION, MULTAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, MULTAN ZONE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 138 = 2003 SLD 138 = 2003 PTD 1522 = (2003) 87 TAX 364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Golden Handshake and Bonus Deductions\nConclusion: Tribunal directed recalculations for Golden Handshake payments and upheld bonus allowances as statutory obligations, dismissing the Department's appeal.\nCitations: 1973 PTD 2381.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(1)(viii)(b) Sindh Industrial Relations Rules, 1973=69 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2738/KB and 2764/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 31st January, 2001, hearing DATE : 1st December, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaki Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2738/KB of 1993-94). Jan-e-Alam, C.A. and Javed Zakaria for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2738/KB of 1993-94). Jan-e-Alam, C.A. and Javed Zakaria for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2764/KB of 1993-94). Zaki. Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2764/KB of 1993-94).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 139 = 2003 SLD 139 = 2003 PTD 1527 = (2004) 89 TAX 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Share Deposit and Loan Misclassification\nConclusion: Share deposits misclassified as loans were not subject to S.12(18). Tribunal invalidated retrospective application of provisions.\nCitations: 2001 PTD 1180; 2002 PTD 877.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),66A ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.3 of 2002, heard on 16-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Appellant. Mian Yousaf Umar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KAWALITY PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 140 = 2003 SLD 140 = 2003 PTD 1530 = (2003) 88 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment and Reopening of Cases\nConclusions:\n1.\nReopening Cases in Absence of an Assessment Order: The issuance of Form IT-30A does not constitute a valid assessment order under S.59 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. A formal written assessment order is required as a condition precedent for invoking provisions under S.65.\n2.\nDeeming Clauses and Their Application: A deeming provision is a legal fiction created by the Legislature to establish something that does not exist factually. However, such a fiction cannot be extended to other provisions unless explicitly provided.\n3.\nRetroactive Invocation of S.65: The addition of proviso to subsection (4) of S.59 and clause (c) to S.65(1) in subsequent years empowered the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments retrospectively. However, prior to these amendments, such reopening was invalid in the absence of a formal assessment order under S.59.\n4.\nWritten Assessment Requirement: Assessments under S.59 need to be in writing, containing the determination of taxable income and tax liability. Form IT-30, being a pre-formatted document, does not meet this statutory requirement as it lacks evidence of judicial application of mind.\nCitations: CIT, Karachi v. Malik Walayat Hussain & Sons Ltd., Quetta 1987 PTD 249 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),proviso,65,65(1),59A,59(4),65(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.51 of 1998, decision dated: 16-12-2002, hearing DATE : 7-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Munir Hussain for Appellant, Kh. Mahmood Ayaz for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/ WEALTH TAX, ZONEC, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs HAROON MEDICAL STORE, SHEIKHUPURA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 141 = 2003 SLD 141 = 2003 PTD 1536 = (2003) 87 TAX 278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption for Educational Institutions and Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority\nConclusions:\n1.\nCriteria for Exemption: Educational institutions are eligible for tax exemption under Cl. (86) of the Second Schedule if their predominant purpose is education and not profit-making. Expenditures incurred on staff (e.g., petrol, repair, entertainment) are allowable if incurred exclusively for society-related work.\n2.\nJudicial Decision-Making: An order by an Assessing Officer cannot be termed erroneous merely due to its perceived poor quality. A judicious application of mind, even if deemed insufficient, is protected under law unless proven to cause prejudice to revenue.\n3.\nRevisional Jurisdiction: Inspecting Additional Commissioners can exercise jurisdiction under S.66-A only if the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Mere dissatisfaction with the order's quality does not meet these conditions.\n4.\nVacating Revisions: The Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer's order, finding no violation of the statutory conditions or misuse of exemptions.\nCitations: 1997 PTD (Trib.) 902; 1999 PTD 1358 rel.; Black's Law Dictionary ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,62,66A,SecondSched.,Cl.(86) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 212/KB and 213/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 26-01-2001, hearing DATE : 18-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Jawed Zakaria for Appellant. Vishno Raja Qavi, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 142 = 2003 SLD 142 = 2003 PTD 1563 = (2004) 89 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitutional Petition and Default Status\nConclusions:\n1.\nMaintainability: High Court dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an order that declared the petitioner an assessee in default under S.52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n2.\nStatutory Remedies: The Court emphasized the importance of availing statutory remedies under the Income Tax Ordinance before resorting to constitutional petitions.\n3.\nHigh Court Discretion: The Court rejected the petition as the impugned order was neither without jurisdiction nor mala fide.\nCitations: Nizamuddin Ahmad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1971 SCMR 68; Hafiz Muhammad Arif Dar v. Income-tax Officer 1989 PTD 485.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27,52,58,129 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-770 of 1995, decision dated: 31st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fazle Ghani Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CITIBANK N.A. through Principal Officers and Senior, Country Operations Officer, Karachi\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 143 = 2003 SLD 143 = 2003 PTD 1571 = (2004) 89 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation for Orders Under S.52 and S.58\nConclusions:\n1.\nBarred by Limitation: Orders passed by the Revenue under Ss.52 and 58 after six years were annulled by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal upheld this decision, confirming that the four-year limitation under S.156 applied.\n2.\nReference Rejected: Revenue’s attempt to reopen the issue through a reference application was also dismissed as the High Court had already settled the matter in Kamran Model Factory, 2002 PTD 14.\nCitations: Kamran Model Factory, 2002 PTD 14 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),52,58,86,136(1),136(2),156 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 157 of 2002, decision dated: 5-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqi for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEC, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs AGHAS SUPER MARKET, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 144 = 2003 SLD 144 = 2003 PTD 1604", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessment and Claim of Expenses\nConclusions:\n1.\nUnlawful Proceedings: Reopening an assessment under S.65 on the grounds of unclaimed expenses (e.g., social security payments) was deemed unlawful.\n2.\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Intervention: The Ombudsman declared the proceedings void ab initio due to maladministration and recommended annulment of the additional assessment.\nCitations: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 2905 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 778 of 2002, decision dated: 22-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Abdul Haq for the Complainant. Muhammad Saleem, D.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AZEEM HOSIERY FINISHING PLANT, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 145 = 2003 SLD 145 = 2003 PTD 1611 = (2003) 87 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refunds and Time-Barred Assessments\nConclusions:\n1.\nRefund Obligations: Once the assessment becomes time-barred, refunds become automatically due under the Income Tax Ordinance. Failure to process such refunds constitutes maladministration.\n2.\nCompensation for Delays: The Tribunal directed the Department to calculate and pay additional compensation for delayed refunds.\nCitations: Koh-i-Noor Industries Ltd., 1994 PTD 994; Metropolitan Steel Corporation, 2002 PTD 87 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,64,65,65(3),66(1),66(1)(c),59,54,96,99,126 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 681/L of 2002, decision dated: 26-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Athar Raza for the Complainant. S.M. Ali, D.C.I.T, for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISHAQ MUHAMMAD ALTAF\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 146 = 2003 SLD 146 = 2003 PTD 1615", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Arbitrary Tax Demands and Estimation\nConclusions:\n1.\nArbitrary Practices: Wide variations in sales, GP rate, and expenses estimation were found in the assessment, which were deemed whimsical and incompetent by the Tribunal.\n2.\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Recommendation: Disciplinary action and reassessment were recommended due to maladministration.\nCitations: 2002 PTD.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,209(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 687-L of 2002, decision dated: 11-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (REND.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haroon Ghazi for the Complainant. Khawaja Imran Raza, A CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs E.C.S. EHSAN, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 147 = 2003 SLD 147 = 2003 PTD 1629 = (2003) 87 TAX 575", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Concessional Loans and Jurisdiction Issues\nConclusions:\n1.\nConcessional Loan Adjustments: Additions for reduced interest on loans for house-building and transport were upheld by the Tribunal.\n2.\nImproper Jurisdiction: Revisional jurisdiction under S.66-A was improperly assumed and subsequently annulled.\nCitations: I.T.A. No. 652/KB(H.Q) of 1999-2000 rel.; 2001 PTD 1467 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,24(1),16(2)(b)(iv),5(1)(cc) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1102/KB, 800/KB, 1101/KB and 1100/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 23rd March, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAVAID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Khurram for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Indhar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 148 = 2003 SLD 148 = 2003 PTD 1632 = (2003) 88 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding Refunds\nConclusions:\n1.\nIllegal Withholding: Despite initiating proceedings under Ss.65 and 66-A, withholding refunds after verification was deemed mala fide.\n2.\nFederal Tax Ombudsman’s Recommendation: Directed immediate processing of refunds along with additional compensation under S.171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nCitations: In re: Inayat Ullah's case, 1989 PTD 876; 2002 PTD 2734 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,66A,170,171,103 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1094-L of 2002, decision dated: 7-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi for the Complainant.. Yasir Pirzada, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LAQA INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 149 = 2003 SLD 149 = 2003 PTD 1636 = (2003) 87 TAX 572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification Applications\nConclusions:\n1.\nImproper Applications: Applications for rectification in issues already adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority were dismissed as incompetent.\nCitations: Ellahi Cotton Mills, 1983; 1992 PTD 1681 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=118D,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2350/KB of 2001, decision dated: 13th May 2002, hearing DATE ; 4-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAVAID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aleem for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Indhar, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 150 = 2003 SLD 150 = 2003 PTD 1639", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gifted Property and Additional Assessments\nConclusions:\n1.\nTaxability of Gifts: Reopening assessments for gifted property without legal basis was deemed illegal and classified as maladministration.\n2.\nOmbudsman’s Recommendation: Notices under S.65 for reassessments were ordered to be withdrawn.\nCitations: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 2905 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),65 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1028/L of 2002, decision dated: 20-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Umar for the Complainant. Malik Khalid and Attique-ur-Rehman for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KHALID MAHMOOD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 151 = 2003 SLD 151 = 2003 PTD 1643 = (2003) 87 TAX 568", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Power Generation and Exemptions\nConclusions:\n1.\nNon-Related Income: Interest from unrelated advances was taxable and excluded from exemptions granted for power generation.\n2.\nBank Guarantees: Interest on accounts related to bank guarantees for gas supply was exempted as part of the project’s income.\nCitations: I.T.A. No. 136/KB of 1998-99 rel.; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 708 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(176),87,22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2160/KB of 2001, decision dated: 9-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAVAID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moin Khan for Appellant. Basharat Ahmed Qureshi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 152 = 2003 SLD 152 = 2003 PTD 1647", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration in Self-Assessment Scheme\nConclusions:\n1.\nImproper Selection for Audit: Mistakes in NTN assignments and discrepancies in random ballot selections were identified as maladministration.\n2.\nOmbudsman’s Recommendations: Directed exclusion of such cases from audit lists and systemic improvements in ballot procedures.\nCitations: 2002 PTD.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 449, 520, 571/L, 572/L, 624/L, 626/L, 646/L to 648/LB of 2002, decision dated: 17-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asghar Ali, Senior Project Manager, Lahore, Mujahid Naeem, Manager, Faisalabad, Ahsanul Iraq, Manager DPU, Faisalabad and Iftikhar Ahmad, Manager, Sargodha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LEATHER INN, SAHIWAL and 8 others\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 153 = 2003 SLD 153 = 2003 PTD 1655 = (2003) 88 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refunds for Returned Mobilization Advances\nConclusions:\n1.\nTax Refunds on Returned Advances: Mobilization advances returned to the Department should result in corresponding tax refunds under S.122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n2.\nMaladministration: The Tribunal criticized the denial of refunds despite clear statutory provisions.\nCitations: Koh-i-Noor Industries Ltd., 1994 PTD 994; Metropolitan Steel Corporation, 2002 PTD 87 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,63,65,80C(7),143B,59A,156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=121,122 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1095-L of 2002, decision dated: 23rd January 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi for the Complainant. Ms. Saddia Gillani, DCIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ARSHAD CONSTRUCTION CO., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 154 = 2003 SLD 154 = 2003 PTD 1659 = (2003) 87 TAX 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Deemed to Arise in Pakistan\nConclusions:\n1.\nIncome Exclusions: Prior year profits excluded from taxable income for current years, as per deemed income provisions under S.12(9A).\n2.\nStrict Interpretation: Deemed provisions must be strictly interpreted, with any doubt resolved in favor of the taxpayer.\nCitations: Biria Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd., 1966; Shiri Vastava and Sons (P.) Ltd., 1963.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(9A),FirstSched,PartIV,Cis.(59),(136) ", + "Case #": "R.A. No.708/LB of 2002, decision dated: 7-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Sarwar Khawaja for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 155 = 2003 SLD 155 = 2003 PTD 1675 = (2003) 87 TAX 559", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Deduction at Source and Financial Arrangements\nConclusions:\n1.\nDefinition of Company : Instruments issued by banking or specified companies fall under S.50(7D) regarding tax deduction at source, provided they align with the definition in S.2(16).\n2.\nFinancial Agreements: Board resolutions for financial arrangements between holding and subsidiary companies qualify as instruments under S.50(7D).\n3.\nDisallowed Financial Expenses: Expenses claimed under S.24(c) paid to a holding company were disallowed but referred back for re-investigation. Appellate Tribunal directed re-examination of the holding company’s records.\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary, Law Lexicon, I.T.A. No. 660/IB of 1997-98 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(2A),50(7D),2(16)(b)(a),24(c),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.49/IB of 2001-2002, decision dated: 25-01-2003, hearing DATE :, 9th, January, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH (JUDICIAL MEMBER)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Jaleel, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Basit, FCA for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 156 = 2003 SLD 156 = 2003 PTD 1686 = (2003) 88 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeals and Filing Requirements\nConclusions:\n1.\nPhotostat Copies in Appeals: Appeals filed with photocopies of orders instead of original/certified copies issued by the Appellate Authority are invalid under Ss.134(3) & 132(4).\n2.\nTime Limit: The 60-day limitation for filing appeals begins only after official communication by the Appellate Authority. Appeals based on photocopies supplied by assessees are not maintainable.\nCitations: Income Tax Rules, 1982, R.11.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132(4),134(3) Income Tax Rules, 1982=11 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2019/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 9-01-2003, hearing DATE : 1st November, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaki Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Mushtaq Ahmed, F.C.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 157 = 2003 SLD 157 = 2003 PTD 1689", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Expenses and Gross Profit Rate\nConclusions:\n1.\nRent Payment and Crossed Cheques: Rent deductions require crossed cheques as per S.24(ff). Since the assessee did not meet these criteria, the deduction was disallowed.\n2.\nRejection of GP Rate: Without reasons or findings to support rejection, GP rates declared by the assessee cannot be replaced with estimates. Appellate Tribunal upheld the declared GP rate.\nCitations: 1998 PTD 1908, 1998 PTD 1558 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(ff),24(c),50(7B) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.331/IB and 406/IB of 2001-2002, decision dated: 8th March 2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Jaleel, D.R. for Appellant. G. Abas Chatha for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 158 = 2003 SLD 158 = 2003 PTD 1698 = (2003) 88 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalties for Non-Compliance\nConclusions:\n1.\nJurisdiction in Penalties: Penalty under S.139 for non-filing of salary deduction statements was deleted as jurisdiction rested with the salary circle.\n2.\nPrinciples of Penalty: Penalties are deterrents, not tools for revenue generation. Initial penalties require procedural compliance before imposing additional penalties.\nCitations: Relevant provisions and Appellate Tribunal precedents.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,51,52,108(b),139,141,142,143(143A),(143B),144 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.301/IB, 302/IB, 309/IB and 310/IB of 2001-2002, decision dated: 12-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Tariq Jamil, FCA for Appellant. Naushad Ali Khan, DR for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 159 = 2003 SLD 159 = 2003 PTD 1708 = (2003) 88 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification and Appeals\nConclusions:\n1.\nDeeming Effect: Subsection (3) of S.156 excludes the Appellate Tribunal from rectification processes. Deeming provisions must be strictly construed.\n2.\nRemand Powers: The Tribunal retains inherent power to remand cases for adjudication where necessary.\nCitations: PLD 1988 Lah 49, PLD 1984 Kar 345 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,135(5),156(1),156(3),221(3),239(4) ", + "Case #": "M.A. (R) No.23/IB of 2000-2001 and I.T.A. No.736/IB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 28-01-2003, hearing DATE 25-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mir Ahmad-Ali for Applicant. Abdul Jaleel, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 160 = 2003 SLD 160 = 2003 PTD 1720 = (2004) 89 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption on National Savings Certificates\nConclusions:\n1.\nExemption Allowed: Profit from Khas Deposit Certificates claimed under Cl.72 of the Second Schedule was allowed. The Tribunal and High Court affirmed this decision.\nCitations: Appellate decisions favoring exemption.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14(1),22(c),151,136(1),136(2),SecondSched.,Cl.(72) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No.32 of 1993, decision dated: 8-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasarullah Awan for Applicant. Hyder Raza Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD, . KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 161 = 2003 SLD 161 = 2003 PTD 1730 = (2003) 87 TAX 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additions and Workers’ Welfare Fund\nConclusions:\n1.\nUnjust Additions: Revenue’s additions ignoring Tribunal directions and accounts were deemed harassment and maladministration. Tribunal upheld cancellation of the addition.\nCitations: 1997 PTD 1555, 1995 PTD 856 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),59A,62,65,80C,80C(5),80CC,80CC(1),80CC(3),80CC(4),80CC(6),50(5A),116(b),135 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4523/LB of 2001, decision dated: 27-09-2002, hearing DATE : 22-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Sarfraz Mahmood, F.C.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 162 = 2003 SLD 162 = 2003 PTD 1760 = (2003) 87 TAX 491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Non-Adjudication of Grounds in Appeals\nConclusions:\n1.\nTribunal’s Order Maintained: Appellate Tribunal’s non-adjudication of a ground due to non-argument was deemed valid.\nCitations: Relevant Tribunal orders.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(a),156 ", + "Case #": "M. A. No. 421/LB of 2002, decision dated: 30-08-2002, hearing DATE : 28-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANGHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed Chaudhary, F.C.A. for Applicant. Javed ur Rehman, D. R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 163 = 2003 SLD 163 = 2003 PTD 1762 = (2004) 89 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening Agreed Assessments\nConclusions:\n1.\nIllegal Reopening: Reopening agreed assessments under S.66-A based on audit reports was declared without jurisdiction. The High Court quashed such notices.\nCitations: Constitutional principles and tax provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(1),12(18),24(e),50(1),53,62,63,66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4408 of 2002, heard on 24-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for Petitioner. Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PUNJAB BEVERAGES COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED through General Manager, FAISALABAD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, FAISALABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 164 = 2003 SLD 164 = 2003 PTD 1775 = (2004) 89 TAX 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty on Unexplained Investment\nConclusions:\n1.\nAttraction of S.111: If the assessee accepts additions after inquiry into investment sources, S.111 applies for unexplained income.\nCitations: Relevant Income Tax Ordinance provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),111 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 110 of 1998, heard on 24-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant. Yousaf Umar for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs. ISMAIL JEWELLERS through Legal Heirs\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CIRCLE5, ZONEC, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 165 = 2003 SLD 165 = 2003 PTD 1780 = (2004) 89 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Injunctive Orders and Scrutiny Selection\nConclusions:\n1.\nViolation of Injunction: Final assessments during the currency of High Court’s injunctive orders were set aside.\n2.\nUnjustified Scrutiny Selection: Circulars altering Self-Assessment Scheme criteria post-filing were invalid.\nCitations: Circulars and relevant constitutional provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61,62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2331 of 2001, decision dated: 17-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asghar Ahmad Kharal for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Dr. M.D. YOUCHI\nvs\nACIT CIRCLE20, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 166 = 2003 SLD 166 = 2003 PTD 1784 = (2004) 89 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeals and Prescribed Fee\nConclusions:\n1.\nFee Requirement: Appeals dismissed for non-payment of fees were restored, emphasizing procedural fairness.\nCitations: Allied Bank of Pakistan v. ITAT, 2000 PTD 2872 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130,130(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 147 of 1999, decision dated: 3rd December, 2002, hearing DATE : 18-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, Justice(s).", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt and Naveed Ahmad Andrabi for Appellant. Safdar Hussain for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "TARIQ IKRAM\nvs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 167 = 2003 SLD 167 = 2003 PTD 1795 = (2004) 89 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n1.\nIllegal Denial of Scheme Benefits: Returns filed in the previous circle were validly under Self-Assessment and could not be reopened unjustly.\nCitations: Relevant tax provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,66,66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11390 of 2002, decision dated: 27-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Petitioner Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PROFILE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS\nvs\nD.C.I.T., CIRCLE02; ZONEB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 168 = 2003 SLD 168 = 2003 PTD 1803 = (2004) 89 TAX 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Confrontation and Validity of Additions\nConclusions:\n1.\nAbsence of Notice: Additions made without confronting the assessee were invalidated due to lack of service of notice.\nCitations: Relevant procedural rules.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,24(ff),136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No.254 of 1998, decision dated: 19-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jameel for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs BASHIR PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1 = 2012 SLD 1 = 2012 SCMR 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification and Excess Payments\nConclusions:\n1.\nRectification Denied: Rectification beyond the four-year limit under S.156 was refused. Remedies under S.138 were advised.\nCitations: Relevant Supreme Court rulings.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(f)(vi) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 340 K, 385 K to 389 K, 520 K of 2009, 392 K to 394 K and 627 K to 630 K of 2011, decision dated: 19-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Ali Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 340-K, 385-K to 389-K and 520-K of 2009)\nNasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos 392-K to 394-K and 627-K to 630-K of 2011) Makhdoom Ali Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos. 340-K, 385-K to 389-K of 2009 and 627-K to 630-K of 2011) Salman Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos. 392-K to 394-K and 627-K to 630-K of 2011)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and anothers\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LTD. and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 169 = 2003 SLD 169 = 2003 PTD 1821 = (2003) 88 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme Principles\nConclusions:\n1.\nEncouraging Voluntary Compliance: Self-Assessment aims to reduce distrust and encourage honest declarations while retaining safeguards against evasion.\nCitations: C.B.R. Circulars and Tribunal precedents.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,35,36,37,38,50,53,54,55,59,65(1),165,ThirdSched. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitioris Nos. 4964, 4479, 4146, 4816, 4480, 4478, 4229, 5025, 6306, 6286, 4321, 6062, 6064, 6065, 8093 and 8306 of 2003; decided on 18-06-2003. dates of hearing: 30th May and 8-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch.Anwarul Haq, Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Mian Ashiq Hussain, Muhammad Naeem Shah and M.. Ajmal Khawaja for, Petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Khan with Asghar Ahmad Kharal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MIAN TRAVIL AND TRADE PVT. LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 170 = 2003 SLD 170 = 2003 PTD 1842 = (2004) 89 TAX 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening Assessments\nConclusions:\n1.\nCancellation of Reassessments: Lack of justifiable grounds invalidates reopening of assessments. Tribunal findings were upheld.\nCitations: High Court decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 185 to 187 of 1997, decision dated: 12-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellants.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CONCERN (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 171 = 2003 SLD 171 = 2003 PTD 1850 = (2004) 89 TAX 302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Audit Selection\nConclusions:\n1.\nFacts-Based Decisions: Issues related to Self-Assessment Scheme eligibility are factual and do not constitute substantial legal disputes.\nCitations: Relevant cases.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 208 of 1997, decision dated: 4-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Yousaf Umar for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nMessrs ALEEM ULLAH AND CO., PROPRIETOR EHSAN ULLAH, GHALLA MANDI, WAZIRABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 172 = 2003 SLD 172 = 2003 PTD 1874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Condonation of Delay in Appeals\nConclusions:\n1.\nInordinate Delay: Delay beyond permissible limits without valid reasons cannot be condoned.\nCitations: 1987 PTD 319, 2002 PTD 549 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(3) ", + "Case #": "M.As. (Cond.) Nos.162/KB, 163/KB, R.A. No.196/KB and R.A. No.197/KB of 2003 in Ref. I.T.As. Nos. 298 and 585/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 8-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haibbullah Khan, D.R. for Applicant. Asif S. Kasbati, A.C.A for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 173 = 2003 SLD 173 = 2003 PTD 1885 = (2004) 89 TAX 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Bank Transactions and Reopening\nConclusions:\n1.\nLack of Evidence: Reopening based on unverified bank accounts failed to establish the necessary link with the assessee’s business.\nCitations: Relevant appellate decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136,136(1) ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 17 of 1999, decision dated: 2-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs RAVI FLOUR MILLS, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 174 = 2003 SLD 174 = 2003 PTD 1903", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Public Company Status and Rebate\nConclusions:\n1.\nPublic Company Rebate: Majority shares held indirectly by the government qualify a company for public status and corresponding rebates.\nCitations: Economic Reforms Order, 1972, relevant I.T.A.s.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1),65,156,FirstSched.,PartIV,ParaB(2) Companies Ordinance, 1984=156 & PartVIII),FormA,Para.5 Economic Reforms Order, 1972=7E(1),7F,7D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1876 to 1878/KB and 3830 to 3833/B of 2002, decision dated: 6-08-2002, hearing DATE : 27-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM AND, JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akbar G. Merchant, Yasmeen Ajani, (FCA), Sirajul Haq and Arshad Siraj for Appellant. Javed Iqbal Rana, Akhtar Mehmood and Aftab H. Rizvi for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 175 = 2003 SLD 175 = 2003 PTD 1913 = (2004) 89 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption and Tribal Areas\nConclusions:\n1.\nTribal Area Exemption: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 does not apply to Tribal Areas unless explicitly extended, exempting such businesses from taxation.\nCitations: Constitutional provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(5),2(16),2(24),2(32),2(40),9(1),11,12,56,61 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=247 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1578 of 2000, decision dated: 25-04-2003. dates of hearing: 2nd January and 10-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J., MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. S. M. Sardar Khan; Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, PESHAWAR\nvs\nMessrs GUL COOKING OIL AND VEGETABLE GHEE (PVT.) LTD. through the Chief Executive and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 176 = 2003 SLD 176 = 2003 PTD 1924", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification and Refund Claims\nConclusions:\n1.\nTime-Barred Rectification: Refund claims under S.156 were denied due to expiration of the statutory period. Remedy under S.138 advised.\nCitations: PLD 1997 SC 582, 1997 PTD 1555 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138,138(2)(c),80,80D,156,SecondSched.,Cl.118E ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 124 and 125/KB of 2002, decision dated: 10-12-2002.hearing DATE : 16-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Anwer Kamal for Appellant. Zaki Ahmed for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 177 = 2003 SLD 177 = 2003 PTD 1936", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revenue Potential and Maladministration\nConclusions:\n1.\nNo Maladministration: Alleged grounds for revenue potential were found to lack substance. Complaint dismissed.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman findings.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=59,59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=3(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No., 1226-L of 2002, decision dated: 19-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Saeed (FCA) for the Complainant. Sirdar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera, Bar at Law for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messers FAZAL DIN & SONS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 178 = 2003 SLD 178 = 2003 PTD 1941 = (2003) 88 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Stay of Recovery and Jurisdiction\nConclusions:\n1.\nStay Denied: Tribunal dismissed stay applications unrelated to formal appeals under its jurisdiction.\nCitations: M. A. (Stay) No.597/LB of 2001 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,66A,111,132,134,134(1),134(6),148(2),156 ", + "Case #": "M. A. Stay Nos.252 to 254/LB of 2003, decision dated: 24-04-2003.hearing DATE : 24-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL (MEMBER) AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed A. Andrabi for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 179 = 2003 SLD 179 = 2003 PTD 1943", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Harsh Assessments\nConclusions:\n1.\nMaladministration in Assessment: Assessments completed in haste without proper hearings were revised to ensure just tax liability.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendations.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=3,9,9(2)(d) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=3(2),5,5(1)(c),59,59(1),61,62,63 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1030-L of 2002, decision dated: 20-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Shuja Khan for the Complainant. Mirza Nadeem Munawar Baig, IAC for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MIAN BROTHERS RICE MILLS, KANGANPUR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 180 = 2003 SLD 180 = 2003 PTD 1948 = (2003) 88 TAX 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductions and Documentation\nConclusions:\n1.\nCrossed Cheques for Deductions: Compliance with S.24(ff) for documentation is mandatory for claiming deductions. Tribunal upheld such requirements.\nCitations: 2000 PTD 39, 2002 PTD 1 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),24(c),24(ff),50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 368(IB) and 610 (IB) of 2002, decision dated: 20th March 2003.hearing DATE : 20-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Jaleel, D.R. for Appellant. Ghulam Mohy ud Din Kharal for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 181 = 2003 SLD 181 = 2003 PTD 1956 = (2003) 88 TAX 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Non-Filing of Salary Statement\n•\nKey Conclusion: Penalty for late salary statement filing under R.53 of Income Tax Rules was valid, even if time limits were prescribed by subordinate legislation.\n•\nReferences: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 3456 rel.; C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 1995.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),62,63,65,129 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.432/IB to 434/IB of 2001-2002; decided on 12-04-2003, hearing DATE : 12-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Hassan Mehdi Rizvi for Appellant. Abdul Jaleel, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 182 = 2003 SLD 182 = 2003 PTD 1962", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 96-Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9-Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.171-Refund-Non-issuance of refund of the assessment year 1980-81 clue to change of status of assessee from registered firm to a company and also for changes of circles due to change in jurisdiction-Validity-Department agreed to issue refund voucher for Rs.16,502 if the complainant furnished original documents/challan and further promised to release additional payment for delayed refund as per S.171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Both the parties had put their signatures on the Order Sheet where the undertaking had been recorded-Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Revenue Division should ensure that Refund Voucher of Rs. 16,520 as per undertaking of the Representative of the respondent, alongwith additional payment for delayed refund' as per S.171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was issued promptly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=171 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),96 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1189-L of 2002, decision dated: 17-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Iqbal Hashmi for the Complainant. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad (DCIT) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SUNBEAM CORPORATION, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 183 = 2003 SLD 183 = 2003 PTD 1965 = (2003) 88 TAX 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-S. 133(1)-Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 52/86, 50(3-A), 12(5), 80-AA & 156-Reference to High Court-Assessment framed under Ss.52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was annulled by the First Appellate Authority being barred by time as the same was to be made within a period of four years as prescribed under S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Action of the First Appellate Authority was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal-Question for reference to High Court as to whether Appellate Tribunal was justified in maintaining the annulment of order despite the fact that no period of limitation had been prescribed for initiation/completion of action under Ss.52/86 of the, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Validity-Proposed question of law did not appear to be a question of such a nature as necessarily required reference to High Court for decision, since similar reference had already been specifically answered by the superior Courts-Settled and answered proposition need not to be referred again for decision-Appellate Tribunal declined to make reference to High Court and reference applications stand refused. \n \n1999 PTD (Trib.) 3357 and 1996 PTD (Trib.) 65 ref.\n \n(1961) 4 Tax 96 and 2002 PTD 14 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86,12,12(5),50,50(3A),80,80AA,156 ", + "Case #": "R.A. Nos.85/IB to 87-A/IB of 2003, decision dated: 22-04-2003.hearing DATE : 22-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Jaleel, D.R. for Applicant. Irfan Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 184 = 2003 SLD 184 = 2003 PTD 1969", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 59(1)-Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 3(2)-Survey for Documentation of National Economy Ordinance (XV of 2000), preamble -C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 2001, dated 18-6-2001-Self-Assessment Scheme, Para. 9(a)(ii)-Assessment year 2001-2002-Assessment of sales by survey team-Objections-Limitation-Survey was conducted in August, 2000-Protest to Commissioner about the estimation and entries made by the Survey Team was made on 1-1-2001-No time limit had been fixed for filing objection at that time-Held, objection could be filed within 90 days from the date of decision in Complaint No.582 of 2001, which was made on 16-8-2001 and therefore, objection filed before 16-8-2001 will not be hit by the rule of 90 days-Objection was filed on 1-1-2001, which had not been decided as yet-Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the Commissioner to decide the objection and thereafter the assessment proceedings be completed.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=3(2),preamble Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1395 of 2002, decision dated: 28-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zulfiqar Khokhar for the Complainant. Aftab Alam (A CIT) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW FINE ART JEWELLERS, HASSAN ARCADE, MULTAN CANTT., MULTAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 186 = 2003 SLD 186 = 2003 PTD 1973 = (2003) 87 TAX 542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVMTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 52 & 50(4), Second Sched., Part IV, Cl. (33)-Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000-Liability of person failing to deduct or pay tax-Assessee, a registered firm-Capital was enhanced through the declaration of stock in Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000 just four days before the end of the financial year-Assessing Officer treated the assessee to be an assessee in default on the ground that the assessee's business capital during the assessment year was increased by Rs.10,00,000 and he was under legal obligation to deduct tax under S.50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on his purchases-Validity-Inclusion of stock in the firm's books of account at the fag end of the income year did not hold the assessee to be an assessee in default -Peculiar and extraordinary circumstances had been cropped up in the present case consequent upon which capital in business had been increased, in the books of account four days prior to close of the income year-Clause (33) of Part IV of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 would not attract to the facts of the case as this clause and its proviso catered altogether for different situation which did not exist in the present case for the simple reason that capital in business had never increased while executing normal business activities-Appeal of the Department was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,50(4),50(4),52,SecondSched.,PartIV,Cl.33 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1873/LB of 2001, decision dated: 28-03-2003.hearing DATE : 12-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. M.A. Shamsi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 187 = 2003 SLD 187 = 2003 PTD 1975 = (2003) 88 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 80D-Societies Registration Act (XXI of 1860)-Finance Act (XII of 1999)-Minimum tax on income of certain persons -Assessee, a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860-Demand raised was deleted by the First Appellate Authority, assessee being the Society and not Company but yet an Artificial Juridical Person-Validity-No doubt Artificial Juridical persons like Societies Companies, Firms were basically Association of Persons (A.O.P.) but, once they qualified the condition of their respective registration, there were to be assigned their specific status i.e. when a firm was registered by Registrar of Firms, such Association of Persons became a firm and was not to be assigned the status of Association of Persons; a Company when so registered under the Companies Ordinance although still an Association of Persons was to be assigned the status of Company and not that of an Association of Persons similarly a Society when so registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, although an Association of Persons was to be assigned the status of an Artificial Juridical Person-Provisions of S.80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were not extended to an Artificial Juridical Person even through Finance Act, 1999-Society being an Artificial Juridical Person was not liable to the charge of minimum tax under S.80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Appellate Tribunal maintained the order of First Appellate Authority and dismissed the appeals of Department being devoid of merits. \n \n1998 PTD (Trib.) 2017 rel.\n \n2000 PTD 3388 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 164/KB and 417/KB of 2002, decision dated: 16-11-2002.hearing DATE : 16-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaki Ahmed for Appellant. Naeemullah Siddiqui for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 188 = 2003 SLD 188 = 2003 PTD 1978 = (2003) 88 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 65-Additional assessment-Re-opening of case on the basis of interpretation of law by Courts-Validity-Assessing Officer had reopened the settled case of the assessee relying on the interpretation of law made by the High Court, held, was not justified. \n \nWrit Petition No.8672 of 1999 distinguished.\n \nPLD 1969 SC 322 rel.\n \n(2000) 81 Tax 180 ref\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 65 & 80C/80CC/143B-Additional assessment-Re-opening of assessment of company on the basis of audit and inspection report-Validity-Information on which the Department had relied for re-opening assessee's case under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was available in the balance-sheet of the assessee-Assessee's balance-sheet as well as-accounts Were audited -Assessee company had genuine resources to explain the deposit made with its sister concern-Information provided by Audit and Inspection Authorities-regarding the deposit of the assessee was hardly a good pretext on the basis of which assessments made under presumptive tax regime under Ss.80C/80CC/143B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 could be reopened or such extreme action could be justified-Allegation regarding non-application of mind and mechanical action based on audit report was also partly true-Record showed that Assessing Officer himself was not satisfied that action under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 could be taken on the basis of information provided by the audit and thus he had to raise four or five other points for getting approval from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner-Action under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was without any definite information in circumstances. \n \n1992 PTD 1671; 1997 PTD 47 and 2000 PTD 2531 (Trib.) rel\n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 65-Additional assessment-Approval of Senior Authority-Exercise of power of approval by the author of the assessment order-Validity-First Appellate Authority was justified to hold that prior approval of a Senior Authority had been made mandatory before initiating any action under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to put check on power of an Assessing Officer so as to examine the legality and necessity of all the contemplated actions-Provision of taking prior approval will naturally lose its sanctity when the same officer exercises these powers who was also the author of such assessment order-Functions of Approving Authority which were considered as check on the arbitrary use of S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by an Assessing Officer were being exercised by the same Inspecting Additional Commissioner who was the author of the original assessment order-Prior approval of Competent Authority was thus lacking in the case. \n \n2001 PTD 1467; 2001 PTD 2247; 2001 PTD, (Trib.) 2919 and 2001 PTD (Trib.) 3810 rel.\n \n(d) Interpretation of statutes-\n \n- Interpretation placed on a statute by a Court would be applicable prospectively would not affect past and closed matters. \n \n2002 PTD 2904 rel.\n \n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 65, 59-A, 80C, 80CC & 143-B-Additional assessment-Statement under S.143-B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was filed-Difference between book profits and imputable income-Re-opening of case under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Assessee contended that orders were pasted under S.80C/80CC/143B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and if order was deemed under S.59-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, even then the order deemed under S.59A. of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 under presumptive tax regime could not make any assessment of total income and such order could not be subjected to action under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Validity-Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 caters for the requirement of normal 'tax regime where declared income was assessed/determined after filing of return under the presumptive tax regime-Under normal tax regime neither the return of income was required to be filed nor any income was assessed/determined-Even in S.80C(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 wherein assessment order is deemed under S.59A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, it was not provided that it shall be an assessment order in respect of total income but it was provided that in a case to which subsection (4) of S.80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 applied an order under S.59A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 shall be deemed to have been made in respect of income referred to in subsection (1) of S.80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 could be attracted only when there was a prior order taxing the total income but not where order under S.59A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was deemed to have been made-Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had wrongly been invoked by the revenue in circumstances. \n \nWrit Petition No. 8672 of 1999 and Civil Petition No. 265-K and 362 of 2000 distinguished.\n \n2002 PTD (Trib.) 337; Messrs Master Shahbaz Monnoo v. Commissioner of Income-tax C.T.R. No. 385 of 1991 and 2000 PTD 2193 (Trib.) ref.\n \n1998 PTD 1 (Trib.) and 2000 PTD (Trib.) 2193 ref.\n \n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.80CC (4), First Sched: Part I, Para. FF & Part IV; Para. A, Cl. (2) & Eighth Sched.-Tax on income of certain exporters-Imputable income-Calculation-Rebated rate-Normal rate-First Appellate Authority found that assessee's imputable income would be worked back on the basis of rebated rate and not on normal rate which was applicable to a private limited company-Validity-For working of imputable income under S.80CC(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the factor of export rebate could not be ignored -Assessee's imputable income would be worked back on the basis of rebated rate and not on the basis of normal rate-Assessee's imputable income exceeded the net profit declared by the company in its accounts and the question of taxing any excess of claimed net profit over imputable income under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not arise. \n \nWrit Petition No.8672 of 1999 distinguished.\n \nI. T. As. Nos. 157/LB of 2000 and 781/LB of 1997 ref.\n \n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 56 & 65-Notice for furnishing return of total income-Additional assessment-Simultaneous proceedings under Ss. 56 & 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Validity-When proceedings were initiated and notices were issued under S.56 or 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the proceedings should have been taken to their logical end at the same time proceedings under both the sections could not be taken up-Revenue having issued notice under S.56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, it should have dropped proceedings by passing a written order or by making a written entry in the order sheet at least and assessee should have been intimated about the same-Dropping of proceedings should be witnessed by a documentary evidence-Revenue .in the present case had pursued simultaneously proceedings under Ss. 56 & 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Appeal of the Department was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal in circumstances. \n \n(h) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 80CC -Tax on income of certain exporters-Export rebate-Assessment of difference between book profit and imputable income -Validity-Assessee was entitled to the benefit of export rebate-If imputable income of the assessee was computed on the basis of rebate rate of tax, it exceeded net profits declared in the books of accounts and the question of any surplus or difference for the purposes of assessment did not arise. \n \n(i) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.80CC-Tax on income of certain exporters-Export rebate-Usual profit-Assessment of difference between book profit and imputable income-Validity-Profits declared by the assessee in its books of accounts were usual profits and not unusual profits-Revenue had not doubted any reliable evidence that assessee had claimed unusual profits-Profits claimed by the assessee were protected being supported with audited books of accounts and balance-sheet -Assessee could not be blamed to have converted his black money into white money under the disguise of total discharge of tax liability under S.80C(4) or S.80CC of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in the circumstances-Surplus of book profits over imputable income could not be charged to tax in ordinary circumstances-Action of the Revenue, held, was unjustified in circumstances. \n \nWrit Petition No. 8672 of 1999 rel.\n \n1995 PTD 856; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1143 and. 1999 PCTLR 639 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(1)(c),13(1)(aa),50(4),56,59A,65,66A,80C,80C(6),80CC,80CC(4),132,143B,FirstSched:PartI,Para.FF & PartIV;Para.A,Cl.(2) & EighthSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2134/LB, 2135/LB and 2958/LB of 2002, decision dated: 30-10-2002.hearing DATE : 19-10-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali, D.R. and Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera, L.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 2134/LB and 2135/LB of 2002). Muhammad Iqbal Kh. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 2134/LB and 2135/LB of 2002.). Muhammad Iqbal Kh. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No 2958/LB of 2002). Muhammad Zulfiquar Ali, D.R. and Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera, L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2958/LB of 2002).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 189 = 2003 SLD 189 = 2003 PTD 2005 = (2004) 89 TAX 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax-Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 50(5), 62, 66-A, 80-C & 139(2)-Subjecting goods to tax under S.80-C, which had already suffered tax at import stage under S.50(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Validity-Assessee showed profit earned on part sale of imported oil in open market under head other income -Assessing Officer applied S.80-C of the Ordinance to oil sold while imports made by assessee were brought to tax separately as commercial importer-Revising authority in its order not touched issue of assessee being treated as commercial importer, but found that Assessing Officer had charged tax under S.80-C only on deemed income of imports and had not charged tax on part supplies under S.80-C of the Ordinance at the prescribed rate-Tribunal was of the view that goods having suffered tax at import stage under S. 50(5) of the Ordinance, would be deemed to be final discharge of liability on presumptive basis, thus, such part supplies was not liable to tax under S.80-C of the Ordinance-Tribunal had riot agreed with two sets of fact and law as found by Assessing Officer and Revisions Authority-Answer to such question being not possible High Court declined to answer the same. \n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance, (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 136(2)-Reference framed in general terms without referring to particular provisions of law under which charge was made by revenue and disapproved by the Tribunal-High Court declined to answer such question apprehending misinterpretation of its answer.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5),62,66A,80C,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.52 of 2001, heard on 8-04-2003.hearing DATE : 8-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANIES ZONE1, LAHORE\nvs\nFAISAL ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 190 = 2003 SLD 190 = 2003 PTD 2020 = (2004) 89 TAX 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 136(1)-Jurisdiction of High Court to consider a question of law-Scope-High Court would consider only such question of law, which had arisen out of order of Tribunal or which had been raised before Tribunal and had been dealt with by Tribunal or question which had not been raised before Tribunal, but had been dealt with by Tribunal or question which had been raised before Tribunal but had not been dealt with by Tribunal. \n \nCIT v. Gohar Ayyub 1995 PTD 1074 and Iram Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1998 PTD 3835 ref.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 136(1)-Questions of law raised before High Court materially were different from those referred by applicant to Tribunal for reference to High Court-Questions raised before High Court had been neither raised nor considered by Tribunal-High Court dismissed applications being not maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(i)(vii),136(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Cs. Nos.68 to 70 of 2002, decision dated: 18-04-2003.hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2003.", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND GULZAR AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Appellant. Muhammad Athar Saeed for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNATIONAL REFINERY LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 191 = 2003 SLD 191 = 2003 PTD 2073 = (2004) 89 TAX 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Second Sched., Cl. (125-A) & S.136-Exemption-Service charges received by assessee for tailoring and stitching leather garments for others-Exemption on such income refused by Assessing Officer was allowed by Appellate Authority and upheld by Tribunal-Validity-Term manufacture not defined in Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, thus, help, had to be taken from dictionary for ascertaining its ordinary meaning -Assessee had cut leather (raw material), stitched cut pieces to make them into jackets, stitched buttons and made Kajs to make jackets complete-Assessee had used skill of hand as well as of machinery in doing such job-Jackets made by assessee were in large quantity-Job undertaken by assessee was of manufacture of leather garments-Immaterial for purpose of Cl. (125-A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, whether process of manufacturing of leather garments was undertaken by assessee for itself or others-Such service charges would obviously by profits and gains derived by the assessee from manufacturing of leather garments-High Court answered the question ill affirmative.\n \nMessrs Kaiser Apparels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The I.T.O I.T.Rs Nos.263/KB of 1988-89 and 189/KB of 1989-90 ref.\n \n(b) Words and phrases-\n \n - Manufacture -Meaning\n \nBlack's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., p.965 and 21st Century Dictionary, Revised Edn., p. 837 ref.\n \n(c) Words and phrases-\n \n- Manufacture -Connotation-Such term is used for describing process of making of goods or any material produced by hand or by machinery or any other process from raw material in large quantities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.(125A),136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.13 of 1994, decision dated: 8-05-2003, hearing DATE : 23rd April, 2003.", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND GULZAR AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan and Arif Moton for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs PASKIN (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 192 = 2003 SLD 192 = 2003 PTD 2077 = (2003) 88 TAX 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Non-Filing of Salary Statement\n•\nKey Conclusion: Penalty for late salary statement filing under R.53 of Income Tax Rules was valid, even if time limits were prescribed by subordinate legislation.\n•\nReferences: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 3456 rel.; C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 1995.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(8)(c),51,55,108(b),139,140,141,142,143A,143B,143,144,165 Income Tax Rules, 1982=53 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 402 of 1998, heard on 17-04-2003, hearing DATE : 17-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil Khan for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs ASIM TEXTILES MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 193 = 2003 SLD 193 = 2003 PTD 2083 = (2004) 89 TAX 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Tax Exemption in Tribal Areas\n•\nKey Conclusion: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 does not apply to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas without presidential approval. Withholding tax deduction in these areas is unconstitutional.\n•\nReferences: PLD 2001 Pesh. 7; 1997 PTD 849 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,247 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 686 of 2000, decision dated: 30-06-2003.hearing DATE : 28-05-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN AND IJAZ UL HASSAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb for Petitioner. Salah-ud-Din Khan, Dy.A. G. for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Eid Muhammad Khattak for Respondent No. 5.", + "Party Name:": "Dr. NAJIBULLAH KHAN\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 194 = 2003 SLD 194 = 2003 PTD 2097 = (2004) 89 TAX 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nKey Conclusion: Assessing Officers must objectively assess discrepancies and avoid rejecting returns for minor omissions. Constitutional petitions are maintainable for show-cause notices issued in bad faith.\n•\nReferences: Messrs Punjab Beverage Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CBR 2001 PTD 3929 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(3),61,ThirdSched.,Cls.7(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8207 of 2001, heard on 13-06-2003.hearing DATE : 13-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. Mian Yousaf Umar for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUSHTAQ COLD STORAGE, LAHORE\nvs\nIncomE tax/WEALTH TAX OFFICER, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 195 = 2003 SLD 195 = 2003 PTD 2109 = (2004) 89 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Pending Revisions under New Tax Ordinance\n•\nKey Conclusion: The term pending includes cases proposed to be filed within statutory time. Revision rights under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 remain valid.\n•\nReferences: Delbert Evans v. Davies & Watson (1945) 2 All ER 167 DC rel.; 2002 PTD 227 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=135,239,239(1)(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 General Clauses Act, 1897=6(e) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6904 of 2003, decision dated: 14-07-2003.hearing DATE : 11-07-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Haider Rizvi for Petitioner. Shahid Jameel for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "HOME SERVICE SYNDICATE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 196 = 2003 SLD 196 = 2003 PTD 2148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Revisional Powers\n•\nKey Conclusion: Revisional orders lacking detailed reasoning on inadmissibility of claimed expenses are unsustainable and subject to cancellation by appellate tribunals.\n•\nReferences: 1992 PTD 914; 1984 PTD 137 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=3,30,31,31(1)(b),62,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 729/KB and 730/KB of 2002, decision dated: 25-04-2003.hearing DATE : 25-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Z.H. Jafri for Appellant. Inaytuallh Kashani, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 197 = 2003 SLD 197 = 2003 PTD 2151 = (2003) 88 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Liability of Additional Tax\n•\nKey Conclusion: Additional tax cannot be transferred to unrelated parties. Refund claims for tax deducted incorrectly require proper verification and adjustments.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1990 SC 1156 = 1990 PTD 768 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Rules, 1982=49 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86,50(7A) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1334-L of 2002, decision dated: 12-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for the Complainant. Karamatullah Chaudhry, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs METLA ASSOCIATES (PVT.) CO. LTD. CARE OF MIAN ASHIQ HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 198 = 2003 SLD 198 = 2003 PTD 2157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Survey-Based Assessment\n•\nKey Conclusion: Arbitrary additions to turnover and profits without evidence or confronting taxpayers are invalid. Assessments must align with survey findings.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.62.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Survey For Documentation of National Economy Ordinance, 2000=preamble ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5724/LB of 2002 and I.T.A. No. 145/LB of 2003, decision dated: 31st May, 2003.hearing DATE : 30-05-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Appellant. Syed Ali Imran Rizvi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 199 = 2003 SLD 199 = 2003 PTD 2159 = (2003) 88 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Revenue Potential Cases\n•\nKey Conclusion: Cases showing revenue potential despite adherence to policy guidelines may still be selected for audit without discrimination or maladministration.\n•\nReferences: C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002; 2003 PTD 2159.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 181 of 2003, decision dated: 11-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL, TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pirzada Syed Saeed for the Complainant. Ch. Jaafar Nawaz, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BARYAR TEXTILE MILLS, SIALKOT\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 200 = 2003 SLD 200 = 2003 PTD 2162 = (2003) 88 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Compensation for Delayed Refunds\n•\nKey Conclusion: Delayed refund compensation under S.171 must be issued promptly. Withholding compensation for tax adjustment is maladministration.\n•\nReferences: S.171, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; 2003 PTD 2159.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=171 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=100,102,103 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.67-L of 2003, decision dated: 13-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Amin Shah, FCA for the Complainant. Muhammad Arshad, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL SECURITY INSURANCE CO., LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 201 = 2003 SLD 201 = 2003 PTD 2176 = (2003) 88 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Right of Appeal and Substantive Rights\n•\nKey Conclusion: Appeals are substantive rights and cannot be retroactively withdrawn by amendments. Rights accrue from the initiation of proceedings.\n•\nReferences: Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edn.; 2002 PTD 3106 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=131,236(4),239(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,31,55,56,59A,59(1),65,66A,134,143(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5093/LB to 5095/LB of 2002, decision dated: 5-06-2003.hearing DATE : 3rd June, 2003.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed A. Andrabi for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 202 = 2003 SLD 202 = 2003 PTD 2189 = (2004) 89 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Change of Firm's Status\n•\nKey Conclusion: Rectification orders altering a firm's status without addressing the original assessment order are void. Death of a partner does not alter firm registration if heirs step in.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1977 SC 109; 1984 PTD 248 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,52,62,66A,68,68(4),69(1),86,156 Income Tax Act, 1922=35 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1381/KB to 1383/KB of 2002, deiced on 20-05-2003, hearing DATE : 14-05-2003.I.T.As. Nos. 1381/KB to 1383/KB of 2002, deiced on 20-05-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Qadir Lakhani fox Appellant. Aijaz Asad Rasool, I.A.C. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 203 = 2003 SLD 203 = 2003 PTD 2213 = (2004) 89 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption of Interest Income\n•\nKey Conclusion: Interest income from power generation projects is taxable under income from other sources unless explicitly exempted by law.\n•\nReferences: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 708; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 879 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,31,22,SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(176) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.665(IB) to 668(IB) of,1999-2000, decision dated: 30-06-2001.hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2001.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAMEEL AHMAD BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Jalil, D.R. for Appellant. Kashif Aziz Jehangiri, A.C.A./AR for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 204 = 2003 SLD 204 = 2003 PTD 2236 = (2003) 88 TAX 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Duplicate Assessments\n•\nKey Conclusion: Duplicate assessments under the Self-Assessment Scheme must be canceled. Negligence in document transfer constitutes maladministration.\n•\nReferences: Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),2(3)(ii) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,138 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.589-L of 2002, decision dated: 24-02-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.A. Zubari, Adviser. Nemo for the Complainant. Syed Muhammad Ali, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF MUGHAL, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 205 = 2003 SLD 205 = 2003 PTD 2252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Categorization Errors\n•\nKey Conclusion: Assessments must adhere strictly to the appropriate income categories (e.g., property or other sources). Deficiencies in assessments constitute maladministration.\n•\nReferences: Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,20,20(1)(a),20(1)(g),30,30(2)(d),31,59(4),62,65,66A,129 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1524-L and 1525/L of 2002, decision dated: 30-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tazeem Aghmaz Al Haq for the Complainant Yasir Pirzada, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GINOS PIZZA, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 206 = 2003 SLD 206 = 2003 PTD 2270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Arbitrary Assessment Practices\n•\nKey Conclusion: Arbitrary deviations from past assessment history without evidence are unjustifiable. Correct assessments should align with historical and factual data.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S.122.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7E),54,62,63 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1387-K of 2002, decision dated: 30-12-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Kumar for the Complainant. Dr. Kazi Afzal, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ASHOK KUMAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 207 = 2003 SLD 207 = 2003 PTD 2274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Best Judgment Assessment\n•\nKey Conclusion: Ex parte assessments must be reasonable and evidence-based. Arbitrary assessments disregard past records and constitute maladministration.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S.122.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=11 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1388-K of 2002, decision dated: 30-12-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Alvi, A.R. for the Complainant. Dr. Afzal Kazi, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 208 = 2003 SLD 208 = 2003 PTD 2276 = (2003) 87 TAX 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nKey Conclusion: Tax demands issued without written assessment orders are invalid. Revisional jurisdiction cannot apply to non-existent orders.\n•\nReferences: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 1949; 1993 PTD 766 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,59(1),63,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3550/LB to 3352/LB of 2002, decision dated: 8-04-2003.hearing DATE : 22-01-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Ahmed Andrabi for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf Khan and Ikram Tahir, D.Rs. for Respondent.=", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 209 = 2003 SLD 209 = 2003 PTD 2287 = (2003) 87 TAX 549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Limitation and Definite Information\n•\nKey Conclusion: Assessments initiated outside statutory time limits or based on indefinite information are invalid. Machinery provisions cannot replace substantive tax law.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.61, 65(1).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(a),13(1)(aa),13(1)(b),13(1)(c),13(1)(d),50,50(4)(a),52,61,65 ", + "Case #": "R.As. Nos. 96/LB to 100/LB of 2003, decided can 14-04-2003, hearing DATE : 27-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Appellant. Kh. Muhammad Iqbal Advocate and M. Faisal Iqbal Khawaja, A.C.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 210 = 2003 SLD 210 = 2003 PTD 2292 = (2003) 88 TAX 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Refund and Maladministration\n•\nKey Conclusion: Withholding refunds post-verification constitutes maladministration. Refunds must include delayed compensation under S.171.\n•\nReferences: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S.170, S.171.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=100,103,163,156,66A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=170 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1020-L of 2002, decision dated: 28-02-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Qureshi for the Complainant.Yasir Prizada, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Syed NAJAMULHASSAN PROPRIETOR HUR INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 211 = 2003 SLD 211 = 2003 PTD 2298 = (2003) 87 TAX 554", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Time-Barred Assessments\n•\nKey Conclusion: Self-Assessment returns not acted upon within statutory deadlines are deemed completed by operation of law. Assessments beyond this period are void.\n•\nReferences: 1993 PTD 332; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1421 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),59(4),59(c),155 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.448/LB of 2000, 1783/LB and 1786/LB of 2001, decision dated: 12-04-2003.hearing DATE : 9-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Bashir Ahmed for Appellant. Ashraf Ahmed Ali, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 212 = 2003 SLD 212 = 2003 PTD 2302 = (2003) 88 TAX 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Harassment in Assessment\n•\nKey Conclusion: Harassment through unjustified assessments and removal of supporting documents constitutes maladministration. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends disciplinary actions and reassessment.\n•\nReferences: Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1069-L of 2002, decision dated: 25-02-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Zafar ul Islam for the Complainant. Muhammad Naeem, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Dr. MUHAMMAD SHARIF ANSARI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 213 = 2003 SLD 213 = 2003 PTD 2308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductions, Revision Powers, and Jurisdiction in Income Tax\nTopic (a): Deductions not admissible—Loan on concessional/reduced interest rate.\nConclusion: Concessional loans given by an employer to employees for house building and transport purposes were treated as taxable perquisites under S.66-A. The addition made by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\nReference: I.T.A. No.652/KB(HQ) of 1999-2000 rel.\nTopic (b): Revision powers versus review and rectification.\nConclusion: Revision under S.66-A was held distinct from review and rectification, ensuring separate jurisdictional limits.\nTopic (c): Jurisdiction of Inspecting Additional Commissioner.\nConclusion: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner erroneously canceled an assessment framed by a panel chaired by them. Such jurisdiction should have been exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax.\nReference: I.T.A. No.652/KB(HQ) of 1999-2000 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(1)(cc),24(1),16(2)(b)(iv),66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.800/KB, 1100/KB to 1102/KB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 23rd March, 2002.hearing DATE : 23rd March, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Khurram for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Indhar, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 214 = 2003 SLD 214 = 2003 PTD 2312 = (2003) 88 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Validity and Transition Between Tax Ordinances\nTopic: Validity of proceedings under repealed provisions.\nConclusion: Notices under S.52 and S.86 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, issued in 2002, were deemed void as those provisions were no longer in force. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended initiating recovery under applicable provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and providing the complainant due opportunity for defense.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,239(7) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),52,55,59(A),59(1),62,63,64,86,SecondSched:Cl.118C ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1157 of 2002, decision dated: 25 February, 2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali ITP for the Complainant. Muhammad Ramzan Awan (A CIT) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PUNJNAD COTTON INDUSTRIES LTD., through Rao & Co.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 215 = 2003 SLD 215 = 2003 PTD 2317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds and Maladministration\nTopic (a): Non-payment of refunds.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman criticized delays and improper reasons for withholding refunds. Refund claims must be processed without unnecessary delays.\nTopic (b): Adjustment of refunds against anticipated demands.\nConclusion: Adjusting Association of Persons' refunds to offset potential individual member liabilities was unlawful and constituted maladministration under S.3 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=3 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1266-L of 2001, decision dated: 8-11-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal for the Complainant. Ghulam Rasool, DCIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs OLMPIA MOTORS, LAHORE\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 216 = 2003 SLD 216 = 2003 PTD 2321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability, Capital Gains, and Precedents\nTopic (a): Taxability of transactions per agreements.\nConclusion: Tax liability should be based on statutory provisions, not private agreements.\nTopic (b): Classification of compensation as capital gains.\nConclusion: Compensation for loss of a sole business source was treated as capital gains, exempt from tax.\nReferences: (1908) 77 Tax 35 (Trib.); (1998) 77 Tax 108 rel.\nTopic (c): Exemption of capital receipts.\nConclusion: Capital receipts unrelated to gains are exempt under principles established by the Supreme Court, not specific statutory provisions.\nReference: 39 Tax 21 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,16(2)(c)(1),27,28,30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2082/KB of 2001 (Assessment year 2000-2001), decision dated: 12-03-2003.hearing DATE : 1st March, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Messrs Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi, Legal Advisor alongwith Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. Javed Iqbal Rana, D.R. and Nazeer Ahmed Shorro IAC for Appellant. Messrs Shahid Pervaiz Jami alongwith Waseem Sheikh FCA for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 217 = 2003 SLD 217 = 2003 PTD 2361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Assessments Under Self-Assessment Scheme\nTopic: Biased assessment practices.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman found that arbitrary estimations and inflated income assessments violated the Self-Assessment Scheme's principles. Recommendations included revisiting such assessments to ensure fairness.\nReference: 2002 PTD 1828 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1295 of 2002, decision dated: 21st November, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zafar Iqbal for Complainant. Chaudhry Mohammad Saleem DCIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Mst. SAIERA ANWAR, \nvs\nSECRETARY, REVEVNUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 218 = 2003 SLD 218 = 2003 PTD 2366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Tax Reassessment\nTopic: Ex parte assessments and lack of proper procedure.\nConclusion: Assessments were made without verifying critical information, such as electricity consumption, plant capacity, and loan details. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended a reassessment with proper verification of all facts.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,66A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1381 of 2002, decision dated: 8-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aslam Khan Marwat for Complainant. M. Usman Khan, ACIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "DOST MUHAMMAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 219 = 2003 SLD 219 = 2003 PTD 2372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Assessments for Successor Businesses\nTopic: Assessment in the name of business successors.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended a fresh inquiry into business ownership for 1999-2002. If the complainant's claims were correct, income assessments should be revised to nil. \nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9(2)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=116,122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,63 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1271 of 2002, decision dated: 28-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Complainant. Dr. Bashirullah Khan, DICT and Hussain Shahzad Raja, Income Tax Officer, for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SHAHADAT KHAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 220 = 2003 SLD 220 = 2003 PTD 2375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemptions for Jointly Held Income Certificates\nTopic: Exemptions for Regular Income Certificates converted from foreign currency accounts.\nConclusion: Tax exemptions applied irrespective of joint ownership. Federal Tax Ombudsman criticized contradictory clarifications by the Central Board of Revenue as arbitrary.\nReference: PLJ 2001 Lah. 885.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched:Part-I,cl.(78E) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1130 of 2002, decision dated: 31st December, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Azad for Complainant. Saeedullah Khan, Secretary C.B.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Syed ASHAQ ALI AZAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 221 = 2003 SLD 221 = 2003 PTD 2406", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income from Cash Deposits\nTopic: Cash deposits classified as advances for sale of shops.\nConclusion: The Revenue failed to establish a nexus between deposits and advances for sales, leading to the restoration of the original assessment order.\nReferences: PLJ 2001 Lah. 885; I.T.A. No.681/LB of 1998 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2554/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-12-2001.hearing DATE : 29-09-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, MEMBER (ACCOUNTANT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saqib Bashir, ITR for Appellant. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 222 = 2003 SLD 222 = 2003 PTD 2410 = (2003) 88 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Recovery During Pending Appeals\nTopic: Recovery proceedings during ongoing appeals.\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal stayed recovery proceedings, recognizing that the pending main appeal could invalidate the reassessment.\nReference: 1997 SCMR 1256 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),134(6),62,65,132,93(2) ", + "Case #": "M.A. (Stay) No.597/LB of 2001, decision dated: 13-10-2001.hearing DATE : 13-10-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uzma Butt, Advocate. Imran Raza Kazmi, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 223 = 2003 SLD 223 = 2003 PTD 2413 = (2004) 89 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Assessment Practices\nTopic: Misclassification of trading as manufacturing activity.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman established that assessments were made against procedural norms, recommending reassignment of cases for thorough verification.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,80C,50(5),143B,150,144(c),51,99(3),SecondSched.,PartIV,Cl.(9) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(1),10(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.307 of 2002, decision dated: 24-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. M. Sibtain, Secretary, Dealing Officer.Complainant in person. Moazzam Basheer, Taxation Officer for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Shaikh ABDUL SATTAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 224 = 2003 SLD 224 = 2003 PTCL 636 = (2004) 89 TAX 193 = 2003 PTD 2434", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Tax Orders\nTopic: Errors in assessments and rectification rights.\nConclusion: Issues not raised during appeals could not be addressed via rectification. Only factual mistakes were rectifiable.\nReference: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 2356 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3547/LB and 3548/LB of 1996, decision dated: 30-01-2003.hearing DATE : 7-01-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Advocate. Muhammad Zulifiqar Ali, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 225 = 2003 SLD 225 = 2003 PTD 2465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Presumption-Based Orders and Tax Rectifications\nTopic: Rectification of presumptive tax orders.\nConclusion: Assessing Officers must rely on verifiable evidence rather than presumptions. Invalid assumptions can be rectified upon reassessment.\nReference: I.T.A. No.314/KB of 1997-98 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos.775/KB to 781/KB of 2001, decision dated: 26-04-2003.Per Syed Kabirul Hasan, Judicial Member hearing DATE : 7-02-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN AND ABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.S. Jafri for Applicant. Ghulam Nabi Sethar, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 226 = 2003 SLD 226 = 2003 PTD 2484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Assessments Influenced by Surveys\nTopic: Excessive estimation of business receipts.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman found the assessment arbitrary due to exaggerated revenue estimates, recommending fresh inquiries and reassessments.\nReference: 2002 PTD 1828 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1312/L of 2002, decision dated: 19-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.H. Qamar, ITP and AR for the Complainant. Muhammad Ali Shah, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD BASHIR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 227 = 2003 SLD 227 = 2003 PTD 2499 = (2003) 87 TAX 524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Distributions and Tax Liability\nTopic: Tax treatment of dividends under S.12(9A).\nConclusion: Dividends declared before the enactment of S.12(9A) were validly exempt. Companies may declare dividends from accumulated profits, not necessarily from current income.\nReferences: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 466 rel.; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 1040 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(9A),proviso(ii) & SecondSched.,PartIV,Cls.59,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2467/LB of 2002, decision dated: 18-01-2003.hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Akhtar Sh., F.C.A. for Appellant. Abdul Rasheed, D.R. and Shahid Jamil, L.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 228 = 2003 SLD 228 = 2003 PTD 2515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Typographical Errors\nTopic: Total audit selection based on balance sheet discrepancies.\nConclusion: Typographical errors in balance sheets should not trigger full audits. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended accepting the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nReference: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendation", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.308 K of 2003, decision dated: 8-05-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. R. Lakhani, F.C.A. for the Complainant. Abdus Salem, I.A.C. Range II, Zone E, Karachi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN, PROPRIETOR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 229 = 2003 SLD 229 = 2003 PTD 2547 = (2003) 88 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Relevance of Sales Tax Records in Income Tax Assessments\nTopic: Use of sales tax records for income tax purposes.\nConclusion: Sales tax records are not binding for income tax assessments, and unexplained credits justify additions.\nReference: (2000) 82 Tax 105 (Trib.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,.13(1)(a),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 855/LB of 2002, decision dated: 30-04-2003.hearing DATE : 2-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja and Faisal Iqbal Khawaja for Appellant. Abdul Rasheed, D.R., Dr. Hamid Ateeq, D.C.I.T. and Shahid Jamil, L.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 230 = 2003 SLD 230 = 2003 PTD 2565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxable Allowances\nTopic: Generation and Muzaffargarh allowances.\nConclusion: The Generation Allowance was exempt, but the Muzaffargarh Allowance was taxable.\nReference: I.T.A. No.4009/LB of 1999 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,16(2),SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(39) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2296/LB of 2001, decision dated: 27-05-2003.hearing DATE : 27-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Talat Altaf Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Mumtaz ul Hassan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 231 = 2003 SLD 231 = 2003 PTD 2567 = (2003) 88 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Misapplication of Presumptive Taxation\nTopic: Non-declaration of presumptive income.\nConclusion: Assessments were reopened due to incorrect declarations under presumptive tax regimes. The action under S.65 was upheld as lawful.\nReference: National Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. 2001 PTD 633 rel", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143,65,55 & 80B,59(1),50(7D),80B & 143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 498/KB to 501/KB of 2002, decision dated: 5-05-2003.hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi and Ms. Lubna Pervaiz for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 232 = 2003 SLD 232 = 2003 PTD 2586 = (2003) 88 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Explanations\nTopic: Retrospective application of statutory explanations.\nConclusion: Explanations under Finance Act, 1999, applied retrospectively to all assessments pending or finalized as of July 1, 1999.\nReference: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 466 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,52,50(4) & 52S.R.O.368(I)/94,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.878/LB and 879/LB of 2000, decision dated: 31st March, 2003.hearing DATE : 11-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT. MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Masood, F.C.A. for Appellant. Anwar Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 233 = 2003 SLD 233 = 2003 PTD 2596", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Audit Selection under Self-Assessment Scheme\nTopic: Setting apart of case for total audit due to low profit rates.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the declared profit rate was reasonable compared to other similar cases. Selection for total audit based on a lower profit rate in another case was invalid. Return should be accepted as filed under Self-Assessment Scheme.\nReference: C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002, para.9(a)(ii).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 178 of 2003, decision dated: 18-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aurang Zeb, ITP, A.R. for the Complainant. Asem Iftikhar, DCIT, Circle 1 and Haq Nawaz, Taxation Officer, Rawalpindi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DANYAL SHAWAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, WAH CANTT.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 234 = 2003 SLD 234 = 2003 PTD 2602 = (2003) 88 TAX 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Relief for Failure to Furnish Returns\nTopic: Appeal against a reduced penalty for late filing.\nConclusion: The appeal for a minor relief of Rs.3,500 was deemed unnecessary and dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal as it lacked substantial legal merit.\nReference: Ss.108 & 50(2)(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,50(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.325/IB of 2002, decision dated: 19-07-2003.hearing DATE : 19-07-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Boota Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 235 = 2003 SLD 235 = 2003 PTD 2606", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Invalid Selection for Total Audit\nTopic: Audit based on utility bills and shop seating capacity.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman held that the selection for total audit lacked supporting evidence and recommended accepting the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nReference: C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002, para.9(a)(ii).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,.2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 294 of 2003, decision dated: 18-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafie Jan, for the Complainant. Arbab Muhammad Tariq, ACIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NEW SHAHI JEWELLERS, PESHAWAR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 236 = 2003 SLD 236 = 2003 PTD 2611 = (2004) 89 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition and Additional Assessment\nTopic: Constitutional remedy in cases of time-barred or illegal assessments.\nConclusion: High Court upheld that Art.199 could be invoked if statutory assessments were time-barred or based on illegality. Five years were allowed for additional assessments under S.65.\nReference: PLD 1990 SC 399; 2001 SCMR 777; Ss.64, 65, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=.64,65,59A,62,63,65(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 168 of 2001, decision dated: 22-07-2003.hearing DATE : 25-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHZAD AKHTAR AND FAZLUR REHMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salim Jan Khan for Petitioner. Minhaj-ud-Din Alvi for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "GULISTAN KHAN BHITTANI\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 237 = 2003 SLD 237 = 2003 PTD 2617", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Suppressed Income\nTopic: Flour mill income underreported—Audit validity.\nConclusion: Complaint of audit selection due to suppressed income was rejected. Federal Tax Ombudsman found reasonable grounds for audit selection under agreed formulas.\nReference: C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002, para.9(a)(ii).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 247 of 2003, decision dated: 18-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.A. Habib, F.C.A., A.R. for the Complainant. Asem Iftikhar, D.C.I.T., Circle 01, Rawalpindi and Muhammad Naeem Khan, Taxation Officer, Circle 40, Rawalpindi Zone for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ATTOCK FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS, ATTOCK\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 238 = 2003 SLD 238 = 2003 PTD 2625 = (2004) 89 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Pension Fund Investments\nTopic: Taxability of investment income by pension funds.\nConclusion: Income from investments was not taxable under S.80D as it did not qualify as business income. Department’s appeal was dismissed.\nReference: Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust Rules; S.80D, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.265(IB) to 267(IB) of 2001 2002, decision dated: 31st March, 2003.hearing DATE : 7-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Khalid Mehmood, ACA for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 239 = 2003 SLD 239 = 2003 PTD 2633", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Certificate Policy and Refunds\nTopic: Delayed issuance of exemption certificates.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended widening the scope of S.159 to streamline exemptions and refund claims.\nReference: Ss.15, 151, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=15,151,FirstSched.,DivisionIII,PartIII,159,50(2) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1290 of 2002, decision dated: 10-05-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naved Andrebi, C.A. for the Complainant. Misri Ladhani for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 240 = 2003 SLD 240 = 2003 PTD 2653 = (2004) 89 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax During Stay Orders\nTopic: Legality of additional tax during court-granted stay orders.\nConclusion: Additional tax could not be imposed during the period of valid stay orders. High Court declared such demands unlawful.\nReference: PLD 1991 SC 308; Ss.86-89, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=86,87,88,89 Sales Tax Act, 1990=34 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1261 of 1998 and 11655 of 1999, decision dated: 12-11-1999.hearing DATE : 12-11-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashraf Ausaf Ali for Appellant. Ilyas Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. A. Karim Malik for Respondents Nos.4 to 7.", + "Party Name:": "MASOOD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through Ch. Muhammad Amin, Director\nvs\nISHAN UL HAQ, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 241 = 2003 SLD 241 = 2003 PTD 2668 = (2003) 88 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Disallowance of Expenses Without Confrontation\nTopic: Procedural violations in disallowing expenses.\nConclusion: Additions made without confronting the assessee or pointing out defects in accounts were annulled by the Appellate Tribunal.\nReference: 2002 PTD 1496; S.62(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 387/LB and 388/LB of 2003, .decided on 23rd April, 2003.hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SEYD NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar, A.C.A. and Shahzad Hussain, F.C.A. for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad Shad, D. R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 242 = 2003 SLD 242 = 2003 PTD 2676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Audit Selection Under Self-Assessment Scheme\nTopic: Validity of audit due to alleged irregularities in returns.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman found the selection arbitrary and contrary to Self-Assessment Scheme principles, recommending exclusion of the return from audit.\nReference: C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 2001, para.9(a)(ii).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1), ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 791 L of 2002, decision dated: 25-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt and Tariq Rasheed for the Complainants. Shahid Jamil Khan, Legal Adviser for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNSHA NASIR\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 243 = 2003 SLD 243 = 2003 PTD 2683 = (2004) 89 TAX 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Rectification of Mistakes Under S.156\nTopic: Jurisdiction for rectifying mistakes.\nConclusion: Appellate Tribunal clarified that rectification under S.156 was limited to apparent mistakes on record, not for re-evaluating evidence or revisiting decisions.\nReference: S.156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,52/86,52,61 ", + "Case #": "M. A. (Rect) No. 229/KB of 2003 in I. T. A. No. 172/KB of 2002, decision dated: 12-06-2003.hearing DATE : 12-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munir Ahmed Ansari for Appellant. Zaki Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 244 = 2003 SLD 244 = 2003 PTD 2689 = (2003) 88 TAX 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Reconciliation of Business Transactions\nTopic: Unexplained cash credit and reconciliations.\nConclusion: Discrepancies in transactions due to time lags were resolved through reconciliation. Additions without addressing reconciliation details were deleted.\nReference: S.13(1)(aa), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(aa),52,.88,156,50,86,156 & ThirdSched.,R.5(1)(c) & 8(4),156(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 838/IB, 839/IB of 2000, 296/IB, 117/IB to 121/IB of 2001 2002; 589/IB of 1999, 826/IB of 2000 and 277/IB of 2001, decision dated: 8-01-2003, hearing DATE : 8-01-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Mehmood A.C.A. for Appellant. Noshad Ali Khan D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 245 = 2003 SLD 245 = 2003 PTD 2702 = (2003) 88 TAX 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Modaraba Management Fees\nTopic: Classification of management fees as technical or business income.\nConclusion: Modaraba management fees were treated as income from other sources under S.30 of the 1979 Ordinance, not as business income.\nReference: S.30(2)(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=12,18 Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980=2(c),17 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30(2)(b),22,.12(5),2(11),2(29A),62,30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1028/KB, 1029/KB, 1294/KB to 1296/KB of 2000 2001, 1405/KB to 1407/KB, 1014/KB, 2329/KB, 1412/KB to 1415/KB, 1515/KB of 2001, 731/KB, 166/KB, 732/KB of 2000 01, 1430/KB, 1439/KB of 2001, 1759/KB of 1999 2000 and 1827/KB of 1999 2000, decision dated: 30-04-2003:hearing DATE : 29-06-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN IMAM, SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akbar G. Merchant, F.C.A. and Miss Yasmeen Ajani, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1028/KB, 1029/KB and 1294/KB to 1296/KB of 2000 2001). Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Legal Advisor for Respondent (in I. T. As. Nos. 1028/KB, 4029/KB, 1294/KB to 1296/KB.of 2000 2001). Shabbir Jamsa, I.T.P. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1405/KB to 1407/KB, 1014/KB and 2429/KB of 2001)\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Legal Advisor for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1405/KB to 1407/KB, 1014/KB and 2329/KB of 2001).\nNemo for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1412/KB to 1415/KB and 1515/KB of 2001).\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Legal Advisor for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1412/KB to 1415/KB and 1515/KB of 2001).\nKhaliq ur Rehman, F.C.A. for Appellant (in LT.As. Nos.731/KB, 166/KB and 732/KB of 2000 2001).\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Legal Advisor for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.731/KB, 166/KB and 732/KB of 2000 2001).\nMuhammad Rehan Siddiqui, I.T.P. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1430/KB of 2001).\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Legal Advisor for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1430/KB of 2001).\nS. Hassaan Naeem for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1439/KB of 2001).\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Legal Advisor for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1439/KB of 2001).\nKhaliq ur Rehman, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1759/KB of 1999 2000).\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Legal Advisor for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1759/KB of 1999 2000).\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Legal Advisor for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1827/KB of 1999 2000).\nKhaliq ur Rehman, F.C.A. for Respondent. (in I.T.A. No. 1827/KB of 1999 2000).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 246 = 2003 SLD 246 = 2003 PTD 2721 = (2003) 88 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Statements in Self-Assessment\nTopic: Failure to submit complete wealth details.\nConclusion: The case was remanded for submission of wealth statements to determine eligibility under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nReference: Ss.59(1) & 62, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(1) & 62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4861/LB of 2002, decision dated: 22-03-2003.hearing DATE : 22nd. March, 2003.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Raza Kazmi, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 247 = 2003 SLD 247 = 2003 PTD 2725", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Pension Fund Refund Claims\nTopic: Refund of tax deducted from exempt pension fund income.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended immediate processing of refund claims, declaring the deductions illegal.\nReference: S.96, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=102,.2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.56(2)(ii),Ss.96,102,.99(2)(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.511 K of 2002, decision dated: 26-07-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Naqi for the Complainant. Umer Farooq, I.A.C. Range II, Co. V, Karachi for the Department.", + "Party Name:": "STATE PETROLEUM REFINING AND PETROCHEMICAL, CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. MANAGERIAL AND SUPERVISORY STAFF PENSION FUND, KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 248 = 2003 SLD 248 = 2003 PTD 2727 = (2003) 88 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Constructed Properties\nTopic: Assessment based on incorrect valuation methods.\nConclusion: Valuation must adhere to R.207A(iii) for constructed properties. Additions based on inappropriate valuation rules were deleted.\nReference: R.207A(iii), Income Tax Rules, 1982.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) Stamp Act, of 1899=27A,207A(ii) Income Tax Rules, 1982=Rr.207A(ii),(iii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 389/LB of 2003, decision dated: 28-04-2003.hearing DATE : 5-03-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abid Raza for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 249 = 2003 SLD 249 = 2003 PTD 2749 = (2003) 88 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Powers and Procedural Flaws\nTopic: Improper cancellation of self-assessments.\nConclusion: Orders passed without proper assessment or formal record were annulled. Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s revision was vacated.\nReference: S.66A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,66A & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4547/LB of 2001, decision dated: 18-03-2003.hearing DATE : 28-01-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zulifqar Khan and Miss Uzma Butt for the Appellant. Mahboob Alam, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 250 = 2003 SLD 250 = 2003 PTD 2758", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Exempt Pension Fund Refunds\nTopic: Refund denial due to time-bar.\nConclusion: Time-bar could not prevent refunds for illegally deducted taxes from exempt funds. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended immediate compensation.\nReference: S.96, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=102,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56(2)(ii),Ss.96,102 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C 510 K of 2002, decision dated: 26-07-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Naqvi for the Complainant.Umer Farooq, IAC Range II, Co. V, Karachi. Ch. Muhammad Tarique, DCIT, Circle I, Co. V, Karachi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "STATE PETROLEUM REFINING AND PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION (PVT). LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 251 = 2003 SLD 251 = 2003 PTD 2761", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Mandatory Personal Service in Appeals\nTopic: Non-compliance with personal service requirements.\nConclusion: Appeals not served personally as mandated under S.132(5) were invalid. Federal Tax Ombudsman called for better procedural adherence.\nReference: S.132(5), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=132,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132(5),(6) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C 1112 K of 2002, decision dated: 13-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD ZAFAR, PROPRIETOR SUPERIOR BATTERY\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 252 = 2003 SLD 252 = 2003 PTD 2767 = (2003) 88 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Powers Under S.66A\nTopic: Limits of revision powers for Inspecting Additional Commissioner.\nConclusion: Orders should not be revised unless errors are evident without further investigation. Erroneous revisions were dismissed.\nReference: Ss.66A & 12(12), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,66A,12(12) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2138/LB of 2002, decision dated: 22-07-2003.hearing DATE : 24-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ejaz for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 253 = 2003 SLD 253 = 2003 PTD 2784", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Audit Selection under Self-Assessment Scheme\nTopic: Selection for audit using random National Tax Number allocation.\nConclusion: No maladministration was found in the audit selection process through computer ballot. Investigation was closed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.\nReference: S.59(1), C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 2001, para.9(a)(i).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2,2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1264 of 2002, decision dated: 20-11-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif, Member AOP for the Complainant. M. Masood Ahmed, ACIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ASIM WEAVING FACTORY, FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DEVISION, ISLAMABAD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 254 = 2003 SLD 254 = 2003 PTD 2786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Non-Filing of Returns and Statements\nTopic: Arbitrary imposition of penalties for default in filing statements.\nConclusion: The imposition of penalties was deemed arbitrary, malafide, and contrary to law. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended rectification of the order and initiation of disciplinary proceedings.\nReference: Ss.108(b), 143B, 142, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=108,.2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108(b),2(26)(c),50,143B,142,116 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 122 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd November, 2002.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Bhatti for the Complainant. Amjad Khan, IAC for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "NAYAB COTTON GINNING (PVT.) LTD., GOJRA.\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 255 = 2003 SLD 255 = 2003 PTD 2834 = (2004) 89 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Relief in Appeal Against Tax Demand\nTopic: Requirement of 15% payment for appeal entertainment.\nConclusion: High Court allowed the appeal to be entertained without payment, ensuring fairness due to large additions in income.\nReference: S.129(2), Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,129(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6916 of 2003, decision dated: 5-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Ahmed Sheikh for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue.", + "Party Name:": "BROTHERS TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 256 = 2003 SLD 256 = 2003 PTD 2838 = (2004) 89 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Revised Wealth Statements\nTopic: Refusal of self-assessment concession due to revised statements.\nConclusion: Assessee entitled to concession under the Self-Assessment Scheme despite revised wealth statements. Issuance of notice under S.61 was deemed illegal.\nReference: Ss.59, 61, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Art.199, Constitution of Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6718 of 2002, heard on 20-01-2003.hearing DATE : 20-01-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Ahmed Sheikh for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "USMAN SIDDIQUI\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 257 = 2003 SLD 257 = 2003 PTD 2841 = (2004) 89 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition for Illegal Tribunal Order\nTopic: Patently illegal tribunal order and limitation on alternate remedy.\nConclusion: High Court remanded the appeal for re-decision as the tribunal's order lacked reasoning and judicial application.\nReference: S.134, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Art.199, Constitution of Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 19778 of 1997, heard on 30-07-2003.hearing DATE : 30-07-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NAFEES COTTON MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 258 = 2003 SLD 258 = 2003 PTD 2846", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal Reference to High Court\nTopic: Validity of reference based on previous findings.\nConclusion: Reference was refused as the tribunal failed to reproduce findings from the earlier case for review.\nReference: S.136, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(2) ", + "Case #": "Companies Tax Reference No. 111 of 1997, decision dated: 31st July. 2003hearing DATE : 3rd June 2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant, Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES, ZONE III, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs HAFIZ ABDUL WAHID & BROTHERS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 259 = 2003 SLD 259 = 2003 PTD 2849", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Questions for High Court Reference\nTopic: Distinction between points and questions of law.\nConclusion: Only substantive questions of law that affect general principles are suitable for reference to the High Court.\nReference: S.136, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Cs. Nos. 192 to 199 of 2002, decision dated: 18-04-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND GULZAR AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazhar Jafri for Applicant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAPAN STORAGE BATTERY LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES ZONE I, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 260 = 2003 SLD 260 = 2003 PTD 2855", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Abnormal Sales Estimation and Appeal Conditions\nTopic: Enhanced sales estimation and conditions for appeal.\nConclusion: Abnormal sales estimations do not imply malafide action unless substantiated. Appeal conditions requiring partial payment were upheld as reasonable.\nReference: S.22(a), 129(2), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,22(a),129(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5838 of 2002, decision dated: 22-04-2002.hearing DATE : 22-04-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "CHAMAN MILK SHAKE ICE CREAM through Proprietor\nvs\nSPECIAL OFFICER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10, ZONE A, LAHORE add another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 261 = 2003 SLD 261 = 2003 PTD 2888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman\nTopic: Investigation into maladministration in audit selection.\nConclusion: Federal Tax Ombudsman had jurisdiction over alleged maladministration despite availability of legal remedies. Complaint dismissed due to valid audit selection.\nReference: S.59(1), C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 2002, para.9(a)(ii).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b),2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 549/L of 2003, decision dated: 16-07-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Siddique Ch. for the Complainant. Anwar ul Haq Jillani, D CIT for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SIDDIQUE JEWELLERS, LAHORE\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 140 = 2000 SLD 140 = 2000 PTCL 717 = 2000 PTD 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Minimum Tax Deduction\nTopic: Claim for refund under Supreme Court precedent.\nConclusion: High Court directed the Assessing Officer to decide refund claims within four weeks following Supreme Court guidance.\nReference: Ellahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 582).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 130 of 1999, decision dated: 13-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Nasim Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Farid for Respondent No. 1 Mushir Alam, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "IHSAN COTTON PRODUCTS (PVT.) LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (APPEAL) ZONEV and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 141 = 2000 SLD 141 = 2000 PTCL 153 = 2000 PTD 39 = (2000) 81 TAX 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice in Appeals and Procedural Requirements\nTopic: Requirement of serving notice personally to Commissioner (Appeals).\nConclusion: Notice not personally served rendered the appeal invalid. High Court dismissed the petition.\nReference: S.132(5)(6), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132,132(6),132(5) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10396 of 1999, decision dated: 31st August, 1999.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Aziz for Petitioner. Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AASMI PACKAGES (PVT.) LIMITED through Managing Director\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (APPEALS), ZONEA, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 142 = 2000 SLD 142 = 2000 PTD 44 = (1998) 231 ITR 562", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Undisclosed Sources\nTopic: Finding of no undisclosed income.\nConclusion: Tribunal concluded that there was no evasion of taxes; findings were factual and did not raise any question of law.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Application No. 11 of 1992, decision dated: 9-05-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "M. G. MUKHERJI, C.J. AND V. S. KOKJE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anant Kasliwal for the Commissioner. T. C. Jain for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 143 = 2000 SLD 143 = 2000 PTD 50 = (1998) 231 ITR 569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Justification for Additions to Income\nTopic: Additions based on factual discrepancies.\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld additions for cash discrepancies due to lack of evidence. Practice of absent legal counsel during references was criticized.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256.", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.6 of 1988, decision dated: 14-05-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN, C, J AND A. L. VAIDYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. Inder Singh, A. G. with M. M. Khanna for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "DAYAL SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 144 = 2000 SLD 144 = 2000 PTD 54 = (1998) 231 ITR 598", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure Allowability\nTopic: Deductibility of royalties and medical reimbursements.\nConclusion: Royalties were allowed as revenue expenditure, but medical reimbursements for directors were partially disallowed.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37, S.40(c).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.321 of 1983, decision dated: 10-10-1995.", + "Judge Name:": "RAJESH BALIA AND M. S. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. J. Shelat instructed by Messrs M. R. Bhatt, & Co. for the Commissioner. J. P. Shah for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRAIPUR MANUFACTURING CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 145 = 2000 SLD 145 = 2000 PTD 57 = (1998) 231 ITR 604", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Income vs. Undisclosed Sources\nTopic: Estimation of agricultural income.\nConclusion: Tribunal upheld increased agricultural income based on evidence and reduced reliance on undisclosed sources.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.354 of 1992, decision dated: 23rd April, 1996.", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. N. Purohit for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "RIDHKARANDAS POONAMCHAND BHURA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 146 = 2000 SLD 146 = 2000 PTD 59 = (1998) 231 ITR 607", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Delayed Tax Payments\nTopic: Liability for interest on recomputed tax.\nConclusion: Assessee liable for interest on delayed payments despite appeals and adjustments.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.220(2).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 13044 of 1997, decision dated: 24-09-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "P. SHANMUGHAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. M. Sreedharan and N. Unnikrishnan for Petitioner. P. K. R. Menon for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "K. VENUGOPALAN NAMBIAR\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT) and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 147 = 2000 SLD 147 = 2000 PTD 64 = (1998) 231 ITR 625", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Registration of Firms with Minor Partners\nTopic: Distribution of profits and losses among minor partners.\nConclusion: Firm entitled to registration as losses attributable to minors were inferred to be borne by major partners. Reference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.185.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.83 of 1981, decision dated: 15-05-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH AND P. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nVIJAI KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 148 = 2000 SLD 148 = 2000 PTD 67 = (1998) 231 ITR 628", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Writs with Alternative Remedies\nTopic: Alternative appellate remedies and writ jurisdiction.\nConclusion: Writ petitions challenging assessment were dismissed as appellate forums were the appropriate remedy.\nReference: Indian Constitution, Art.226.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "C. W. P. No. 1756 of 1997, decision dated: 18-02-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Wazir Singh and Mukul Gupta for Petitioner. R. D. Jolly and Ajay Jha for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Smt. KRISHNA GUPTA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 149 = 2000 SLD 149 = 2000 PTD 70 = (1998) 231 ITR 638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Car Expenses as Perquisites\nTopic: Unauthorised personal use of company car.\nConclusion: Expenses not considered perquisites as company policy did not authorize personal use.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.15, 17.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1982, decision dated: 7-07-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Barisal for the Commissioner. S. S. Mahajan and Ms. Aparna Mahajan for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPIARA SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 150 = 2000 SLD 150 = 2000 PTD 72 = (1998) 231 ITR 849", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nTopic: Deduction of payments for technical know-how.\nConclusion: Payments for using technical know-how were deemed revenue expenditure and deductible in the year liability accrued.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 315 .of 1983, decision dated: 3rd. February, 1998.", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND MRS. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian, J.P. Deodhar and P. Jetley for the Commissioner. K.B. Bhujle with S.N. Inamdar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKIRLOSKAR TRACTORS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 151 = 2000 SLD 151 = 2000 PTD 86 = (1998) 231 ITR 929", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Excess Advance Tax\nTopic: Entitlement to interest for excess tax payments.\nConclusion: Assessee entitled to interest under S.214 for excess payments accepted as advance tax.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.210, 214.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1510 of 1984 (Reference No. 1099 of 1984); decided on 8-08-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRANE MADRAS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 152 = 2000 SLD 152 = 2000 PTD 91 = (1998) 231 ITR 945", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Vacating Leasehold Premises\nTopic: Taxability of compensation as capital gains.\nConclusion: Compensation was not taxable as capital gains due to absence of acquisition cost; casual income taxability left open.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.10(3), 45, 256.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 104 of 1980, decision dated: 7-01-1998,", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjeev Khanna with Ajay Jha and Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nARUN KUMAR SEN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 153 = 2000 SLD 153 = 2000 PTD 96 = (1998) 232 ITR 895", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Invalid Reassessment Based on Valuation Reports\nTopic: Reassessment due to underreported property investment.\nConclusion: Reassessment invalid as material facts were already disclosed; reliance on post-assessment valuation was misplaced.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.147(a), 148.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.5 of 1993, decision dated: 10-03-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "Y. R. MEENA AND BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSHIRINBAI ABDULLABHAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 154 = 2000 SLD 154 = 2000 PTD 99 = (1998) 232 ITR 651", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nTopic: Withdrawal of gratuity deduction under rectification.\nConclusion: Rectification invalid as the issue involved debatable legal points rather than clear errors.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.154.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1256 of 1982 (Reference No.756 of 1982), decision dated: 6th February,1997.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Utham Reddi for the Assessee. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "M. V. S. SASTRY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 155 = 2000 SLD 155 = 2000 PTD 113 = (1998) 232 ITR 806", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption for Agricultural Marketing Committees\nTopic: Local authority status and tax exemption.\nConclusion: Agricultural Marketing Committee deemed a local authority, exempting its gains from tax.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.10(20), 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.43 of 1996, decision dated: 31st July, 1996.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND B. S. RAIKOTE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nADONI AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 156 = 2000 SLD 156 = 2000 PTD 114 = (1998) 232 ITR 807", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Case Without Considering Assessee’s Objections\nTopic: Validity of case transfer order under S.127.\nThe power to transfer assessment files under S.127 of the Income Tax Act is quasi-judicial and must be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. This includes providing a reasoned order and considering objections from the assessee. In this case, the Chief Commissioner transferred assessment files without addressing the assessee’s objections. The High Court found this process flawed and quashed the transfer order. The Commissioner was directed to reconsider the matter, allow a personal hearing, and decide within two months.\nConclusion: The transfer order was invalid due to procedural lapses in addressing objections and lack of fairness.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.127; Constitution of India, Art.226.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 15113 of 1992-Y, decision dated: 3rd November, 1997.", + "Judge Name:": "G. SIVARAJAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for Petitioner. N.R.K. Nair for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "BENZ CORPORATION\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 157 = 2000 SLD 157 = 2000 PTD 118 = (1998) 232 ITR 810", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Jurisdiction After Legal Amendments\nTopic: Authority to impose penalties despite amendments.\nAmendments to the Income Tax Act divested the IAC of jurisdiction for certain penalty cases. However, if a reference to the IAC was made before the amendment's enforcement, their jurisdiction remained valid. In this case, the IAC imposed penalties on March 27, 1976, based on a reference made before the amendment. The Supreme Court upheld this, confirming the penalty was legally imposed.\nConclusion: Penalty imposed by the IAC before jurisdictional amendments remained valid and enforceable.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.271(1)(c) & 274; CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma (1996) 219 ITR 671 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.287 and 288 of 1983 (References Nos. 118 and 119 of 1983), decision dated: 14-08-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nA. KANAGASABAI MUDALIAR by Legal Heirs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 158 = 2000 SLD 158 = 2000 PTD 120 = (1998) 231 ITR 656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Loan to Shareholder Not Deemed Dividend\nTopic: Applicability of deemed dividend rules for loans from companies.\nThe assessee, a shareholder of a private company engaged in money-lending, received a loan from the company’s accumulated profits. The Tribunal found the loan was part of the company’s ordinary business operations and not an appropriation of profits. The High Court upheld this view, ruling the loan could not be deemed as dividend under S.2(6A)(e)(iii) of the 1922 Income Tax Act.\nConclusion: Loans advanced during normal money-lending business activities are not assessable as dividends, even if sourced from accumulated profits.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, S.2(6A)(e)(iii).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 487 of 1983 (Reference No.240 of .1983), decision dated: 19-01-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nV. S. SIVASUBRAMANIAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 159 = 2000 SLD 159 = 2000 PTD 123 = (1998) 231 ITR 663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Land Gains Taxable as Capital Gains\nTopic: Taxability of agricultural land under S.2(14)(iii).\nAgricultural land falling within the definition of a capital asset under S.2(14)(iii) becomes subject to capital gains tax upon sale. The court ruled that land situated within municipal limits with a population exceeding 10,000 as per the preceding census qualifies as a capital asset. The Tribunal was directed to verify population statistics before finalizing the tax liability.\nConclusion: Gains from selling agricultural land within specified municipal limits are taxable, subject to population criteria.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.2(14)(iii) & 45.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 13 of 1987, decision dated: 19-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN AND IQBAL SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner. B. S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Barisal for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSHIV CHAND SATNAM PAUL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 160 = 2000 SLD 160 = 2000 PTD 128 = (1998) 231 ITR 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Filing of Returns Without Justified Cause\nTopic: Cancellation of penalties under S.271(1)(a).\nFor late returns, the assessee claimed delays were due to pending accounts of partnership firms. The Tribunal canceled the penalty but failed to verify if the delays were justified. The High Court ruled that whether there was sufficient cause for delay is a question of law requiring reference.\nConclusion: A question of law arises if penalties are canceled without examining sufficient cause for delays.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.271(1)(a) & 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 4021 of 1997-S, decision dated: 23rd January, 1998.", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. R. Harikrishnan and C. A. Rajeev for the Assesses.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nV. I. ABRAHAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 161 = 2000 SLD 161 = 2000 PTD 130 = (1998) 231 ITR 685", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Purchase Tax Liability Under Mercantile Accounting\nTopic: Deductibility of unpaid purchase tax.\nUnder mercantile accounting, the assessee claimed a deduction for unpaid purchase tax liabilities. The Income Tax Officer disallowed this, but the Tribunal upheld it, citing that the liability was undisputed and accrued during the accounting year. The High Court agreed, finding no substantial question of law.\nConclusion: Purchase tax liabilities are deductible under mercantile accounting even if unpaid, provided the liability is undisputed.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37 & 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.48, 49, 115 and 116 of 1994, decision dated: 27-09-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "G. S. SINGHVI AND M. L. SINGHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney instructed by Sanjay Goyal for the Commissioner, M. R. Sharma for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMORINDA COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 162 = 2000 SLD 162 = 2000 PTD 137 = (1998) 231 ITR 725", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Payments to District Welfare Fund\nTopic: Entitlement to deduction for welfare fund contributions.\nThe assessee, a cooperative society, made payments to a district welfare fund and claimed a deduction. The court ruled that such payments qualified as deductible expenses under the Income Tax Act, confirming the assessee’s eligibility.\nConclusion: Payments to district welfare funds by cooperative societies are deductible from taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1315 of 1982 (Reference No.806 of 1982) decided on 8th February 1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKALKULAM VILAVANCODE TALUK COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 163 = 2000 SLD 163 = 2000 PTD 139 = (1998) 231 ITR 734", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Canceled for Registered Firm’s Late Returns\nTopic: Penalty for delay despite advance tax payment exceeding liability.\nA registered firm filed late returns but had paid advance taxes exceeding its assessed liability. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for delays and canceled penalties. The High Court ruled this was a finding of fact and did not raise a substantial question of law.\nConclusion: Penalty cancellation is justified if advance taxes paid exceed liability and delays are satisfactorily explained.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.256 & 271(1), (2).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.485 to 488 of 1993, decision dated: 18-04-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. S. S. Samvatsar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMUHAMMAD ALI GULAM ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 164 = 2000 SLD 164 = 2000 PTD 142 = (1998) 231 ITR 737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clUzTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Tax Collection Pending Appeal\nTopic: Appellate authority’s power to stay tax collection.\nThe High Court clarified that appellate authorities have inherent powers to stay tax recovery to ensure fair adjudication of appeals. In this case, the assessing authority’s order requiring a partial payment before considering the stay was deemed improper.\nConclusion: Appellate authorities have the inherent power to stay tax collection, independent of the assessing authority’s jurisdiction.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.220(6); Constitution of India, Art.226.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.215 of 1998, decision dated: 6-02-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "M. H. S. ANSARI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. N. Dutt for Petitioner. S. N. Datta and Ramesh Chowdhury for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "DEBASISH MOULIK\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 165 = 2000 SLD 165 = 2000 PTD 145 = (1998) 231 ITR 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Balancing Charge on Compulsory Acquisition of Business\nTopic: Taxability of compensation exceeding asset’s written-down value.\nUpon compulsory acquisition of a transport undertaking, the difference between compensation and the asset’s written-down value was taxable under S.41(2). The Tribunal was directed to ensure proper allocation of compensation for accurate tax computation.\nConclusion: Excess compensation over written-down value upon acquisition is taxable as a balancing charge.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.41(2).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.504 of 1984 (Reference No.446 of 1984), decision dated: 19-04-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.C. Rajappa for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "RAMAN & RAMAN (P.) LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 166 = 2000 SLD 166 = 2000 PTD 148 = (1998) 231 ITR 779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Based on Change of Opinion Invalid\nTopic: Grounds for reassessment under S.147.\nThe Income Tax Officer initiated reassessment proceedings on the basis of a change of opinion without any new material. The High Court held that reassessment must be based on new evidence and cannot stem solely from a change of opinion. Additionally, the reasons for reassessment must be explicit and cannot rely on affidavits or subsequent justifications.\nConclusion: Reassessment based solely on a change of opinion is invalid.\nReference: Banyan & Berry v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 831 (Guj.); Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. Ratanlal Lallubhai (1978) 112 ITR 985 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Applications Nos.3827 and 3829, of 1997, decision dated: 5-12-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "K. SREEDHARAN, C.J. AND M. S. SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. P. Shah for Petitioner. Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "SARADBHAI M. LAKHANI\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 167 = 2000 SLD 167 = 2000 PTD 154 = (1998) 231 ITR 785", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Land Exemption Conditions for Capital Gains\nTopic: Applicability of population criteria for tax exemption on agricultural land.\nTo claim exemption from capital gains tax under S.2(14)(iii), the population of the entire municipality must be considered, not just the population of specific villages within the municipality.\nConclusion: Population of the entire municipality determines the taxability of agricultural land gains.\nReference: Hidhayathullah Sahib (S.) v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 20 (Mad.); Omer Khan (G.M.) v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 269 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.181 of 1982, decision dated: 20-01-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly, Sanjeev Khanna with Ajay Jha and Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPYARE LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 168 = 2000 SLD 168 = 2000 PTD 156 = (1998) 231 ITR 798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Denied Due to Lack of Use\nTopic: Conditions for claiming depreciation under S.32.\nThe assessee purchased trucks at the end of the accounting year and initiated body-building work, but the trucks were not ready for use. Without evidence of actual use, depreciation was denied.\nConclusion: Depreciation is allowable only when assets are ready and put to use.\nReference: CIT v. Jiwaji Rao Sugar Co. Ltd. (1969) 71 ITR 319 (MP); CIT v. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. (1982) 133 ITR 884 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 112 of 1995, decision dated: 1st August, 1997.", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Tankha for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJ. K. TRANSPORT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 169 = 2000 SLD 169 = 2000 PTD 165 = (1998) 232 ITR 673", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment and Explanation’s Role\nTopic: Explanation under S.271(1)(c) regarding concealment penalties.\nThe Tribunal found the assessee provided satisfactory explanations for income additions, rebutting the presumption of concealment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing that penalty proceedings require separate considerations from assessment findings.\nConclusion: Adequate explanation can rebut concealment penalty presumption.\nReference: Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.240 of 1981 and R. As. Nos. 980 and 981 (Delhi) of 1979, decision dated: 26-11-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "R. K. GULATI AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nISHTIAQ HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 170 = 2000 SLD 170 = 2000 PTD 169 = (1998) 232 ITR 750", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Salary Paid for Services Rendered\nTopic: Deductibility of salary expenses under S.37.\nThe Tribunal accepted evidence that the employee rendered services, making the salary payment a legitimate business expense. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding, emphasizing its factual basis.\nConclusion: Salary paid for proven services is deductible.\nReference: No specific case reference provided.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 200 of 1982 and 678 to 680 of 1984 (References Nos. 112 of 1982 and 593 to 595 of 1984), decision dated: 12-06-1996.NAGESH CINE ENTERPRISES", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OP Income Tax and another\nvs\nNAGESH CINE ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 171 = 2000 SLD 171 = 2000 PTD 173 = (1998) 232 ITR 678", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Contribution of Shares to Firm\nTopic: Examination of genuine transactions involving capital contributions.\nThe Tribunal was directed to reevaluate whether the transaction of contributing shares to a firm was genuine or a device to evade tax, following the principles in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (1985).\nConclusion: Capital contributions to firms must be genuine to avoid tax implications.\nReference: Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-fax Reference No.77 of 1992 along with I.T.Rs. Nos.37 of 1990 and 48 of 1996, decision dated: 26-09-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. K.K. USHA AND N. DHINAKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. B. Krishnamani and N. Srinivasan for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nH. H. MAHARANI SETHU PARVATHI BAYI through Legal Heirs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 172 = 2000 SLD 172 = 2000 PTD 182 = (1998) 232 ITR 666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Short-Term Capital Gains and Special Tax Rates\nTopic: Applicability of S.115E for short-term capital gains.\nThe Tribunal ruled short-term capital gains fell within the definition of “investment income” under S.115C and were eligible for the lower tax rate. The High Court determined that the issue required further legal interpretation.\nConclusion: The inclusion of short-term capital gains under S.115E requires judicial clarification.\nReference: No specific case reference provided.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 90 of 1991, decision dated: 3rd July,1997", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN ARMS N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney; senior Advocate with S.K. Sharma.for Petitioner. Hemant Kumar with Rajesh Garg for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSANGYA JAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 173 = 2000 SLD 173 = 2000 PTD 184 = (1998) 232 ITR 700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withdrawal of Development Rebate in Rectification Proceedings\nTopic: Conditions for rectification under S.154.\nThe Tribunal held there was no mistake apparent on record to justify withdrawing development rebate through rectification. Excess provisions adjusted from reserves could not be treated as a shortfall.\nConclusion: Development rebate withdrawal requires clear mistakes, not debatable issues.\nReference: No specific case reference provided.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.36 of 1984 (Reference No.4 of .1984), decision dated: 10-06-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. ATHANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSOUTH INDIA VISCOSE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 174 = 2000 SLD 174 = 2000 PTD 190 = (1998) 232 ITR 754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6Q1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Assets with Nil Cost of Acquisition\nTopic: Taxability of assets received as a moral gesture.\nThe Tribunal ruled that since the assessee incurred no cost of acquisition for shares and bonds received as a moral gesture, no capital gains tax was applicable on their transfer.\nConclusion: Capital gains tax cannot apply to assets with no cost of acquisition.\nReference: CIT v. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji (1986) 162 ITR 93 (MP); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (1987) 165 ITR 386 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No.290 of 1990, decision dated: 26-08-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for Appellant. H.S. Shrivastava for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPUSHPRAJ SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 175 = 2000 SLD 175 = 2000 PTD 193 = (1998) 232 ITR 692", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Opportunity to Be Heard Before Rejecting Loss Claims\nTopic: Procedural fairness in rejecting loss returns.\nThe Income Tax Officer rejected the assessee’s loss claims without providing an opportunity to respond. The High Court held this violated procedural fairness, requiring reassessment with proper notice.\nConclusion: Loss claims cannot be rejected without granting the assessee an opportunity to respond.\nReference: CIT v. Khushal Chand Daga (1961) 42 ITR 177 (SC); Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 512 (S).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No.7572 of 1991-B, decision dated: 27-10-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "G. SIVARAJAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Siri Jagan for Petitioner. N.R.K. Nair and P.K.R. Menon for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "GEORGE JOHN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 176 = 2000 SLD 176 = 2000 PTD 201 = (1998) 232 ITR 688", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Applications, Limitation, and Writ Petitions\nTopic: Application of limitation periods under S.256 and procedural aspects of writ petitions in tax matters.\n(a) Limitation and Reference Applications\nThe limitation period for filing an application under S.256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, begins from the date when the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) receives the Tribunal's order, not from the date of the order itself. This ensures the CIT has adequate time to assess the matter before filing the application.\n(b) Tribunal’s Dismissal of Application as Time-Barred\nThe Tribunal dismissed a reference application filed by the Revenue under S.256(1), claiming it was beyond the limitation period and no condonation application was submitted. A subsequent application under S.254(2) for rectification was also rejected on grounds that the provision does not apply to rectifying orders rejecting applications under S.256(1).\n(c) Writ Petition Challenging the Tribunal’s Order\nThe Revenue filed a writ petition after 18 months of the Tribunal's order dismissing the reference application. By this time, the assessment had reached finality after a fresh order was passed on remand, and appellate proceedings were concluded in favor of the assessee.\n(d) Key Judicial Observations\n(i) The Tribunal erred in calculating limitation without considering the date of receipt of the order by the CIT.\n(ii) The Revenue’s delay in filing the writ petition undermined its claim.\n(iii) The Revenue’s reliance on S.254(2) was misplaced, as rectification is not applicable to orders rejecting reference applications.\n(iv) A vested right had accrued in favor of the assessee due to the finality of the assessment.\nConclusion: The writ petition was dismissed due to excessive delay and the principle that vested rights in favor of the assessee should not be disturbed. The Tribunal’s original order, while procedurally flawed, did not justify reopening settled assessments after such significant delay.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Kabir Das Investment Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 898 (Delhi).\n•\nCIT v. Arvind Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 330.\n•\nAshok Kumar Mishra v. Collector, Raipur AIR 1980 SC 112.\n•\nState of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal AIR 1987 SC 251.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. W. P. No. 1782 of 1996, decision dated: 13-11-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. B. GOEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D, Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for Petitioner. Manoj Kumar for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "DIRECTOR OF Income Tax (EXEMPTION)\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 177 = 2000 SLD 177 = 2000 PTD 246 = (1999) 238 ITR 403 = (2000) 81 TAX 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Diversion of Income by Overriding Title\nTopic: Claiming deduction of interest against dividend income.\nThe assessee inherited assets and liabilities, including shares pledged for a loan by the father. The assessee sought to deduct interest paid on the loan from dividend income earned on the pledged shares, claiming the liability was an overriding title.\nJudgment: The Supreme Court held that there is a distinction between assets being charged with a liability and income from those assets being charged. Since the dividend income itself was not directly obligated to pay the interest, it could not be treated as diverted by overriding title. Thus, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction.\nReferences:\n•\nMatubhai C. Patel v. CIT (1982) 133 ITR 303 (reversed).\n•\nCIT v. Udayan Chinubhai (1996) 222 ITR 456 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 153 to 156 of 1982, decision dated: 30-04-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (Tara Chandra, Shatma, C, Radha Krishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMATHUBHAI C. PATEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 178 = 2000 SLD 178 = 2000 PTCL 220 = 2000 PTD 263 = (2000) 81 TAX 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition Against Show Cause Notices\nTopic: Maintainability of a constitutional petition against a show-cause notice.\nJudgment: The court dismissed the constitutional petition as it involved factual controversies better addressed by the Assessing Officer. It reaffirmed that a show-cause notice alone does not justify invoking constitutional jurisdiction, as remedies provided by the statute must first be exhausted.\nReferences:\n•\nMuhammad Younas case (1993 SCMR 618).\n•\nMessrs Bashir & Company’s case (1968 SCMR 997).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 10111 to 10114 of 1999, heard on 3rd November, 1999.hearing DATE : 3rd November, 1999.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Legal Advisor for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK ARAB FERTILIZERS (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 179 = 2000 SLD 179 = 2000 PTCL 737 = 2000 PTD 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Powers in Tax Assessments\nTopic: Revisional authority’s jurisdiction over self-assessment orders.\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner cancelled a self-assessment order for allowing a tax deduction, alleging it caused revenue prejudice.\nJudgment: The cancellation was deemed invalid as the alleged error did not affect revenue collection. When minimum tax exceeded liability calculated after adding the inadmissible deduction, no prejudice occurred.\nReference:\n•\nPLD 1992 SC 549 = 1992 PTD 932.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,80D,50(7-E),59(1) & 54 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1289/LB to 1291/LB of 1998, decision dated: 15th, January, 1999, hearing DATE : 12-01-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mujahid Arshi for Appellant. Noor ul Amin Hotyana, D.R. for Respondent..", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 180 = 2000 SLD 180 = 2000 PTD 280 = (2000) 81 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Taxing Statutes\nTopic: Principles of interpreting ambiguous provisions in taxing statutes.\nThe court emphasized:\n1.\nNo statutory provision should be treated as redundant.\n2.\nAmbiguity in a taxing statute must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.\nReferences:\n•\nMessrs B.P. Biscuit Factory Ltd. v. Wealth Tax Officer (1996 SCMR 1470).\n•\nA & B Food Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1992 SCMR 663).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(2d) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13 ", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 456 of 1990, heard on 20-08-1998, hearing DATE : 20-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Appellant. Sirajul Haq for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMUHAMMAD KASSIM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 181 = 2000 SLD 181 = 2000 PTCL 182 = 2000 PTD 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Effect of Curative Amendments\nTopic: Deduction of tax at source on payments to non-residents.\nThe court held that a 1978 amendment removing the requirement for tax deduction at source was remedial and operated retrospectively. It applied to earlier years where cases remained undecided when the amendment was introduced.\nReferences:\n•\n1978 PTD 126.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,10(4)(bb) & 18 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.38 of 1988, decision dated: 9-10-1998.hearing DATE : 9-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "DAWOOD COTTON MILLS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER oF Income Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 182 = 2000 SLD 182 = 2000 PTCL 296 = 2000 PTD 291 = (1999) 80 TAX 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Additions in Trading Accounts\nTopic: Justification for additions in trading accounts.\nThe court disallowed arbitrary additions for manufacturing expenses, presumed wastage, or nominal welfare expenses. It stated that unless such expenses are proven to be non-incidental or unsupported, they should be allowed.\nReferences:\n•\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 1143.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,143B,50(5A) & 22(C),32,22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.739/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 29-06-1999.hearing DATE : 29-04-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jane e Alam, I.T.P. and Jawad Zakaria for Applicant. Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 183 = 2000 SLD 183 = 2000 PTCL 742 = 2000 PTD 299 = (1999) 80 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation in Export Transactions\nTopic: Additions based on discrepancies between declared and customs valuation.\nThe Tribunal upheld the addition, stating that without disputing customs valuation through an appeal, the declared lower valuation lacked credibility.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=79 Customs Act, 1969=25(4)(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.7036/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 24-07-1999hearing DATE : 24-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Siraj for Appellant. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D. R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 184 = 2000 SLD 184 = 2000 PTD 303 = (2000) 82 TAX 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Economic Reforms Act and Exemptions\nTopic: Scope of exemptions under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act.\nThe court clarified that exemptions granted prior to the Act’s enactment were not protected. Only measures post-1990 fell under its purview.\nReference:\n•\nMessrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 582)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.II,PartI,para.122D Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8110 of 1999, heard on 6-10-1999hearing DATE : 6-10-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz R. Siddiqui for Petitioner. Shafqat Mahmood Chauhan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "ZAHUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nvs\nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 185 = 2000 SLD 185 = 2000 PTCL 266 = 2000 PTD 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Errors in Tax Assessments\nTopic: Scope of rectifiable errors.\nOnly errors apparent from the record, requiring no reappraisal of evidence or legal interpretation, qualify for rectification. Disputes requiring detailed examination fall outside S.156.\nReferences:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs National Food Laboratories (1992 SCMR 687).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,12(13),19 & 21 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-556 of 1991, heard on 9-04-1999.hearing DATE : 9-04-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Petitioner for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ISLAMUDDIN and 3 others\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 186 = 2000 SLD 186 = 2000 PTCL 177 = 2000 PTD 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Self-Assessments\nTopic: Validity of reopening self-assessed returns.\nThe Tribunal held that reopening a case based on materials already available during the self-assessment constituted a change of opinion, which is impermissible.\nReference:\n•\n1990 PTD (Trib.) 539.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13(i)(aa) & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.593/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 30-10-1999.hearing DATE : 30-10-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.S. Jafry for Appellant. Zaki Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 187 = 2000 SLD 187 = 2000 PTCL 173 = 2000 PTD 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition Against Notices\nTopic: Jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 65.\nThe assessee challenged a notice under Section 65 through a constitutional petition, claiming it was without jurisdiction.\nJudgment: The High Court held that the assessee should first raise objections before the Assessing Officer, who must decide jurisdiction as a preliminary matter. The petition was dismissed, directing the assessee to exhaust remedies under the Income Tax Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2532/LB of 1998, decision dated: 30-04-1999.hearing DATE : 30-04-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asif Aziz Banth for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 188 = 2000 SLD 188 = 2000 PTD 334 = (2000) 81 TAX 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment After Gift Tax Proceedings\nTopic: Rental income of gifted property.\nThe department reopened the assessee’s case under Section 65, including rental income from a property gifted to his wife, despite gift tax having been duly paid and assessments completed.\nJudgment: The High Court held that reopening the case contradicted the settled Gift Tax Act proceedings. The reassessment was declared arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 & 136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.207 of 1991, decision dated: 2-12-1998.hearing DATE : 2-12-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal. Naeem Pasha for Appellant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COMMODITY AND EQUIPMENT INTERNATION (PVT.) LTD., KYC\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 189 = 2000 SLD 189 = 2000 PTD 359 = (2000) 81 TAX 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.14-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Question of law -Jurisdiction-Question of law which goes to the root of the case or raises a question with regard to the jurisdiction of a particular forum to proceed with the matter or with- a particular issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings-Assessee could raise such question even at the stage of second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal was competent to entertain the question and decide whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment of such income and to bring the same within tax net..\n \nSabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Abdul Karim Transport Co. Ltd. 1993 PTD 508 rel.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.14 & Second Sched., C1.99 & S.136(2)-Exemption-Reference-Income from source of fish catching -Assessee had taken additional ground verbally before Appellate Tribunal that income declared by assessee from source of fish catching was exempt under cl.99 of the Second Sched. of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 while said plea was not taken up by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or in the grounds of appeal filed before First Appellate Authority-Appellate Tribunal found that question as to whether income earned from fishing/fish catching was exempt from charge to income-tax was a question of law and even if the assessee had not raised the same before Assessing Officer or First Appellate Authority, there was no bar for the same being raised before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the same and direct the Assessing Officer to accept the declared income under the head fish catching in toto as the Assessing Officer was not entitled to probe into the income declared by the assessee-Validity-Once the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that declared income Was actually earned from fishing/fish catching then he had no authority or jurisdiction to proceed or probe further with regard to declared sales, gross profit rate etc. in relation to such income and to make estimate with regard thereto-Appellate Tribunal, therefore, was justified in allowing the assessee to raise plea of income from fishing/fish catching being exempt from tax and beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer-Order of the Appellate Tribunal was confirmed by High Court.\n \nSabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Abdul Karim Transport Co. Ltd. 1993 PTIJ 508 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14 & SecondSched,C1.99 & S,136(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Cs. Nos.285 and 336 of 1998, heard on 4-09-1999.hearing DATE : 4-09-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Appellant. Rehan Hassan Naqvi and Miss Lubna Pervaz for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nABDUL MAJEED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 190 = 2000 SLD 190 = 2000 PTD 363 = (2000) 81 TAX 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.22, 30 & 136(2)-Income from business or profession-Interest income-Business income or income from other sources-Reference-Assessee had not carried on any business during the relevant year and had earned interest income on loan advanced-Carry forward of losses-Adjustment of interest income against losses of business-Assessing Officer refused to adjust the amount declared by way of loss on the ground that loss represented the loss from business and could not be adjusted against the income which was not earned from the business-First Appellate Authority confirmed the assessment order-Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat the interest income as income from business on the basis of previous year assessment-Reference-Department contended that there was not an iota of evidence regarding the closing down of business by assessee and starting a new business of money lending so as to infer- that loan advanced was business of the assessee liable to be assessed under S.22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Validity-Impugned order of Appellate Tribunal was not only based on misreading and overlooking the evidence and material on the record but was also contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 inasmuch as in the absence of a finding that assessee was doing the business of money-lending, the interest income could not be treated as business income so as to be charged to tax under S.22 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Such interest income was to be charged to tax under S.30 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which specifically included interest income under the heading income from other sources -Appellate Tribunal having taken into consideration extraneous material and non-existent facts its order could not be sustained in circumstances-Order of Appellate Tribunal was set aside and order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was restored by High Court.\n \nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Motilal Hirabhai Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 173 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,30 & 136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No.66 of 1992, heard on 8-10-1999.hearing DATE : 8-10-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. G. Hassan for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs KHAIRUL HAYAT AMIN & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 191 = 2000 SLD 191 = 2000 PTD 369 = (2000) 81 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition Against Notices\nTopic: Jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 65.\nThe assessee challenged a notice under Section 65 through a constitutional petition, claiming it was without jurisdiction.\nJudgment: The High Court held that the assessee should first raise objections before the Assessing Officer, who must decide jurisdiction as a preliminary matter. The petition was dismissed, directing the assessee to exhaust remedies under the Income Tax Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11688 of 1999, heard on 4-11-1999.hearing DATE : 4-11-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NAJAM UL HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Saeed Kirmani for Petitioner. Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Malik LIAQUAT ALI\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/ WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE27, ZONEB, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 192 = 2000 SLD 192 = 2000 PTD 371 = (2000) 81 TAX 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment After Gift Tax Proceedings\nTopic: Rental income of gifted property.\nThe department reopened the assessee’s case under Section 65, including rental income from a property gifted to his wife, despite gift tax having been duly paid and assessments completed.\nJudgment: The High Court held that reopening the case contradicted the settled Gift Tax Act proceedings. The reassessment was declared arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2991 of 1988, heard on 25-11-1999.hearing DATE : 25-11-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Zaheer Ahmad for Petitioner. Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "OF THE PUNJAB\nvs\nFEDERATION OF.PAKISTAN through Commissioner of IncomE tax, Zone B and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 193 = 2000 SLD 193 = 2000 PTD 374 = (2000) 81 TAX 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Value Based on Stamp Duty Rates\nTopic: Validity of additions based on valuation disputes.\nThe Tribunal deleted an addition by the Assessing Officer, stating that the declared value matched the District Collector's stamp duty valuation.\nJudgment: The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing that prescribed stamp duty rates under Rule 207-A of the Income Tax Rules justified the valuation.\nReference: Gulbai Jehangir Sukhia v. Controller of Estate Duty (1967 PTD 200).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) & 136 Income Tax Rules, 1982=8,207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.223 of 1999, decision dated: 5-07-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND NASIM SIKANDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE II, LAWRENCE ROAD, LAHORE\nvs\nSARFARAZ ALI SHEIKH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 194 = 2000 SLD 194 = 2000 PTD 404 = (1998) 232 ITR 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Trusts at Maximum Rate\nTopic: Trustee liability for undetermined beneficiary shares.\nThe trustees of a family trust argued that the income should not be taxed at the maximum rate, as beneficiaries would receive income only upon attaining majority.\nJudgment: The Tribunal and High Court ruled that since the beneficiaries' shares were indeterminate, the trustees were liable to tax at the maximum rate under Section 164(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference: CWT v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizams Family Trust (1977 108 ITR 555).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 992 of 1981 (Reference No.488 of 1981), decision dated: 2-04-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. THANIKKACHALAM ANAL N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee C.V. Rajah for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ANASUYA MUTHANNA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 195 = 2000 SLD 195 = 2000 PTD 409 = (1998) 232 ITR 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Carrying Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation\nTopic: Treatment of unabsorbed depreciation for a registered firm.\nThe assessee claimed unabsorbed depreciation allocated to partners in prior years could be carried forward to subsequent years.\nJudgment: The High Court held that unabsorbed depreciation first adjusted against partners’ income could be carried forward by the firm if still unutilized.\nReference: Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT (1991 189 ITR 512).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.83 of 1986, decision dated: 12-08-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta with Sanjay Bansal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRICO INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 196 = 2000 SLD 196 = 2000 PTD 412 = (1998) 232 ITR 584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Business Expenditure\nTopic: Entry tax liability clarified in later years.\nThe assessee paid entry tax for earlier years after a clarification issued during the assessment year 1983-84.\nJudgment: The High Court allowed the deduction in 1983-84, holding that the liability became ascertainable and deductible only upon the Commissioner’s clarification.\nReferences:\n•\nKedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971 82 ITR 363).\n•\nPope, the King Match Factory v. CIT (1963 50 ITR 495).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No.579 of 1992, decision dated: 12-08-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. B.L. Nema for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nAGRAWAL GUDAKU FACTORY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 197 = 2000 SLD 197 = 2000 PTD 416 = (1998) 232 ITR 588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nTopic: Penalty imposed based on estimated concealed income.\nThe Tribunal upheld penalties for concealed income, even though the assessment was based partly on estimates.\nJudgment: The High Court validated the penalties, stating that detailed investigations justified inferences of deliberate concealment.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Baboo Ram Lachman Dass (1972 85 ITR 405).\n•\nAnantharam Veerasinghaiah and Co. v. CIT (1980 123 ITR 457).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.246 of 1980, decision dated: 26-09-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "SUSHIL KUMAR SARAD KUMAR\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 198 = 2000 SLD 198 = 2000 PTD 427 = (1998) 232 ITR 608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment and Business Loss\nTopic: Classification of income and losses.\nThe High Court ruled that systematic investments amounted to business activity, allowing losses and expenses related to estate duties and dividends to be deducted or adjusted as business income.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977 108 ITR 895).\n•\nCIT v. Amalgamations Ltd. (1995 214 ITR 399).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos.317 and 318 of 1983 (References Nos.147 and 148 of 1983), decision dated: 10-04-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nAMALGAMATIONS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 199 = 2000 SLD 199 = 2000 PTD 431 = (1998) 232 ITR 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rebate Paid to Members by a Cooperative Society\nTopic: Deduction of rebates as business expenditure.\nThe society distributed rebates to members as an incentive after ascertaining profits.\nJudgment: The High Court held that rebates reduced the effective sale price and were allowable business expenditures, not appropriations of profit.\nReferences:\n•\nArmoor Cooperative Meeting Society v. CIT (1987 167 ITR 565).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred Nos. 143 of 1989, 35 of 1992 and 72 of 1993, decision dated: 27-03-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ratnakar and P. S. R. Chandra Murthy for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nT.T.D. COOPERATIVE STORES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 200 = 2000 SLD 200 = 2000 PTD 437 = (1998) 232 ITR 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealed Contract Income\nTopic: Validity of penalties for concealed income.\nThe High Court upheld penalties imposed for concealed contract income after rejecting unsubstantiated explanations provided by the assessee.\nReference: CIT v. Mahim (K.) (1984 149 ITR 737).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 177 and 178 of 1991, decision dated: 9th September 1996.", + "Judge Name:": "V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Nagendran, K.M. Majeed and Premjit Nagendran for the Assessee. P. K.R. Merton and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "K. MAHIM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 201 = 2000 SLD 201 = 2000 PTD 442 = (1998) 232 ITR 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "New Pleas in References\nTopic: Raising new questions of law during references.\nThe Revenue attempted to raise new questions of law regarding export deductions during the reference stage.\nJudgment: The High Court dismissed the plea, holding that new issues not raised before the Tribunal cannot be introduced in reference proceedings.\nReference: T.D. Kumar and Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1967 63 ITR 67).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No.55 of 1996, decision dated: 4-03-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND MUKUL MUDGAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for Petitioner. R.S. Suri for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBANARAS HOUSE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 202 = 2000 SLD 202 = 2000 PTD 448 = (1998) 232 ITR 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening Assessments Without Reasons\nTopic: Requirement for reasons under Section 143(2)(b).\nThe Assessing Officer reopened an assessment without recording reasons.\nJudgment: The High Court stated that the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer must be based on valid reasons, and this issue constituted a question of law suitable for reference.\nReference: Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1977 106 ITR).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.338 of 1993, decision dated: 31st October, 1996.", + "Judge Name:": ". R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.S. Samvatsar for the Assessee. Pathrekar for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 203 = 2000 SLD 203 = 2000 PTD 451 = (1998) 232 ITR 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Reserve, Business Expenditure, and Sticky Loans\nTopic 1: Deduction of Special Reserve\n•\nDeduction under Section 36(1)(viii) must be calculated before applying Chapter VI-A deductions or considering the deduction itself.\nReference: CIT v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation (1998) 232 ITR 138.\nTopic 2: Discount on Bonds and Debentures\n•\nDiscounts on bonds and debentures are deductible as business expenditure under Section 37.\nReference: M.P. Financial Corporation v. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 765.\nTopic 3: Interest on Sticky Loans\n•\nUnder the mercantile system, interest is taxable upon accrual, even if suits are pending.\nReference: CIT v. Indian Jute Mills Association (1982) 134 ITR 68.", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. l of 1989, decision dated: 27-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. AND A. L. VAIDYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kuldip Singh for the Assessee. Inder Singh and M.M. Khanna for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 204 = 2000 SLD 204 = 2000 PTD 457 = (2000) 81 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6QlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Classification for Doctors\nTopic: Income from Profession vs. Salary\n•\nA doctor employed by a hospital received fees for private patients. The court ruled such fees were professional income as the relationship with the hospital was employer-agent, not employer-employee.\nReferences:\n•\nSimmons v. Heath Laundry Co. (1910) 1 KB 343.\n•\nRam Prashad v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 122.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16(2)(a)(iii) & 15(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3812/LB and 3813/LB of 1998, decision dated: 28-09-1999hearing DATE : 28-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Muhammad Hanif, D.R. for Appellant. Zia Ullah Kiyani for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 205 = 2000 SLD 205 = 2000 PTD 466 = (2000) 81 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction for Additional Tax\nTopic: Non-deduction of Tax on Reinsurance Commissions\n•\nAdditional tax levied under Section 86 was challenged on jurisdiction grounds. The explanation added to Section 52 by the Finance Act, 1999, was deemed procedural and retrospective, thus applicable.\nReferences: Tapal Energy v. Federation of Pakistan (1999 PTD 4037).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,52,Expln.,50(4) & 86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1891/KB and 1892/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 27-10-1999.hearing DATE : 23rd October, 1999.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Appellant. Zaki Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 206 = 2000 SLD 206 = 2000 PTD 474 = (2000) 81 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Lease Income and Depreciation Treatment\nTopic 1: Depreciation and Lease Rentals\n•\nDepreciation must be deducted from profits/gains, not gross receipts.\nReference: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 1346 overruled.\nTopic 2: Classification of Fees\n•\nFront-end fees and surcharges on lease rentals were categorized as business income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(v),22,38,12(19) & ThirdSched,34 & 35,23 & 30 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2070/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 20-09-1999.hearing DATE : 14-09-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN AND S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaki Ahmed, D. R., Tariq Masood, D.C.I.T. and Muhammad Farid, Advocate for Appellant. Farrukh V. Junaidi, F.C.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 207 = 2000 SLD 207 = 2000 PTD 478 = (2000) 81 TAX 60 = 1999 YLR 950", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration and Constitutional Petitions\nTopic: Maintainability of Petitions\n•\nPetitions challenging arbitration clauses are not maintainable; contractual remedies must be pursued.\nReferences: Miss Benzair Bhutto’s case (PLD 1988 SC 416).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 Arbitration Act, 1940=8,20 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2789 of 1998, decision dated: 22-02-1999.hearing DATE : 22-02-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Arshad Latif and Khalid Alvi for Petitioners. Ch. Sagheer Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Khadim Nadeem Malik, Addl. A. G.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANSAR and 2 others\nvs\nADMINISTRATOR, TOWN COMMITTEE, KABIRWALA, DISTRICT KHANEWAL and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 208 = 2000 SLD 208 = 2000 PTD 497 = (2000) 81 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes\nTopic: Fiscal Legislation\n•\nTax laws must be interpreted strictly; exemptions are construed liberally if language is ambiguous.\nReferences: Ormond Investment Co. v. Betts (1928 AC 143).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,16 & 136(1) Income Tax Rules, 1982=3(2)(a)(b),(c),4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.557 of 1998, heard on 27-09-1999.hearing DATE : 27-09-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Appellant. Syed Ibrar Hussain Naqvi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/ WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nvs\nRana ASIF TAUSEEF CIO RANA HOSIERY & TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 209 = 2000 SLD 209 = 2000 PTD 505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Delayed Statements\nTopic: Submission of Statements under Section 139\n•\nPenalty imposed for delays was reduced incorrectly by the First Appellate Authority. The matter was remanded for reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108(b)(ii),139 & 55 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.55/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 28-10-1999.hearing DATE : 28-10-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Umer Farooq, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Tahir Ansari, A. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 210 = 2000 SLD 210 = 2000 PTD 507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Company as a Public Entity\nTopic: Tax Rates and Dividend Income\n•\nBanking companies are public companies but not entitled to concessional business tax rates, although dividend income is taxed at reduced rates.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(20)(31) & 50(6A),FirstSched.,PartV,para.D & SecondSched.,Part1,c1.80(ii),2(20) & 12(11) Companies Ordinance, 1984=2(21),89,249,1(f)(g)(i),12,13(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 17(PB), 18(PB), 140(PB) and 141.(PB) of 1998-99, decision dated: 21st April, 1999.hearing DATE : 2-03-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUR REHMAN AFRIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND FAZAL UR REHMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Anwar Baig for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.17 and 18 of 1998-99). Sultan Wazir Khan, D. R. for Respondent (in I. T. As. Nos.17 and 18 of 1998-99). Sultan Wazir Khan, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.140 and 141 of 1998-99). Mirza Anwar Baig for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.140 arid 141 of 1998-99).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 211 = 2000 SLD 211 = 2000 PTD 524 = (1998) 232 ITR 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Jurisdiction in References\nTopic: Direct Answering of Questions of Law\n•\nThe High Court may directly answer questions of law when facts are undisputed.\nReference: CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=254 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.45 of 1996, decision dated: 4-11-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for Applicant. Manoj Arora for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMAHARISHI VED VIGYAN VISHWA VIDYA PEETHAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 212 = 2000 SLD 212 = 2000 PTD 530 = (1998) 232 ITR 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Delay in Advance Tax Filing\nTopic: Fractional Delay in Filing\n•\nA fraction-of-a-day delay was deemed reasonable cause, and penalties were canceled.\nReference: Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.49 of 1982 (Reference No. 19 of 1982), decision dated: 23rd September, 1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramanian for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nK.P.V. SHAIK MOHAMMED ROWTHER & CO. (R.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 213 = 2000 SLD 213 = 2000 PTD 533 = (1998) 232 ITR 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Damages\nTopic: Assessability of Damages as Capital Gains\n•\nDamages received in a property transfer dispute raised a question of law regarding their classification as capital gains.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 103 to 105 of 1994, decision dated: 19-04-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner. S. C. Bagdiya for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSmt. LAXMIDEVI NATANI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 214 = 2000 SLD 214 = 2000 PTD 538 = (1998) 232 ITR 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6R1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Concealment of Income in Returns\nTopic: Capital Gains on Jewelry Sale\n•\nThe Tribunal's cancellation of a penalty was overturned as the omission was deliberate, not technical or venial.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 127 of 1992, decision dated: 24-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "VINOD KUMAR GUPTA AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Prabir Kumar Bhowmick for the Commissioner. Sukumar Bhattacharya for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSmt. SOYA BAJORIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 215 = 2000 SLD 215 = 2000 PTD 542 = (1998) 232 ITR 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Discretion on References\nTopic: CBDT Instructions and Reference Rejections\n•\nCBDT instructions limiting references for low-tax-effect cases cannot override statutory jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. W. P. No. 1725 of 1996, decision dated: 27-03-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for Petitioner. D. N. Sawhney for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 216 = 2000 SLD 216 = 2000 PTD 552 = (1998) 232 ITR 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Depreciation\nTopic: Depreciation Despite Non-Est Returns\n•\nUnabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward even if the return for the year was declared non-est under Section 139(10).\nReference: CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. (1966) 59 ITR 555.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.93 of 1997, decision dated: 30-03-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. V. Prasad for the Commissioner. Srinivasa Reddy for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSri VIJAYALAKSHMI MINERAL AND TRADING CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 217 = 2000 SLD 217 = 2000 PTD 556 = (1998) 232 ITR 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Royalty as Tax and Deduction under Section 43B\n•\nTopic: Deduction of Royalty Liability\no\nThe assessee claimed a deduction for royalty liability, arguing that it was a contractual payment for extracting limestone. The Income-tax Officer, however, disallowed the deduction under Section 43B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that royalty qualifies as a tax and the unpaid liability cannot be deducted unless actually paid. The Tribunal initially favored the assessee, but upon further review, it was held that royalty indeed constitutes a tax. As a result, the provisions of Section 43B were deemed applicable, disallowing the unpaid royalty liability as a deductible expense.\nReferences:\n•\nIndia Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 188 ITR 690, AIR 1990 SC 85.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.598 of 1992, decision dated: 24-04-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S.K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Tanka for the Commissioner. H. S. Shrivastava for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGORELAL DUBEY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 218 = 2000 SLD 218 = 2000 PTD 559 = (1998) 232 ITR 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Carry Forward and Timely Returns\n•\nTopic: Filing Returns for Carry Forward of Losses\no\nThe assessee filed a return disclosing losses beyond the due date under Section 139(1) but within the extended time limit prescribed under Section 139(4). The Income-tax Officer rejected the carry-forward of losses, citing late submission of the return. However, the appellate authorities and Tribunal held that returns filed under Section 139(4) are valid for loss carry-forward if filed before assessment. The courts clarified that the specific provisions of Section 139(4) apply to all returns, including those for losses, ensuring that the assessee retains the right to carry forward the determined loss for subsequent assessments.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No.238 of 1982 (Reference No.150 of 1982), decision dated: 24-09-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nP. R. DEVARAJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 219 = 2000 SLD 219 = 2000 PTD 563 = (1998) 232 ITR 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Bottles and Crates as Plant\n•\nTopic: Eligibility of Plant for Depreciation\no\nThe assessee, engaged in the soft drinks business, claimed 100% depreciation on bottles and crates used for bottling and distributing beverages, arguing they qualify as plant under Section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer initially accepted the claim, but the Commissioner revised the assessment, treating the bottles and crates as non-durable items. Upon appeal, the Tribunal ruled that these items are integral to the manufacturing process and constitute plant, allowing 100% depreciation as their individual cost was less than ₹750. The court emphasized that durability is not a criterion for defining plant, provided the items are essential tools for the business.\nReferences:\n•\nScientific Engineering House (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.206 of 1985, decision dated: 13-02-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir Joshi and Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. S.N. Soparkar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSAURASHTRA BOTTLING (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 220 = 2000 SLD 220 = 2000 PTD 572 = (1998) 232 ITR 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nTopic: Conditions for Levying Penalty\no\nIn a case involving income estimation, the assessee provided its books of account, which were found incomplete. The Assessing Officer resorted to estimating income at a flat rate and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment. However, the appellate authorities and Tribunal observed that the assessee had disclosed all available records and there was no deliberate attempt to mislead the authorities. Without concrete evidence of fraud, willful neglect, or intentional concealment, the penalty was deemed unwarranted.\nReferences:\n•\nHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.250 of 1993, decision dated: 8-05-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSHIVNARAYAN JAMNALAL & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 221 = 2000 SLD 221 = 2000 PTD 575 = (1998) 232 ITR 302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Power to Remand Cases\n•\nTopic: Resolving Contradictory Facts Through Remand\no\nThe Tribunal encountered conflicting statements in documents regarding the dissolution of a partnership and the formation of a new one. In the absence of clear factual findings, the Tribunal exercised its authority under Section 254 to remand the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) for clarifying facts. The Tribunal emphasized its responsibility to ensure accurate factual determinations as the final fact-finding body, reinforcing its power to remand cases when discrepancies arise.\nReferences:\n•\nDahi Laxmi Dal Factory v. ITO (1976) 103 ITR 517 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 114 of 1981, decision dated: 23rd July, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "OM PARAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMANOHAR GLASS WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 222 = 2000 SLD 222 = 2000 PTD 579 = (1998) 232 ITR 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Payments and Business Justifications Under Section 40A(3)\n•\nTopic: Justification for Cash Transactions in Business\no\nThe Income-tax Officer disallowed certain cash payments made by the assessee for stock-in-trade purchases under Section 40A(3). However, the appellate authorities accepted the assessee's explanation, noting that the payments were justified due to the nature of the trade and the inability to transact through banking channels. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD(j) allow exceptions where genuine business exigencies necessitate cash payments.\nReferences:\n•\nRule 6DD(j) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.248 of 1993, decision dated: 7-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMAHAVIR STORES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 223 = 2000 SLD 223 = 2000 PTD 581 = (1998) 232 ITR 2901", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Withdrawal of Approvals Under Section 35CCA\n•\nTopic: Limits on Retrospective Effect of Approvals**\no\nThe Revenue sought to withdraw approval for an association under Section 35CCA with retrospective effect. The court held that such withdrawals could only apply prospectively, safeguarding past actions taken in reliance on the approval. Retrospective withdrawal would violate principles of fairness and legal certainty.\nReferences:\n•\nColonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving (1905) AC 369 (PC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1997, decision dated: 6-05-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "V. D. GYANI, ACTG. C.J. AND D. BISWAS, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBACHRAJ DUGAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 224 = 2000 SLD 224 = 2000 PTD 584 = (1998) 232 ITR 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6SFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Paid by Partners to Firms and Vice Versa\n•\nTopic: Netting of Interest in Partnership Firms\no\nThe court clarified that interest paid by partners on drawings should be netted off against interest received from the firm. Only the net amount is to be included in the firm's total income for tax purposes, ensuring no double taxation.\nReferences:\n•\nKeshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No. 188 of 1993, decision dated: 6-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSJONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSmt. GAYATRI DEVI BIRLA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 225 = 2000 SLD 225 = 2000 PTD 587 = (1998) 232 ITR 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Income from Property or Other Sources\n•\nTopic: Appurtenant Property and Income Head Classification\no\nIncome from a well used for commercial water sales was initially claimed as property income. However, the court held that the well was not appurtenant to any building and therefore classified the income as derived from other sources. It further noted that recurring sales over several years disqualified the income as casual or non-recurring.\nReferences:\n•\nNalinikant Ambalal Mody v. Narayan Row (S.A.L.) CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1897 of 1984 (Reference No.1380 of 1984), decision dated: 21st February, 1997.", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uttam Reddy for the Assessee. S.V. Subramanian for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "M. RAMALAKSHMI REDDI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 226 = 2000 SLD 226 = 2000 PTD 595 = (1998) 232 ITR 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Lottery Winnings and Deduction Eligibility under Section 80TT\n•\nIssue: The assessee won a lottery prize of ₹12 lakh, but after deductions (commission and tax at source), only received ₹7,23,600.\n•\nKey Points: The Income-tax Officer allowed a deduction under Section 80TT based on the net prize money, amounting to ₹5,37,500, instead of the claimed deduction of ₹5,97,500 based on the gross prize amount.\n•\nTribunal's Decision: The Tribunal relied on Section 80AB and ruled that deductions under Section 80TT should be based on net income, not gross income.\n•\nHeld: It was concluded that whether deductions should be applied to the gross or net amount constituted a valid question of law for reference.\nReference Case: Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.283 of 1992, decision dated: 2-05-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.W. Mahajan for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "Smt. PRAMILA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 227 = 2000 SLD 227 = 2000 PTD 598 = (1998) 232 ITR 324 = (1999) 79 TAX 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debt Claims under Section 36(1)(vii)\n•\nIssue: The assessee claimed deductions for bad debts written off, citing challenges in recovering small amounts.\n•\nKey Points: The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, noting the absence of legal action for recovery. The Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal allowed the deduction based on the feasibility of recovery for the assessee.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal’s focus on the assessee’s perspective was deemed incorrect. It was clarified that bad debts must be established as irrecoverable from the debtor’s viewpoint, not merely the creditor's convenience.\nReference Cases: Kamla Cotton Co. v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 605 (Guj.); Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 427 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.5 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd February, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN AND BARIN GHOSH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nCOATES OF INDIA LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 228 = 2000 SLD 228 = 2000 PTD 608 = (1998) 232 ITR 934", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Benami Transactions and Income Attribution\n•\nIssue: The assessee's wife, who operated a business, was alleged to be a benamidar with the income attributed to the assessee.\n•\nKey Points: Tax authorities concluded that the wife lacked the capacity to run the business independently and that the assessee managed it. The Tribunal upheld this conclusion based on cumulative evidence.\n•\nHeld: It was reaffirmed that determining whether a transaction is benami requires evaluating the totality of circumstances. The High Court refused to admit fresh evidence not considered previously.\nReference Case: CIT v. A. Abdul Rahim & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 651 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.224 of 1981, decision dated: 29-07-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "VIJAI BAHADUR SINGH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 229 = 2000 SLD 229 = 2000 PTD 1982 = (1999) 235 ITR 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court Powers in Benami Cases\n•\nIssue: The High Court’s power to admit fresh evidence in reference cases involving benami transactions.\n•\nKey Points: The assessee attempted to introduce a certificate authorizing him to act on his wife’s behalf. This was not considered by the Tribunal or earlier authorities.\n•\nHeld: The High Court, in its advisory jurisdiction, cannot admit evidence not previously examined. The Tribunal’s finding that the wife was a benamidar was upheld based on existing evidence.\nReference Case: CIT v. A. Abdul Rahim & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 651 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 14125 of 1993, decision dated: 21st January, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "V. K. BALI AND N. K. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ajay Kumar Mittal for Petitioner.R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "VIJAI BAHADUR SINGH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 230 = 2000 SLD 230 = 2000 PTD 618 = (1998) 232 ITR 945", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Weighted Deduction and Gratuity under Sections 35B and 40A(5)\n•\nIssue: The Commissioner revised the assessment to disallow deductions for commission paid to foreign agents and gratuity payments under Sections 35B and 40A(5).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCommission Payments: The Tribunal ruled that commission paid to foreign agents for exporting goods qualified for weighted deduction under Section 35B.\no\nGratuity Payments: Gratuity was considered a one-time payment on retirement and excluded from disallowance under Section 40A(5).\n•\nHeld: The Commissioner’s revision order was invalid as the Assessing Officer’s original assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.\nReference Cases: CIT v. Chloride India Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 355 (Cal.); CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 770 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 136 of 1992, decision dated: 11-03-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "Y. R. MEENA AND B. M. MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. Dr. Debi Pal for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMACNEILL MAGORE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 231 = 2000 SLD 231 = 2000 PTD 622 = (1998) 233 ITR 949", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Nature of Expenditure: Capital vs. Revenue\n•\nIssue: Whether commission payments to a competitor were capital or revenue expenditures.\n•\nKey Points: The Tribunal found the payments were made to ward off competition in specific transactions without eliminating the competitor entirely.\n•\nHeld: Expenditure to ward off competition in individual transactions is revenue in nature. The Tribunal’s finding was upheld as a matter of fact, with no question of law arising for reference.\nReference Case: Chelpark Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 249 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.52 of 1996, decision dated: 17-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner. G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Tarim Dua for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nN. K. RAJGARHIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 232 = 2000 SLD 232 = 2000 PTD 628 = (1998) 233 ITR 955", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Closing Stock\n•\nIssue: The assessee adopted different methods for valuing various types of sugar stock, leading to an addition to income.\n•\nKey Points: The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s valuation method as consistent with past practice but failed to provide cogent reasons for its decision.\n•\nHeld: The lack of a clear rationale raised a valid question of law regarding the appropriateness of the valuation method and the deletion of the addition.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.93 of 1994 decided on 20-05-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN AND IQBAL SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for the Commissioner. M.L. Sharma for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJANTA COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 233 = 2000 SLD 233 = 2000 PTD 632 = (1998) 232 ITR 958", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Delay in Filing Returns\n•\nIssue: Whether a penalty could be imposed under Section 271(1)(a) for delay in filing returns due to reasonable cause.\n•\nKey Points: The Tribunal found that the delay was caused by the assessee’s emotional distress following his wife’s death.\n•\nHeld: The finding that the delay was reasonable constituted a finding of fact, and no penalty could be imposed.\nReference Case: CIT (Addl.) v. I. M. Patel & Co. (1992) 196 ITR 297 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.685 of 1982 (Reference No.423 of 1982), decision dated: 7-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. SWAMI, C.J. AND KANAKARAJ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Jayaraman for the Commissioner. K.R. Ramamani for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nP. JOSEPH SWAMINATHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 234 = 2000 SLD 234 = 2000 PTD 634 = (1998) 232 ITR 546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Attachment of Property for Tax Recovery\n•\nIssue: Recovery of arrears of tax from the Hindu Undivided Family by attaching an individual’s property.\n•\nKey Points: The suit was decreed in favor of the individual, and an appeal was filed after the death of one respondent (the father).\n•\nHeld: The proceedings did not abate as the deceased respondent was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The appeal was remanded for decision on merits.\nReference Case: State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram AIR 1962 SC 89.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXII,R.4 ", + "Case #": "Regular Second Appeal No.2766 of 1979, decision dated: 21st March, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "B. RAI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for Appellants. K. Bakshi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "UNION OF INDIA and another\nvs\nAMRIT LAL SOOD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 235 = 2000 SLD 235 = 2000 PTD 641 = (1998) 232 ITR 759", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Shares and Revision of Assessment\n•\nIssue: The Commissioner questioned the genuineness of share transfers made at book value instead of market value.\n•\nKey Points: The Tribunal found the transactions valid and proper, rejecting the Commissioner’s reliance on the principle in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO.\n•\nHeld: The assessment order was not erroneous, and the Commissioner’s revisional order was invalid.\nReference Case: McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.32 of 1992, decision dated: 12-12-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "VINOD KUMAR GUPTA AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSmt. JOYTSNA PODDAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 236 = 2000 SLD 236 = 2000 PTD 644 = (1998) 232 ITR 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estimated Income and Additions under Section 40(b)\n•\nIssue: Whether additions for interest and remuneration paid to partners could be made after rejecting books of account and estimating income.\n•\nKey Points: Once books are rejected, all deductions under Section 29 are deemed considered. Adding specific items from rejected books is impermissible.\n•\nHeld: The addition of interest and remuneration paid to partners to estimated income was not justified.\nReference Case: Maddi Sudarsanam Oil Mills Co. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 369 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 139 of 1989, decision dated: 12-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MRUTHI AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kodandaram for the Assessee. S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 237 = 2000 SLD 237 = 2000 PTD 647 = (1998) 232 ITR 542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes under Section 154\n•\nIssue: Whether the deduction of self-assessment tax while computing capital for relief under Section 84 constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.\n•\nKey Points: The Income-tax Officer rectified the assessment under Section 154 by deducting the tax due on self-assessment. The Tribunal ruled that Section 154 was not applicable since the due date for self-assessment tax was debatable.\n•\nHeld: The rectification proceedings were invalid as the issue required long reasoning and was not a clear mistake.\nReference Cases: Not mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1170 and 1171 of 1980 (References Nos.373 and 374 of 1980), decision dated: 5-02-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. SIDDICK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P,P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBIMETAL BEARINGS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 238 = 2000 SLD 238 = 2000 PTD 652 = (1998) 232 ITR 846", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment and Notice Validity\n•\nIssue: Whether failure to disclose material facts warranted re-assessment under Section 147, and if non-mention of Clause (a) in the notice invalidated it.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Income-tax Officer initiated re-assessment based on documents obtained during a survey.\no\nIllegality in document impounding does not invalidate re-assessment if material is reliable.\n•\nHeld: The notice was valid despite the omission of Clause (a), and the re-assessment proceedings were justified.\nReference Cases: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No.547 of 1990, decision dated: 15-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "D. N. CHOWDHURY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Bhattachargee and Dr. A. K. Saraf for Petitioner. K. N. Choudhury and G. K. Joshi for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "THAKURSIDAS BANWARILAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 239 = 2000 SLD 239 = 2000 PTD 660 = (1998) 232 ITR 875", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trust Taxation for Undefined Beneficiaries\n•\nIssue: Taxability of a trust created for a minor’s “would-be wife,” a beneficiary not in existence at the time of the trust's creation.\n•\nKey Points: The Income-tax Officer taxed the trust at the maximum marginal rate, asserting the beneficiary was indeterminate.\n•\nHeld: Since the “would-be wife” was neither definite nor determinable, the trust was not eligible for lower tax rates applicable to specific beneficiaries.\nReference Cases: CIT v. Atreya Trust (1992) 193 ITR 716 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.3 of 1993, decision dated: 9-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "Y.R. MEENA AND B.M. MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nTRUSTEES OF KESHAV MOHTA FAMILY TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 240 = 2000 SLD 240 = 2000 PTD 663 = (1998) 232 ITR 874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Pension Received from Abroad\n•\nIssue: Whether pension earned in Malaysia and received in India was taxable in India.\n•\nHeld: Pension earned abroad and merely remitted to India is not taxable in India.\nReference Cases: CIT v. Kalyanakrishnan (A.P.) (1992) 195 ITR 534 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.311 of 1982 (Reference No.312 of 1982), decision dated: 29-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. Y. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nS. B. RAJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 241 = 2000 SLD 241 = 2000 PTD 665 = (1998) 232 ITR 887", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additions to Income from Undisclosed Sources\n•\nIssue: Validity of additions based on undisclosed income after Tribunal's revision.\n•\nKey Points: The Tribunal reduced additions after evaluating evidence, including sale deed records and property values.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's findings were valid as they were based on evidence and reasoning.\nReference Cases: CIT v. Jain (S.P.) (1973) 87 ITR 370 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References -Nos.15 to 18 of 1995, decision dated: 12-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. K. K. USHA AND G. SIVARJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. Joseph Markose and Thomas Vellapally for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSUPRIYA ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 242 = 2000 SLD 242 = 2000 PTD 673 = (1998) 232 ITR 900", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Evidence in Appeals\n•\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal was justified in admitting additional evidence to delete additions for low rice yield.\n•\nKey Points: The Tribunal accepted a government certificate showing standard rice yield, which the Revenue did not challenge.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal was justified in entertaining additional evidence and deleting the additions.\nReference Rules: Indian Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, Rule 29.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.86 of 1996, decision dated: 15-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, CJ AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Spare for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGANI BHAI WAHAB BHAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 243 = 2000 SLD 243 = 2000 PTD 684 = (1998) 232 ITR 530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Car Repairs under Section 37(3A)\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 37(3A) to car repairs.\n•\nHeld: Car and jeep repair expenses are covered under Section 31, not Section 37(3A). Therefore, these expenditures cannot be disallowed.\nReference Cases: CIT v. A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 29 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 76 of 1994, decision dated: 10-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. K. K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C.N. Ramachandran Nair for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMIDLAND RUBBERS AND PRODUCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 244 = 2000 SLD 244 = 2000 PTD 686 = (1998) 232 ITR 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6RlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes and Deductions Withdrawal\n•\nIssue: Whether deductions under Sections 32A, 80HH, and 80J can be withdrawn through rectification proceedings.\n•\nKey Points: A mistake must be glaring and obvious to justify rectification under Section 154. Deductions allowed after examination cannot be revisited as a mistake.\n•\nHeld: The rectification orders were invalid.\nReference Cases: CIT v. Hero Cycles (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.P. No. 1174 of 1988, decision dated: 12-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DEEPAK VERMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. M. Chafekar with Meena Chafekar for Petitioner. V. K. Jain for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "NIRMAL UDYOG\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 245 = 2000 SLD 245 = 2000 PTD 696 = (1998) 232 ITR 479", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 37(3A)\n•\nIssue: Whether disallowance under Section 37(3A) applies separately to different businesses or is cumulative.\n•\nHeld: Disallowance should be based on the aggregate expenses of the assessee, not separate businesses or offices.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 374 of 1993, decision dated: 9-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. L. Nema for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "K. N. OIL INDUSTRIES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 246 = 2000 SLD 246 = 2000 PTD 697 = (1998) 232 ITR 467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Industrial Undertakings\n•\nIssue: Whether a diagnostic center qualifies as an industrial undertaking for tax exemptions.\n•\nHeld: A diagnostic center does not process goods for sale and therefore does not qualify as an industrial undertaking under Section 10(15)(iv)(c).\nReference Cases: J.M.D. Medicare Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 218 ITR 184 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 1172 (W) of 1996, decision dated: 1st September, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "SAMARESH BANERJEA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. N. Mitra and Miss S. Das for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "J.M.D. MEDICARE LTD. and another\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 247 = 2000 SLD 247 = 2000 PTD 704 = (1998) 232 ITR 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment for Failure to Disclose Facts\n•\nIssue: Validity of reassessment due to non-disclosure of material facts, including guest house use by directors.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's finding of non-disclosure was factual and valid, justifying reassessment.\nReference Cases: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No 97 of 1981, decision dated: 11-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "GEEP INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 248 = 2000 SLD 248 = 2000 PTD 715 = (1998) 232 ITR 454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Entertainment Expenditure Disallowance\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of expenses on soft drinks provided to customers.\n•\nHeld: The retrospective amendment to Section 37(2A) disallowed such expenditures from April 1, 1976.\nReference Cases: CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 631 of 1984 (Reference No. 557 of 1984), decision dated: 28-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nTAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 249 = 2000 SLD 249 = 2000 PTD 717 = (1998) 232 ITR 437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Deductibility of Fines and Penalties\n•\nIssue: Deduction of fines paid for violating Customs and Import-Export laws.\n•\nHeld: Such penalties are not deductible as business expenses under Section 37.\nReference Cases: Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No.42 of 1995, decision dated: 16-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND N. K., JAIN, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJAMIYATRAI RAJPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 250 = 2000 SLD 250 = 2000 PTD 720 = (1998) 232 ITR 434", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Exchange Fluctuation and Capital Expenditure\n•\nIssue: Whether additional amounts paid due to exchange rate fluctuations on loans for machinery are deductible.\n•\nHeld: The extra amount related to principal and interest due to exchange rate fluctuations is not deductible as revenue expenditure.\nReference Cases: CIT v. South India Viscose Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 451 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No.597 of 1984 (Reference No. 523 of 1984), decision dated: 28-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Venkataram for the Assessee. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "GNANAMBIKAI MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 251 = 2000 SLD 251 = 2000 PTD 723 = (1998) 232 ITR 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Undisclosed Income and Stock Discrepancies\n•\nIssue: Addition under Section 69B due to discrepancies between book stock and inventory during a search.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Assessing Officer applied the average gross profit rate to estimate stock discrepancies.\no\nThe Tribunal held there was no basis for presuming undisclosed income.\n•\nHeld: The addition under Section 69B was unjustified as there was no evidence of undisclosed income. Reference Cases: None cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 257 of 1993, decided 8-05-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR. C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHINDUSTAN MILLS AND ELECTRICAL STORES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 252 = 2000 SLD 252 = 2000 PTD 1990 = (1999) 235 ITR 208 = (1999) 79 TAX 555", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Filing of Returns for Minors\n•\nIssue: Imposition of penalty for late filing of returns when the assessee was a minor.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe guardian was responsible under Sections 160 and 161 for filing the minor's returns.\no\nPenalty was imposed for delays during the minor's period and after attaining majority.\n•\nHeld: Penalty was validly imposed for the periods of delay attributable to the minor's guardian and to the assessee after attaining majority. Reference Cases: CIT v. R. Srinivasan (1997) 228 ITR 214 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos. 436 to 438 of 1984, decision dated: 26-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Ramgopal for the Assessee.C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner Muhammad Shah Badshah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Jan Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record. Date of hearing. 1st December, 1987.", + "Party Name:": "G.K. RAVI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 253 = 2000 SLD 253 = 2000 PTD 725 = (1998) 232 ITR 788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "No Question of Law in Tribunal’s Order\n•\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no question of law arose from its order.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s reduction in taxable income and granted firm registration.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal was justified as the issues were factual and did not involve questions of law. Reference Cases: None cited.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 12 of 1996, decision dated: 12-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok; D. Srinivas and J. V. Prasad for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nVENKATESWARA TRADERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 254 = 2000 SLD 254 = 2000 PTD 727 = (1998) 232 ITR 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6S1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Authority to Decide on Non-Appealed Issues\n•\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal could address issues not raised in the appeal under Section 253.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Department did not raise the ground of status in its appeal.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide issues not included in the appeal. Reference Cases: None cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case Nos. 60, 61 and 66 of 1989 and 386 of 1991, decision dated: 24th July. 1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. TIWARI AND S. B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. M. Chaphekar with S. S. Samvatsar and H. C. Sarda for the Assessees. A. M. Mathur with A. K. Shrivastava for the Commissioner Ch. Muhammad Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad Oureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "KAMAL KISHORE & CO. and 2 others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 255 = 2000 SLD 255 = 2000 PTD 732 = (1998) 232 ITR 612", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Petition Dismissed Due to Alternate Remedy\n•\nIssue: Whether a writ petition can be entertained when an alternate remedy is available under Section 253.\n•\nHeld: The writ petition was dismissed as the assessee had the option to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Reference Cases: Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K. K. Sen (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No 22335(W) of 1997, decision dated: 17-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debi Pal and Amal Sen for Petitioners. D. Shome and D. Chowdhury for Respondents.\nCh. M. Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. M. Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SALBONI HATCHERIES and another\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 256 = 2000 SLD 256 = 2000 PTD 735 = (1998) 232 ITR 624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Commissioner’s Discretion in Waiver of Interest\n•\nIssue: Validity of the Commissioner’s refusal to waive interest under Section 220(2A).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe petitioner diverted funds for non-tax purposes and failed to show genuine hardship.\n•\nHeld: The Commissioner’s refusal to waive interest was justified as per statutory requirements. Reference Cases: CIT v. Chittoor Electric Supply Corporation (1995) 212 ITR 404 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No.2218 of 1993 L, decision dated: 27-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "P. A. MOHAMMED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. V. Baby for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "S. A. WAHAB\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 257 = 2000 SLD 257 = 2000 PTD 741 = (1998) 232 ITR 634", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Carrying Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation\n•\nIssue: Whether unabsorbed depreciation from a defunct firm can be set off against other business profits.\n•\nHeld: Unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and set off against the assessee’s profits from other businesses. Reference Cases: CIT v. Virmani Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 607 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 503 of 1984 (Reference No. 445 of 1984), decision dated: 17-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, \nvs\nRAVICHANDRAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 258 = 2000 SLD 258 = 2000 PTD 744 = (1998) 232 ITR 554", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Classification: Capital vs Revenue\n•\nIssue 1: Taxability of interest earned on surplus funds during pre-commencement of business.\n•\nIssue 2: Treatment of income from selling tender forms and empty cement bags.\n•\nHeld:\no\nInterest earned is taxable as income from other sources.\no\nProceeds from selling tender forms and empty cement bags are capital receipts. Reference Cases: Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 28 of 1990, decision dated: 9-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner. S. Ravi for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRASSI CEMENT LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "1994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 259 = 2000 SLD 259 = 2000 PTD 746 = (1998) 232 ITR 559", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unabsorbed Depreciation of Registered Firms\n•\nIssue: Whether unabsorbed depreciation allocated to partners can be adjusted in subsequent years for the firm.\n•\nHeld: Unabsorbed depreciation should be treated as the firm’s depreciation in subsequent years. Reference Cases: Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 512 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 19 and 20 of 1986, decision dated: 11-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Barisal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDEEPAK INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 260 = 2000 SLD 260 = 2000 PTD 2016 = (1999) 235 ITR 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Strict Interpretation of Taxing Statutes\n•\nIssue 1: Interpretation of ambiguous fiscal provisions.\n•\nIssue 2: Exemption of premature retirement amounts under Section 10(13).\n•\nHeld:\no\nTax laws must be strictly interpreted.\no\nPremature retirement benefits from approved superannuation funds are exempt for the relevant years. Reference Cases: Fernandez (A.V.) v. State of Kerala AIR 1957 SC 657.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.222 of 1987, decision dated: 30-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Diwan with R.V. Desai for the Commissioner. A.P. Sathe for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJ.V. KOLTE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 261 = 2000 SLD 261 = 2000 PTD 748 = (1998) 232 ITR 824", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Change in Previous Year and Surtax Liability\n•\nIssue: Whether the previous year can be changed if it adversely affects surtax liability.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal should remand the matter for recalculating surtax liability before deciding on the change in the previous year. Reference Cases: CIT v. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 685 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 125 of 1992, 4 of 1994, 166 and 167 of 1995, decision dated: 27-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. K. K. USHA AND N. DHINAKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Joseph Marhas, Joseph Kodianthara and Markose Vellappally for the Assessee. P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. Iftikhar Ali Sheikh assisted byAshtar Ausaf Ali for Petitioner. Malik Imran Nazir for Petitioner (in W.P. 146~6 of 1995). Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MIDAS RUBBER (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 262 = 2000 SLD 262 = 2000 PTD 759 = (1998) 232 ITR 540", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment Despite Reference to Wrong Provision\n•\nIssue: Whether penalty for concealment is invalid due to reference to a repealed provision.\n•\nHeld: Penalty was valid as the substance of the law was applied correctly despite referencing the wrong provision. Reference Cases: None cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 358 of 1992, decision dated: 9-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND A. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. N. Purohit for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "NANDLAL JAISWAL & CO.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 263 = 2000 SLD 263 = 2000 PTD 761 = (1998) 232 ITR 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Reassessment Notice\n•\nIssue: Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 147 were valid.\n•\nHeld: The notices were valid as the Assessing Officer had adequate material to believe income had escaped assessment. Reference Cases: None cited.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rules Nos. 2228 and 2227 of 1993, decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "D. N. CHOUDHURY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. K. Saraf, S. Mitra and R. K. Agarwalla for Petitioner. G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ANANT KUMAR SAHARIA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 264 = 2000 SLD 264 = 2000 PTD 768 = (1998) 232 ITR 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clV6TFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Reassessment Notice under Similar Circumstances\n•\nIssue: Reaffirming validity of reassessment notices under Section 147.\n•\nHeld: Reassessment notices were valid and based on the Assessing Officer’s legitimate belief of escapement. Reference Cases: None cited.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rules Nos. 2228 and 2227 of 1993, decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "D. N. CHOUDHURY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. K. Saraf, S. Mitra and R. K. Agarwalla for Petitioner. G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ANANT KUMAR SAHARIA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 265 = 2000 SLD 265 = 2000 PTD 770 = (1998) 232 ITR 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Petition Against Revision Notice\n•\nIssue: Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a revision notice when objections have not been filed.\n•\nHeld: The writ petition was not maintainable, and the assessee was directed to file objections and appeal as per procedural requirements. Reference Cases: Vedantham Raghaviah v. Third Additional ITO (1963) 49 ITR 314 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. A. No. 363 of 1996, decision dated: 22-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "A.R. LAKSHMANAN AND M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramanian for Kala Ramesh for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSITALAKSHMI MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 266 = 2000 SLD 266 = 2000 PTD 783 = (1998) 232 ITR 337 = (1999) 79 TAX 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation and Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 40(c)\nKey Points:\n•\nSection 40(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, includes both expenditures and allowances concerning company assets used by directors for personal purposes.\n•\nIf a company's assets are utilized for personal purposes by directors, the expenditures and depreciation must be allowed per Section 40(c).\n•\nDepreciation on such assets must be factored in when determining disallowances under the Act.\n•\nCase Applied: C.W.S. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 649 (SC).\nExpanded Analysis:\nThis provision ensures transparency in claiming expenses and depreciation when assets are partially or wholly used for personal purposes by specific individuals like directors. The principle confirms that disallowances should reflect both the direct costs and depreciation.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 598 of 1984 (Reference No. 524 of 1984), decision dated: 26-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. S.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSUNDARAM INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 267 = 2000 SLD 267 = 2000 PTD 786 = (1998) 232 ITR 333 = (1999) 79 TAX 500", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment and Reopening of Assessments under Section 148\nKey Points:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer reopened assessments for an association of rice millers due to activities exceeding legitimate purposes, including political donations.\n•\nThe Tribunal justified reopening as the gross receipts exceeded ₹50,000, removing the association's entitlement to tax exemption under Section 11.\n•\nThe Tribunal's finding was upheld as a question of fact, validating reassessment initiation under Section 148.\nExpanded Analysis:\nThis case emphasizes the importance of adhering to exemption criteria and demonstrates how deviation from legitimate functions can expose an entity to reassessment. The ruling reinforces Section 148's purpose to enable the correction of non-compliance or misuse of tax benefits.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.363 of 1993, decision dated: 8-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. L. Nema for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "MADHYA PRADESH RICE MILLS ASSOCIATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 268 = 2000 SLD 268 = 2000 PTD 789 = (1998) 232 ITR 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic A: Doctrine of Merger and Revision Jurisdiction\nKey Points:\n•\nThe doctrine of merger applies when a superior authority’s decision supersedes or replaces the inferior authority’s order, making the former final and binding.\n•\nThe doctrine is not universally rigid but depends on the appellate or revisional order’s scope.\n•\nOrders dismissed due to default, limitation, or abatement do not trigger the merger doctrine.\nTopic B: Rectification of Mistakes under Section 154\n•\nOnly apparent and patent mistakes of law or fact are subject to rectification under Section 154.\n•\nDebatable issues, such as whether a publishing company qualifies as a manufacturing entity, are excluded from rectification.\nCase Analysis:\nThe case demonstrates the limitations of rectifying orders and the interaction between revisional and appellate jurisdictions. The merging of orders ensures hierarchical compliance, avoiding contradictory outcomes.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 55 of 1980, decision dated: 28th October 1997", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjeev Khanna, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal and Ajay Jha for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nEURASIA PUBLISHING HOUSE (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 269 = 2000 SLD 269 = 2000 PTD 803 = (2000) 81 TAX 360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Exemptions in Tribal Areas and the Applicability of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nKey Points:\n•\nThe Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was held inapplicable to Malakand Division and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas under Article 247 of the Constitution.\n•\nWithholding tax demanded under Section 80-DD from an importer operating in exempt areas was deemed unlawful.\n•\nHigh Court affirmed its jurisdiction over actions initiated by tax authorities in areas exempt from the Ordinance.\nExpanded Analysis:\nThis ruling highlights jurisdictional challenges when tax authorities attempt to apply national tax laws in exempt regions. It underscores constitutional protections for such areas and the necessity for tax authorities to respect regional exemptions.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80DD,50(5),56,63 & SecondSched,Part-II,cI.6AA Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,247 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1278 of 1999, decision dated: 4-01-2000, hearing DATE 9-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND NASIR-UL-MULK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Sardar Khan for, Petitioner Salah-ud-Din.Khan, Dy. A-G for Respondent No. 1\nEid Muhammad Khattak-for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 K. G. Sabir for Respondents Nos.5 to 7 Appellant by: Mr. Naik Muhammad Malik, Advocate Respondent by: Mr. Muhammad Tahir Khan, DR", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GUL COOKING OIL AND VEGETABLE GHEE (PVT.) LTD. DARGAI, MALAKAND AGENCY through Chief Executive\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 270 = 2000 SLD 270 = 2000 PTD 811 = (2000) 81 TAX 352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Changing Status for Income Tax Purposes\nKey Points:\n•\nA cooperative society, previously assessed as an Association of Persons since 1968-69, was reclassified as a private limited company in 1991-92.\n•\nThe court overturned this change, noting that cooperative societies have distinct definitions under Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nAuthorities were directed to restore the entity's original classification.\nExpanded Analysis:\nThe judgment clarifies that cooperative societies and companies are distinct entities under tax laws. It prevents arbitrary reclassification, ensuring consistent treatment aligned with statutory definitions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(16),2(17) & 2(32),138 & 156 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10030 of 1996, decision dated: 2-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Ullah Kiyani and Talat Farooq Sheikh for Petitioner. Shafqat Mahmood Chauhan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. through Mr. Islam Madni, General Manager\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 271 = 2000 SLD 271 = 2000 PTD 1972 = (1999) 235 ITR 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Deductibility of Replanting Expenditure in Tea Estates\n•\nExpenditure on replanting in tea estates is deductible unless it is proven that the replanting occurred in a virgin area.\n•\nThe Tribunal, finding no evidence of replanting in a virgin area, allowed the deduction under Rule 8(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.\n•\nThis decision upholds that replanting on non-virgin land qualifies as revenue expenditure.\n(b) Topic: Finality of Findings of Fact and High Court Jurisdiction\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal is the final authority for fact-finding under the Income-tax Act. Courts cannot override its factual findings unless:\n1.\nThere is no supporting evidence.\n2.\nThe Tribunal misdirected itself in law.\n•\nHigh Courts can reframe questions for clarity but cannot reopen settled questions of fact or law.\n•\nCase Ruling: The Tribunal's finding of no virgin replanting was final, justifying the deduction.\nCases Referenced:\n•\nCIT v. Anusuya Devi (1968)\n•\nCIT v. Mahavir Plantations Ltd. (1995)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.4 of 1996, decision dated: 30-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "V.D. GYANI AND D.N. CHOUDHURY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "\"\"U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. R.P. Agarwalla and D.K. Misra for the Assessee.\"\"", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJ.N. SARMA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 1469 = 2000 SLD 272 = 2000 PTD 819 = (1998) 233 ITR 10 = 1989 SLD 1468 = 1989 SCMR 1114 = 1989 SLD 1469 = 1989 SCMR 1115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Computation of Capital Gains on Mortgaged Property\n•\nA property mortgaged by the assessee was sold via public auction by the State Government to recover dues.\n•\nThe proceeds were adjusted to clear arrears and interest, and the balance was paid to the assessee.\n•\nThe Tribunal held that the assessee's capital gains should be calculated after deducting the amount recovered by the Government as it never reached the assessee.\n•\nRuling: The High Court affirmed that the mortgage created an overriding title, reducing the property's value for capital gains purposes.\nKey Precedents:\n•\nCIT v. Bilquis Jahan Begum (1984)\n•\nIdiculla v. CIT (1995)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 10 of 1990, decision dated: 2-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T.N.C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s).", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner. M. J. Swamy for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nATTILI NARAYANA RAO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 273 = 2000 SLD 273 = 2000 PTD 823 = (1998) 233 ITR 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Subsidy from Private Federations\n•\nA company received a cash subsidy from the Indian Cotton Mills Federation.\n•\nThe Tribunal determined the subsidy was voluntary, without an established nexus or obligation, and thus not taxable under Section 28(iiib).\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld that such gratuitous payments are not taxable as income.\nPrecedents Distinguished:\n•\nSalay Mohamad Ibrahim Sait v. ITO (1994)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 133 of 1992, decision dated: 24-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "YAD RAM MEENA AND BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mitra for the Commissioner. Dr. Pal for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nANAND & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 59 = 2000 SLD 59 = 2000 PTD 826 = (1998) 233 ITR 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Stay of Recovery Proceedings\n•\nSection 220(6) of the Income Tax Act requires the Income Tax Officer to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and issue a reasoned (speaking) order when deciding stay applications.\n•\nRuling: High Court reiterated the need for procedural fairness.\nRelevant Cases:\n•\nAggarwal Rice & General Mills v. CIT (1993)\n•\nKuku Rice Mills v. Assessing Authority (1992)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.P. No. 11686 of 1997, decision dated: 21st August, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.L. Goyal for Petitioner. B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PAWAN KUMAR\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 60 = 2000 SLD 60 = 2000 PTD 828 = (1998) 233 ITR 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Powers of High Court in Reference Cases\n•\nHigh Courts must determine if the questions raised are legal and arise from the Tribunal’s orders under Section 256(2).\n(b) Topic: Applicability of Res Judicata and Estoppel in Status Determination\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that treating a property differently in later years violates the principles of res judicata and estoppel.\n•\nThe High Court held these issues as valid questions of law for reference.\n(c) Topic: Classification of Income from Property and Other Sources\n•\nRent from letting out furniture and fixtures (separate from property rent) is taxable under Income from Other Sources if the transactions are severable.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's fact-based decision, deeming no legal question for reference.\nPrecedents Applied:\n•\nRadhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992)\n•\nKarnani Properties Ltd. v. Miss Augustine (1957)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 17 of 1995, decision dated: 10-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND, J.B. GOEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjiv Khanna with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for the Commissioner. Vikram Kapur for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nK. L. PURI (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 37 = 2000 SLD 37 = 2000 PTD 835 = (1998) 233 ITR 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Business expenditure-Disallowance-Expenditure on sales promotion-Cooperative society\nThe assessee was the Madhya Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society, Jabalpur. It incurred expenses of ₹6,78,177 towards propaganda, publicity, and van expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the claim (₹1,15,625) under Sections 37(3A) and 37(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal observed that these expenses were incurred as per statutory directives of the State Government under Section 49C of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and thus did not qualify as sales promotion expenses. Consequently, the addition was deleted.\nHeld: The expenditure incurred under statutory directions was deemed business expenditure and exempt from tax under Section 80P(2).\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 37(3A), 37(3B), and 80P; Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Section 49C.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.87 of 1995, decision dated: 25-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. A. K. Shrivastava for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nM. P. STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 62 = 2000 SLD 62 = 2000 PTD 838 = (1998) 233 ITR 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2012\nIncome-tax-Reference-Assessment-Penalty-Concealment of income-Questions regarding year of assessment and levy of penalty are questions of fact\nA sum of ₹4,45,000 recovered from an individual was declared as income of the assessee. The assessee initially filed the amount under the assessment year 1989-90 but later revised it to 1987-88. The Income Tax Officer assessed the income under 1989-90. On application for reference, it was contended that the Tribunal erred in determining the assessment year and not levying penalty.\nHeld: Questions regarding the assessment year and the levy of penalty are matters of fact and cannot be subject to reference.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 256 and 271.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.589 of 1994, decision dated: 22-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. D. SHUKLA AND SHAMBHOOSINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Jain for the Commissioner. M. S. Choudhary for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJAGDISH PRASAD GOYAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 63 = 2000 SLD 63 = 2000 PTD 840 = (1998) 233 ITR 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2013\nIncome-tax-Reassessment-Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment-Information that income had escaped assessment\nReassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147(b) to withdraw a standard deduction and include interest income. This reassessment was later canceled as without jurisdiction. Subsequently, a fresh reassessment under Section 147(a) was initiated for the same item. The Tribunal held this second reassessment invalid.\nHeld: Once reassessment proceedings for an item are canceled, fresh proceedings for the same item are impermissible.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 147 and 148; Manoo Lal Kedarnath v. Union of India (1978) 114 ITR 884 (All.) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No.354 of 1984 (Reference No. 303 of 1984), decision dated: 15-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. T.R. Senthil Kumar and B. Raviraja for the Assessee. Abdul Khalique for Applicant. Sami Ahsan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Muhammad Irfan for Petitioner. Rao Sarfaraz Ahmed for SBCA.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nV. R. DURGAMBA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 64 = 2000 SLD 64 = 2000 PTD 2025 = (1999) 235 ITR 236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2014\nIncome-tax-Recovery of tax-Writ-Firm-Partner-Arrears of tax due by firm which was defunct-Recovery proceedings against partner\nThe petitioner challenged recovery proceedings for tax arrears of ₹3,91,829 owed by a defunct firm, claiming they were not a partner. However, evidence from Settlement Commission proceedings showed the petitioner had appeared as a partner.\nHeld: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner was found to have participated in tax proceedings as a partner of the firm.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 220; Constitution of India, Article 226.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 13959 of 1997-J, decision dated: 19-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "G. SIVARAJAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Nagendran with Premjit Nogendran acid Joy Thattil for petitioner. P.K.R. Menon for Respondents Zahid Mallah for Applicant. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, A.P.G. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "T.K. NARENDRAN\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 65 = 2000 SLD 65 = 2000 PTD 842 = (1998) 233 ITR 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2015\n(a) Income-tax-Reassessment-Deduction neither claimed nor allowed in original assessment\n(b) Income-tax-Rectification of mistakes-Condition precedent-Mistake must be apparent from record\nIn reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147(b), the Income Tax Officer disallowed certain deductions. Appeals to the CIT(A) resulted in partial relief, finding the assessee eligible for higher depreciation. The Tribunal upheld that reassessment could not result in lower total income than originally assessed.\nHeld:\n(i) Deductions not claimed in the original assessment cannot be introduced in reassessment proceedings.\n(ii) The Tribunal failed to recognize clear errors in the records warranting rectification under Section 154.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 147, 148, and 154; CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC); other cases referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos.2161 to 2164 of 1984, decision dated: 20-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": "A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uttam Reddy for the Assessee. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "INDIA FORGE AND DROP STAMPINGS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 66 = 2000 SLD 66 = 2000 PTD 853 = (1998) 233 ITR 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Income from House Property—Deductions\nDetails: The assessee purchased a property for ₹11,50,000, partly financed by borrowing ₹3,50,000 from B and paid the remaining ₹8,00,000 in yearly installments with interest. Subsequently, the assessee borrowed ₹8,00,000 from B to pay the balance and related interest. Initially, deductions were allowed only on the first borrowing. On appeal, the Tribunal allowed deductions on all interest paid.\nHeld: The unpaid sale price was deemed borrowed capital under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee was entitled to deductions for all interest paid on the balance purchase price and subsequent borrowings for its payment but not for interest borrowed to pay vendor interest.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 24(1)(vi)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 235 of 1991, decision dated: 24-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "Y. R. MEENA AND B. M. MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent No. 1. Samsam Ali Khan Raza for Respondent No. 2.\nMohammad Ashraf Khan for Petitioner. Malik Shaukat Khan for the Complainant.\nShahid Hamid Qureshi, A.A.G. for the State.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nR.P. GOENKA AND J.P. GOENKA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 67 = 2000 SLD 67 = 2000 PTD 856 = (1998) 233 ITR 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Income from House Property—Vacancy Allowance\nDetails: The property was occupied by an agreement-holder to purchase the property, during which the owner did not collect rent. The Tribunal held this period as vacancy, allowing remission under Section 24(1)(ix).\nHeld: Reversing the Tribunal's decision, it was held that voluntarily foregoing rent does not constitute vacancy under Section 24(1)(ix). The assessee was not entitled to remission.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 24(1)(ix)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 913 and 914 of 1984 (References Nos. 809 and 810 of 1984), decision dated: 11-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee. Mehmood Habibullah for Applicant. Shafique Ahmed, Special Prosecutor for ANF for Respondent. Ghulam Mustafa Sahito for Appellant. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, D.P.G. for the State. Abdul Rasheed Kalwar for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent No. 1. Shaikh Amanullah for Respondent No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDHUN D. DALAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 68 = 2000 SLD 68 = 2000 PTD 860 = (2000) 81 TAX 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax—Rectification of Mistakes—Opportunity of Hearing\nDetails: The assessee’s application for rectification under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was dismissed without reasoning or hearing. The Department argued the remedy lay in filing a reference or appeal.\nHeld: Section 156 requires an opportunity of hearing. The High Court remanded the matter, directing a hearing before disposal.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 156 & 136", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 684 of 1999, heard on 29-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Hasnain for Petitioner. Khalil ur Rehman Abbasi on behalf of Mansoor Ahmad, Dy. A.G. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "M. A. NASEER\nvs\nMEMBER (JUDICIAL IncomE tax), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 69 = 2000 SLD 69 = 2000 PTD 1976 = (1999) 235 ITR 191 = (1999) 79 TAX 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Capital Gains—Transfer of Shares for Land\nDetails: The assessee surrendered shares to a company in exchange for land. The Assessing Officer treated the surplus as dividends, while the Commissioner held it as capital gains. The Tribunal disagreed.\nHeld: Surrendering shares constitutes a transfer under Section 2(47), making the surplus taxable as capital gains under Section 45.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(47) & 45; Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. CIT (1997)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax. Reference No. 122 of 1994, decision dated: 13-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "P. A. MOHAMMED AND P. SHANMUGAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nP.P. THOMAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 70 = 1999 SLD 70 = 1999 PTCL 835 = 2000 PTD 869", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Invalid Notices for Past Assessments\nDetails: Notices for assessments of prior years were issued under Section 56, which applies only to the current year. Proceedings for past years require notice under Section 65.\nHeld: Assessments based on invalid notices were void, and the proceedings were declared without jurisdiction.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 56 & 65", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1414/LB to 1416/LB of 1999, decision dated: 26-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant. Abdul Rauf, D. R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 71 = 2000 SLD 71 = 2000 PTD 874 = (2000) 81 TAX 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Manufacturing Definition for Tax Purposes\nDetails: The assessee, a tea company, processed tea by blending and packing. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner categorized it as processing, denying manufacturing exemptions. The Tribunal upheld the original assessment recognizing manufacturing.\nHeld: Blending and flavoring of tea qualifies as manufacturing, entitling the assessee to exemptions. The Commissioner’s order was quashed, restoring the Assessing Officer's original decision.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 66-A, 62 & 80-C; 1995 PTD 813", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,62,8 & 80C-SecondSched.,PartI,cl.118-E ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 66/KB to 70/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 12th November 1999, hearing DATE : 3rd November, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qumar-ud-Din Manji, C.A. for Appellant. Zaki Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 72 = 2000 SLD 72 = 2000 PTD 892 = (2000) 81 TAX 371 = (2000) 82 TAX 518", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n•\nTopic: Deduction of Tax at Source – Increase in Advance Income-Tax Rate\n•\nDetails: The Finance Act, 1995 amended the income-tax rate on deductions at source from 3% to 5%, effective from 13-7-1998 in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The Assessing Officer applied this enhanced rate to the assessee under Ordinance No. I of 1998. The assessee contested this, arguing that the retrospective application violated Fundamental Right No. 14 under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court ruled that fiscal laws can be made retrospectively and there was no constitutional prohibition on such an amendment. Therefore, the demand for advance income-tax at the increased rate was valid.\n•\nCitations: Ms. Spintex Limited v. Income-tax Officer, Government of AJ & K, Mirpur 1998 PTD 2567; Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1964 SC 925; Novelty Enterprises Limited v. Deputy Collector, Excise and Taxation/Sales Tax Officer, Mirpur 1993 CLC 1165; Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir v. M/s. Kashmir Tobacco Industries Ltd. 1992 SCR 20.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n•\nTopic: Increased Advance Income-Tax Rate Post Contract Execution\n•\nDetails: After the Finance Act, 1995, the rate for advance income tax was increased. The assessee argued that the retrospective increase violated Fundamental Right No. 14. The assessing officer demanded the increased tax from the date of contract payment, after the law was enforced in Azad Kashmir.\n•\nHeld: The demand was valid as the law was enacted pursuant to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and did not violate the protection of property under Fundamental Right No. 14.\n•\nCitations: Similar citations as in (a).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),50(5) & FirstSched.,Para.E,cl.(i),sub-para.(i),cl.(iii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.74 and 75 of 1999, decision dated: 16-12-1999, hearing DATE : 17-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, G.J. AND BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate for Appellants. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, Farooq Hussain Kashmiri and Noorullah Qureshi, Advocates for Respondents (in both the Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (AJ&K COUNCIL), MUZAFFARABAD and another\nvs\nASIAN D ENTERPRISES through Ejaz Qureshi, Managing Director and 5 others\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (AJ&K COUNCIL), MUZAFFARABAD and 2 others\nvs\nMessrs CADE CREETS ASSOCIATES through Managing Partner, Diwan Ali Khan Chughtai and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 73 = 2000 SLD 73 = 2000 PTD 903 = (1999) 80 TAX 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n•\nTopic: Constitutional Petition against Tribunal's Order\n•\nDetails: A constitutional petition was filed against the decision of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal without using the remedy of reference under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. At the time of hearing, the reference was also barred by limitation.\n•\nHeld: The court held that the petitioner should have exhausted the remedy available under the ordinance. The constitutional petition was deemed not maintainable.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1895 of 1996, decision dated: 28-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "CRESCENT SUGAR MILL\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 74 = 2000 SLD 74 = 2000 PTD 905 = (1998) 232 ITR 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax\n•\nTopic: Review Powers of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal\n•\nDetails: The Tribunal cannot review its orders but can rectify mistakes that are patent and obvious. The assessee argued that the Tribunal’s failure to address an application for additional evidence was a jurisdictional error.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal cannot review its own orders under Section 254(2) and the application was dismissed. A writ petition was also dismissed on the ground of an alternate remedy.\n•\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 254; Constitution of India, Art. 226.\n(b) Income-tax\n•\nTopic: General Principles of Similar Treatment\n•\nDetails: Similar matters must receive similar treatment, and statements recorded by courts or tribunals are presumed to be correct.\n•\nHeld: Consistency in judicial discretion requires similar treatment for similar cases.\n•\nCitations: Antulay (A.R.) v. Nayak (R. S.) AIR 1988 SC 1531; Balaram (T.S.) ITO v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writs Nos. 2796 to 2799 of 1997, decision dated: 5-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma with Anoop Sharma for Petitioners. M. S. Syali, Sanjeev Khanna with Ms. Prem Lata. Bansal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Ms. DEEKSHA SURI and 3 others\nvs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 75 = 2000 SLD 75 = 2000 PTD 929 = (1998) 232 ITR 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax\n•\nTopic: Carry Forward and Set Off of Losses\n•\nDetails: The assessee filed a return in 1986 disclosing a loss for the assessment year 1985-86. The loss could be carried forward and set off, as per the provisions of Section 139(4) and Section 80 of the Indian Income Tax Act.\n•\nHeld: The loss was to be carried forward according to the law as it stood before the 1987 amendment, which was applicable up to the assessment year 1988-89.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 207 of 1994, decision dated: 19-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nDOGAR TOOLS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 76 = 2000 SLD 76 = 2000 PTD 931 = (1998) 232 ITR 618", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax\n•\nTopic: Business Expenditure and Entertainment Expenses\n•\nDetails: Entertainment expenses must be calculated concerning the business income as a whole, not based on individual business units. The company cannot claim deductions for entertainment expenses unless explicitly provided by law.\n•\nHeld: The deduction cannot be claimed on the analogy of other deductions; it is only allowed as per the provisions of the law.\n•\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 37(2).\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nTopic: Strict Interpretation of Fiscal Law\n•\nDetails: No deduction can be claimed by analogy under fiscal laws. The language of tax provisions must be given full effect if clear and unambiguous.\n•\nHeld: Deductions must be explicitly provided in the Income Tax Act.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.\n(c) Income-tax\n•\nTopic: Special Deduction for New Industrial Undertakings\n•\nDetails: Special deductions must be calculated as per the prescribed rules and sections of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nHeld: Deduction calculations must strictly follow the regulations, including Rule 19A under Section 80J.\n•\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, Rule 19A.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 238 of 1981, decision dated: 2-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 76 = 2000 SLD 76 = 2000 PTD 938 = (1998) 232 ITR 646", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2027\nTopic: Income-tax - Rectification of Mistakes\nDetails:\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) initiated rectification proceedings for the 1971-72 assessment year, arguing that excess extra shift allowance had been granted for machinery installed later in the year and that the special deduction under section 80J was wrongly allowed for a plant expansion. The Tribunal held that the issues were debatable and could not be rectified under section 154.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe expansion plant was set up under a fresh license and produced a distinct marketable product, qualifying it as a new industrial undertaking under section 80J. The rectification power could not be invoked for debatable issues.\n2.\nExtra shift allowance should be calculated based on the whole factory, not individual machinery.\n3.\nThe issues of both extra shift allowance and special deduction were debatable and thus not subject to rectification under section 154.\nCitations: South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 286 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 235 of 1983, decision dated: 24-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "R. KABICHANDANI AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Nayak for the Commissioner. M.J. Shah for J. P. Shah for Respondent No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nATUL PRODUCTS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 77 = 2000 SLD 77 = 2000 PTD 943 = (1998) 232 ITR 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2028\nTopic: Income-tax - Liability of Directors\nDetails:\nSection 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holds directors of a private company liable for unpaid taxes, but only if the tax cannot be recovered from the company. The liability is joint and several among directors but not co-extensive with the company’s. The Assessing Officer must first determine that the tax cannot be recovered from the company before proceeding against the directors.\nHeld:\nThe Assessing Officer must establish that the tax cannot be recovered from the company before initiating personal liability proceedings against the directors. Without this finding, jurisdiction under section 179 is not granted.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.179.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6595 of 1998, decision dated: 1st April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Srinivas Reddy for Petitioners. J. V. Prasad for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "K.V.REDDY and another\nvs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 78 = 2000 SLD 78 = 2000 PTD 948 = (1998) 233 ITR 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Charitable Trust\nDetails:\nThe TNKV Educational Trust, a charitable trust, donated Rs.12,80,000 to ten family trusts. The funds were invested in a private company, generating interest income. The Assessing Officer treated the interest as taxable income of the TNKV Trust. The issue arose as the family trusts claimed exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe transfer of funds to the family trusts was invalid as the TNKV trust did not prove that its objects had become impossible of fulfilment. The trustees had no power to make such donations under the trust deed.\n2.\nThe interest income from the investments made by the family trusts was taxable in the hands of the TNKV trust.\n3.\nThe family trusts were not entitled to tax exemption under section 11.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 11 & 13.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.411 to 416, 786 of 1984 and 1 to 54 of 1997 (References Nos.361 to 365, 701 of 1984 and 1 to 54 of 1997), decision dated: 17-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee (in all the Cases)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nT.N.K. AND V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 79 = 2000 SLD 79 = 2000 PTD 961 = (1998) 233 ITR 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2030\nTopic: Income-tax - Business Income vs. Income from Property\nDetails:\nA clearing and forwarding agent received godown rent as part of a contract with the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals. The firm contended that the rent was income from property, but the Income-tax Officer treated it as business income.\nHeld:\nThe godown rent was incidental to the clearing and forwarding activity under the contract. As such, it was considered business income rather than income from property.\nCitations: CIT v. Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (Pvt.) Ltd. (1996) 221 ITR 117 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 118 of 1992, decision dated: 11-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": "V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "MERCANTILE AND MARINE SERVICES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 80 = 2000 SLD 80 = 2000 PTD 966", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Professional income or salary—Advocate-General of a State\nDetails: The case dealt with whether the salary paid to the Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu should be assessed as professional income or salary. The Advocate-General was paid a retainer fee, and the Income-tax Officer had initially assessed it under the head Profits and gains of business or profession rather than as Salary. The assessee contested this, but the Tribunal initially ruled in favor of considering the salary as part of Salary income.\nHeld: The relationship between the Advocate-General and the State was not that of employer-employee, but that of an advocate and client. The salary paid was a retainer fee for professional services and was thus to be assessed under Profits and gains of business or profession, not under Salary. \nCitations: CIT v. Lady Navajbai R. J. Tata (1947) 15 ITR 8 (Bom.); Joginder Singh Wasu v. State of Punjab (1994) 1 SCC 184; Union of India v. Pratibha Bonnerjea AIR 1996 SC 693.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos. 1397, 1398 of 1985, 181 and 182 of 1991, decision dated: 8-06-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOVINDASWAMINATHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 81 = 2000 SLD 81 = 2000 PTD 971", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Capital or revenue receipt—Film subsidy\nDetails: The case involved a subsidy granted by the State Government to a Cine Studio for producing feature films. The Income-tax Officer initially assessed the subsidy as a revenue receipt, but the assessee argued it was a capital receipt. The case also dealt with the appeal process concerning the levy of interest on tax liability.\nHeld: The subsidy was in the nature of an inducement to promote the film industry in the State and was not intended to assist in increasing the producer's profits. Therefore, it was not a revenue receipt. Regarding the appeal, an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or CIT was maintainable when challenging the levy of interest if it raised other grounds.\nCitations: CIT v. Chitra Kalpa (1989) 177 ITR 540 (AP); Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC); Vital Reddy v. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 673 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Reference No. 127 of 1989, decision dated: 2-02-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kodandaram for the Assessee. S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "RAMAKRISHNA CINE STUDIO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 82 = 2000 SLD 82 = 2000 PTD 976 = (1998) 233 ITR 669", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Income—Perquisite—Director's benefit from company\nDetails: The case concerned a director of a company and the issue of whether certain debit balances in the company's books against the director should be treated as a perquisite and taxed as income. The Income-tax Officer added the value of the benefit to the director's income, which was contested by the assessee.\nHeld: The Tribunal's ruling that no income within the meaning of section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act was assessable in the director's hands was incorrect, as per the decision in CIT v. S. S. M. Lingappan. The addition to the director’s income was justified.\nCitations: CIT v. S. S. M. Lingappan (1981) 129 ITR 587 (Mad.); CIT (Addl.) v. A. K. Lakshmi (1978) 113 ITR 368 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 174 and- 211 of 1985, decision dated: 2-12-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. B. GOEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTARA SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 83 = 2000 SLD 83 = 2000 PTD 978 = (1998) 233 ITR 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Return—Delay in filing returns and penalty\nDetails: The case involved the assessee’s delay in filing returns for the assessment year 1977-78, leading to the levy of interest and penalty. The assessee sought a waiver of the penalty, arguing that the return was filed voluntarily and in good faith.\nHeld: The levy of interest for the delayed filing of returns was justified. However, as the assessee voluntarily filed the return with correct income, the penalty could be waived under section 273A, and the order rejecting the waiver was quashed.\nCitations: CIT v. Padma Timber Depot (1988) 169 ITR 646 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11573 of 1988, decision dated: 2-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SHAH MOHAMMAD QUADRI, ACTG. C.J. AND V. BHASKARA RAO, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Y. Ramakar for Petitioner. Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Suit. V. SUNEETHA PRASAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 84 = 2000 SLD 84 = 2000 PTD 983 = (1998) 233 ITR 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Capital or revenue receipt—Compensation for delay in work\nDetails: The case involved compensation paid to the assessee-company by Mitsubishi due to delays in completing a plant under a contract. The assessee argued that the compensation was a capital receipt, while the Revenue assessed it as a revenue receipt.\nHeld: The compensation included both capital and revenue components. One-third of the compensation was for delay in procuring capital assets, while the remaining two-thirds related to revenue. Therefore, part of the compensation was a capital receipt.\nCitations: CIT v. Barium Chemicals Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 164 (AP); Associated Oil Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1960) 40 ITR 118 (Mad.); CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co. (1972) 86 ITR 29 (SC); CIT v. Rohtas Industries Ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 798 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case (Reference) No. 418 of 1982, decision dated: 29-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner,", + "Party Name:": "E. I. D. PARRY LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 85 = 2000 SLD 85 = 2000 PTD 992 = (1998) 233 ITR 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income from Undisclosed Sources and Penalty under Income Tax Act\n•\nDetails: A reassessment based on undisclosed bank deposits made in the name of the wife of one of the partners (B), who admitted the deposits were linked to the firm. The firm was engaged in an Abkari contract, and the deposits were traced to the firm. Penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income, but the Tribunal wrongly placed the burden of proof on the Revenue.\n•\nHeld:\n1.\nThe bank deposits were correctly assessed as the income of the firm, given the admission by B and other supporting evidence.\n2.\nThe assessee must prove there was no concealment of income, reversing the Tribunal's stance.\n3.\nThe issue regarding the validity of the penalty notice could not be raised before the High Court.\n4.\nThe penalty proceedings were remanded to the Tribunal to allow the assessee a chance to present materials to avoid penalty.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC); CIT v. Damodaran (V.) (1980) 121 ITR 572 (SC); CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. Nos. 13 and 14 of 1995, decision dated: 25-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "P. A. MOHAMMED AND P. SHANMUGAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for Assessee. P. K. R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "D. K. B. & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 86 = 2000 SLD 86 = 2000 PTD 999 = (1998) 233 ITR 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Appeal Barred by Time and Condonation of Delay\n•\nDetails: The assessee-firm appealed against an order of assessment which was dismissed as time-barred. The firm sought condonation of delay due to the illness of one partner. The Tribunal rejected the appeal for delay, considering the firm had other resources to handle the appeal.\n•\nHeld:\n1.\nWhether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay is a question of fact. The Tribunal's finding on this issue was not a question of law for the High Court to review.\n2.\nNo question of law arose for reference.\n•\nCitations: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC); Ramachandran (P.K.) v. State of Kerala (1997) 6 Scale 269", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Limitation Act, 1877=5 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 57 of 1996, decision dated: 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Raghubir with Ms. Lakshmi lyengar for the Assessee. R. D. Jolly with Ajay Jha for -the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "ORIENT ROADWAYS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 87 = 2000 SLD 87 = 2000 PTD 1001 = (1998) 233 ITR 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Tribunal's Power of Review and Rectification of Orders\n•\nDetails: The Tribunal disallowed payments that were not made via crossed bank drafts. The assessee later sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing that payments were made to new parties. The Tribunal rectified its earlier order, stating that the payments should not have been disallowed under Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD(j).\n•\nHeld:\n1.\nThe Tribunal had the power to rectify the order, as it did not review but corrected a mistake based on statutory rules and circulars.\n2.\nThe Tribunal's power under Section 254(2) and Section 154 is to rectify mistakes apparent from the record, not to review its earlier decision.\n3.\nNo question of law arose from the rectified order.\n•\nCitations: Kill Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. v. ITAT (1988) 174 ITR 579 (Ker.); Laxmi Electronic Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 398 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Matter No. 233 of 1995, decision dated: 1st February, 1956.", + "Judge Name:": "BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE AND DIBYENDU BHUSAN DUTTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee and Dibyendu Bhusan Dutta, JJ Ram Chandra Prosad for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBALLABH PRASAD AGARWALLA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 88 = 2000 SLD 88 = 2000 PTD 1033 = (1998) 233 ITR 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Depreciation and Development Rebate under the Income Tax Act\n•\nDetails: The case involved various claims for depreciation and development rebate on roads within factory premises, laboratory equipment, horticulture expenditure, books, and miscellaneous expenses. The Tribunal reviewed these claims and addressed their proper capitalisation for depreciation and development rebate purposes.\n•\nHeld:\n1.\nRoads within factory premises are part of the factory building and eligible for depreciation under Section 32.\n2.\nLaboratory equipment exposed to corrosive chemicals qualifies for a higher depreciation rate of 15%.\n3.\nExpenditures for preparing land and fixing sand for construction are capitalised for depreciation and development rebate.\n4.\nBooks and periodicals, being plant related to construction, qualify for depreciation.\n5.\nMiscellaneous expenses for technical matters connected to construction should be capitalised.\n6.\nThe Tribunal’s decision on the user condition for development rebate was remanded for further review, as the Tribunal failed to consider user requirements under Section 33 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd. (No. 2) (1998) 233 ITR 400 (Mad.); CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 480 of 1984, decision dated: 12-06-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSOUTHERN PETRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. (NO. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 89 = 2000 SLD 89 = 2000 PTD 2664 = (2000) 81 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Tax Deduction at Source and Responsibility of the Payer\n•\nDetails: The issue involved the liability of a payer to deduct tax at source when the recipient is unidentified. The payer’s responsibility to ensure tax deduction was discussed.\n•\nHeld: The payer is not liable for tax if the recipient is unidentified, as the responsibility for tax deduction lies with the recipient unless the payer fails to meet certain obligations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52R50(4),50(8)(b) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 2728/LB to 2732/LB, 2803/LB to 2807/LB of 1999, decision dated: 7-03-2000, hearing DATE : 25-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "\"\"Mian Muhammad Tahir for Appellant (in I. T. As. Nos. 2728/LB to 2732/LB of 1999). Sh. Muhammad Hanif, D.R. for Respondent (in ITAs.Nos.2728/LB. to 2732/LB of 1999) Sh. Muhammad Hanif, D.R. for Appellant (in I. T. As. Nos. 2803/LB to 2807/LB of 1999) Mian Muhammad Tahir for Respondent (in I. T. As. 2803/LB to 2807/1-13 of 1999)\"\"", + "Party Name:": "AJAY MEDICAL AGENCY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 90 = 2000 SLD 90 = 2000 PTD 1042 = (1998) 233 ITR 413", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Penalty – Concealment of income – Waiver of penalty\nDetails: The case discusses the condition for invoking Section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the waiver of penalty. The assessee must provide a full and true disclosure of particulars before the Income-tax Officer detects any concealment.\nHeld: The writ petition was dismissed because the assessee disclosed the true particulars only after detection by the Income-tax Officer, thus failing to meet the condition for penalty waiver under Section 273A.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.273A", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. W. P. Nos. 533 and 534 of 1988, decision dated: 3rd June, 1997.", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. AND A.L. VAIDYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. D. Sood and Dushyant Dadwal for Petitioners. Inder Singh for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "AJAY MEDICAL AGENCY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 91 = 2000 SLD 91 = 2000 PTD 1045 = (1998) 233 ITR 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Writ – Jurisdiction of High Court – Reassessment – Notice – Writ petition\nDetails: The case concerns a writ petition filed in the High Court after the Income-tax Officer issued a reassessment notice under Section 148. The petitioner had not approached the appropriate forum for appeal or revision.\nHeld: The writ petition was dismissed as there was an alternative and efficacious remedy available through the relevant appeal or revision procedure under the Income Tax Act.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.148; Constitution of India, Art.226; Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes (1964) 15 STC 468; Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidag Barot AIR 1974 SC 2105", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 1014 of 1992, decision dated: 13-11-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "N. S. SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. F. G. Osmani, H. R. A. Choudhury and M. H. Rajbarbhuyan for Petitioner. G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "JAGNESWAR DEY AND BIBHASH RANJAN DEY\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 92 = 2000 SLD 92 = 2000 PTD 1050 = (1998) 233 ITR 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Capital or revenue receipt – Non-resident – Sale of technical know-how\nDetails: A Japanese company entered into a collaboration agreement with an Indian corporation, transferring technical know-how. The tribunal found that the fee received by the Japanese company for the transfer was a capital receipt.\nHeld: The technical fee received by the non-resident for the sale of know-how was a capital receipt and not taxable in India, as no services were rendered in India.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.9(1); Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 11 (SC); CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (1974) 96, ITR 672 (Guj.); Handley Page v. Butterworth 19 STC 328; Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. Jeffrey (Inspector of Taxes) (1965) 56 ITR 580 (HL)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. R. Nos. 5 of 1989 and 286 of 1991, decision dated: 19-02-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "T. N. C. RANGARAJAN AND R. M. BAPAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ramakar for the Assessees.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKOYO SEIKO CO. LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 93 = 2000 SLD 93 = 2000 PTD 1055 = (1998) 233 ITR 426", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Reassessment – Information on income escaping assessment – Opinion of audit party\nDetails: The case involved a reassessment under Section 147(b) based on the opinion of the audit party. The Tribunal found the reopening was invalid as it was based on earlier years' records, which were influenced by the audit opinion.\nHeld: The Tribunal correctly ruled that the reassessment was invalid as it was based on the opinion of the audit party, and not on independent grounds.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.147; Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 749 of 1984 (Reference No. 664 of 1984), decision dated: 28-11-1996.", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nENFIELD INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 94 = 2000 SLD 94 = 2000 PTD 1059 = (1998) 233 ITR 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Depreciation – Statutory allowance\nDetails: The case involved various aspects of depreciation claims under the Income Tax Act, including issues with revised returns and the statutory duty of the Income-tax Officer to grant depreciation.\nHeld: The Tribunal erred in disallowing depreciation, as it is the statutory duty of the Income-tax Officer to grant depreciation if the particulars are available, regardless of whether the assessee withdraws the claim in a revised return. Specific rulings on the treatment of roads within factory premises and laboratory equipment used for corrosive testing were also provided.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32, 34, 139(5); CBDT Circular No. 29-D (XIX-14) of 1965, dated 31-8-1965; CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC); Dasaprakash Bottling Co. v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 9 (Mad.); CIT v. Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 404 (AP); CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC); CIT v. Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd. (No. 1) (1998) 233 ITR 391 (Mad.); Ascharjlal Ram Parkash v. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 477 (All.); Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 478 (P & H); CIT v. Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 30 (AP); CIT v. Friends Corporation (1989) 180 ITR 334 (P & H); CIT (Chief) (Adorn.) v. Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 101 (Kar.); CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 443 (Boor.); Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P. (1979) 118 ITR 277 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T C. No. 1093 of 1985, decision dated: 12-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALSUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSOUTHERN PETRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. (N0.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 95 = 2000 SLD 95 = 2000 PTD 1068 = (1998) 233 ITR 429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: (a) Income-tax – Diversion of income by overriding title\n(b) Income-tax – Business expenditure – Bonus\n(c) Income-tax – Appeal to Appellate Tribunal – Additional ground\nDetails: (a) The case concerns the creation of a reserve by a sugar manufacturing company in compliance with the Molasses Control Order, 1961. The company contended that the reserve fund was not income assessable to tax, but the Income-tax Officer treated it as income. The Tribunal held that the reserve was diverted income due to the statutory obligation under the Molasses Control Order. The court, however, found that the reserve was not diverted income but rather applied income and assessable as income.\n(b) The assessee claimed bonus paid to agricultural staff as business expenditure. This claim was not made before the Assessing Officer and was rejected by the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal allowed the deduction, stating there was no prohibition on the Tribunal entertaining such a claim.\n(c) The case examined the Appellate Tribunal’s powers to entertain an additional ground. It was held that the Tribunal was not prohibited from entertaining an additional ground that arises for the just decision of the case.\nHeld: (a) The reserve fund is an application of income and should be treated as trading receipt, assessable as income.\n(b) The bonus is allowable as a business expenditure even though it was not claimed before the Assessing Officer.\n(c) The Tribunal can entertain an additional ground if necessary for a just decision.\nCitations:\nJiwajirao Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 182 (MP)\nCIT v. Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. (1989) 80 CTR 196 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 651 of 1993, decision dated: 6th March 1997", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 96 = 2000 SLD 96 = 2000 PTD 1072 = (1998) 233 ITR 450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: (a) Income-tax – Rectification of mistakes by Tribunal\n(b) Income-tax – Application for reference and rectification\n(c) Income-tax – Accrual of income – Interest on sticky loans\nDetails: (a) The case discusses the powers of the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to rectify its order when a Supreme Court decision is overlooked. The Tribunal’s failure to consider the Supreme Court ruling was rectifiable as a mistake apparent from the record.\n(b) The Tribunal can rectify its order even when an application for reference is pending before it.\n(c) Interest on sticky loans, which is credited to the interest suspense account, is assessable as income based on accrual under the Income Tax Act.\nHeld: (a) The Tribunal can rectify mistakes in its order by considering binding Supreme Court decisions.\n(b) The Tribunal can rectify mistakes in its order even when a reference application is pending.\n(c) Interest on sticky loans credited to the suspense account is taxable under accrual basis.\nCitations:\nState Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC)\nKerala Financial Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (SC)\nCIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1976) 105 ITR 56 (Orissa)\nCIT v. Jagabandhu Roul (1984) 145 ITR 153 (Orissa)", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 2 of 1990, decision dated: 24-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. AND A. L. VAIDVA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kuldip Singh for the Assessee. Indar Singh for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 97 = 2000 SLD 97 = 2000 PTD 1076 = (1982) 133 ITR 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Depreciation – Ownership of asset\nDetails: The assessee purchased a building but the sale deed was not registered immediately. The Income-tax Officer denied depreciation, stating that the assessee was not the owner until the registration. The Tribunal upheld this view. The case involved whether the assessee could claim depreciation when possession was taken, and full consideration was paid even though the sale deed was not registered.\nHeld:\nThe assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32, as ownership for tax purposes is not dependent on the registration of the sale deed. The full consideration and possession entitle the assessee to claim depreciation.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)\nNawab Mir Barkath Ali Khan v. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 541 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 32 of 1990, decision dated: 3rd April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee. S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "A. P. SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 98 = 2000 SLD 98 = 2000 PTD 1083 = (1998) 233 ITR 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome-tax – Rejection of books of account\nDetails:\nThe Tribunal rejected the books of account without allegations of a change in the method of accounting. The question arose whether the rejection of the books was justified under Section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether the addition could be sustained.\nHeld:\nThe rejection of the books of account and the addition of Rs. 2,67,952 were questions of law and needed to be referred to the High Court for further determination.\nCitations:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 145 & 256", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 23 of 1996, decision dated: 15-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": "N. PANDEY AND R. M. PRASAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. N. Jain, A. K. Rastogi and B. N. Nayak for Appellant. L. N. Rastogi and S. K. Sharan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "GANESH JUTE TRADING\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 99 = 2000 SLD 99 = 2000 PTD 1085 = (1998) 233 ITR 497", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: (a) Income-tax – Depreciation – Roads within factory premises\n(b) Income-tax – Depreciation – Subsidy from State Government\n(c) Income-tax – New industrial undertaking – Profits “derived from”\nDetails:\n(a) The assessee claimed depreciation on roads within the factory premises, which were considered part of the building.\n(b) The case clarified that a subsidy received from the government cannot reduce the actual cost of the asset for depreciation purposes.\n(c) The case also dealt with the meaning of “derived from” in the context of profits for a new industrial undertaking and concluded that interest on deposits with the Electricity Board could not be considered profits derived from the industrial undertaking.\nHeld: (a) Roads within the factory premises are part of the building, and the assessee is entitled to depreciation on them.\n(b) Government subsidies cannot reduce the actual cost for depreciation purposes.\n(c) Interest on statutory deposits is not considered “derived from” the industrial undertaking for purposes of Section 80HH.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC)\nCIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC)\nCambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC)\nAshok Leyland v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 122 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1353 of 1985, decision dated: 29-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 100 = 2000 SLD 100 = 2000 PTD 1096 = (1998) 233 ITR 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2051\nTopic: Income-tax—Recovery of tax—Company—Director\nDetails: The case concerns the recovery of income tax from directors of a company that was dissolved by a court order. The company went into voluntary liquidation before the Income Tax Act, 1961, came into force. Despite this, the Income-tax authorities initiated proceedings under Section 179 against the directors to recover arrears of tax from the company. The Supreme Court ruled that the directors were jointly and severally liable for the tax due from the company, and the proceedings were valid despite the lack of a fresh notice of demand.\nHeld: The Supreme Court held the directors liable under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act for the company’s tax dues. The authorities were not required to issue a separate notice to the directors.\nCitations: S. Hardip Singh v. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 57 (SC), S. Hardip Singh v. ITO (1987) 166 ITR 759 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 809 and 810 of 1986 in C.W.P. No. 565 of 1979, decision dated: 29-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. K. KAPOOR AND K. K. SRIVASTAVA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramesh Kumar for Appellants. B. S. Gupta and Sanjay Bansal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "BASANT SINGH and others\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 101 = 2000 SLD 101 = 2000 PTD 1105 = (1998) 233 ITR 518", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Reference—Question of law—Depreciation\nDetails: The case revolves around the claim for depreciation on trucks used in a transportation business. The assessee claimed 40% depreciation, but the Assessing Officer allowed only 30%. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the 40% claim, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating the assessee failed to prove that the trucks were used for hire.\nHeld: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) established that the trucks were indeed used for hire, and therefore, the assessee was entitled to 40% depreciation. A question of law arose regarding the public carrier status of the trucks.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 32 & 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule (M.) No. 2395 of 1998, decision dated: 9-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. PATNAIK AND D. BISWAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. K. Joshi with Mrs. U. Chakraborti for the Assessee. Bhuyan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "S. GAJINDER SINGH\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 102 = 2000 SLD 102 = 2000 PTD 1108 = (1998) 233 ITR 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Penalty—Concealment of income\nDetails: The assessees purchased a grape garden using funds from a firm. The income from the garden was falsely classified as agricultural income to avoid taxation. The Tribunal initially cancelled the penalty, stating that the concealment was by the firm, not the individual assessees.\nHeld: The court held that the assessees had deliberately inflated their agricultural income to avoid tax, thus cancelling the Tribunal’s decision to remove the penalty.\nCitations: CIT v. Leela Vasanth Nair (1987) 167 ITR 837 (Ker.), CIT v. Sharadamma (1996) 219 ITR 671 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 1 to 6 of 1993, decision dated: 9-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": "V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair and M. C. Madhavan for the Assessees.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAMANUJAM THAMPI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 102 = 2000 SLD 102 = 2000 PTD 1114 = (1998) 233 ITR 526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Business expenditure—Year in which expenditure is allowable\nDetails: The assessee, a sub-tenant of an industrial estate, was informed by the Government that they owed rent for a shed, including arrears. The assessee made a provision in its accounts for the rent, and the Tribunal allowed the deduction in the assessment year 1976-77.\nHeld: The deduction for the provision of arrears of rent was correctly allowed in the assessment year 1976-77, following the mercantile system of accounting.\nCitations: CIT v. East India Corporation Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 712 (Mad.), CIT v. Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 375 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 985 of 1984 (Reference No. 881 of 1984), decision dated: 22-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPOLLY CONTAINER INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 103 = 2000 SLD 103 = 2000 PTD 1118 = (1998) 233 ITR 546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Revision—Powers of Commissioner\nDetails: The Commissioner of Income-tax exercised revisional powers under Section 263 to set aside an assessment, stating that the Income-tax Officer did not properly verify the expenses claimed by the assessee for weighted deductions under Section 35B. The Tribunal had ruled that the Commissioner could not revise the order as it had merged with the appeal order.\nHeld: The Supreme Court reversed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the order of the Income-tax Officer had not merged with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise the order under Section 263.\nCitations: CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC), CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1488 of 1986, decision dated: 8-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANLAN AND MS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P. S. Janardhana Raja for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSOUTH INDIA SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 104 = 2000 SLD 104 = 2000 PTD 1132 = (1998) 233 ITR 588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Writ - Additions made including value of fixed deposits in the name of a third party\nDetails: The Income-tax Department made additions to the assessee's income, including the value of fixed deposits in the name of a third party. Several other additions were made, including unexplained loans, investments, and sale of land. The assessment was found to be mala fide, as it was based on the valuation report of the PWD, which was not supported by the Income-tax Department's own valuation.\nHeld: The High Court quashed the assessment orders, stating that the assessment was made out of malice and no adequate remedy was available through the usual appeal process. The additions, including those based on FDRs in the name of a third party and the valuation of land, were unjustified.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 143; Constitution of India, Art. 226", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S. B. Civil Writ Petitions, Nos. 3494 of 1994 and 2879 of 1997, decision dated: 1st October, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "Y. R. MEENA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. M. Ranka with R. K. Yadav for Petitioner (in C.W.P. No. ,3494 of 1994).Anant Kasliwal for Respondent No. 5 (in C.W.P. No. 3494 of 1994) S. S. Hasan and Anant Kasliwal for Petitioner (in C.W.P. No. 2897 of 1997). P.C. Jain Respondents (in both Writs)", + "Party Name:": "JAYANTI LAL PATEL and another\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 105 = 2000 SLD 105 = 2000 PTD 1158 = (1998) 233 ITR 620", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Succession of business - Valuation of stock\nDetails: A firm was converted into a private limited company, and the business continued under the company. The Income-tax Officer directed that the closing stock of the firm be valued at market price for the period ending April 30, 1980. The Appellate Authorities ruled that section 170 applied and the continuity of the business was maintained.\nHeld: The Tribunal's finding was upheld, and it was concluded that the closing stock should not be valued at market price. Section 170 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applied as the business continued without any significant change.\nCitations: CIT v. K. H. Chambers (1965) 55 ITR 674 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 34 of 1993, decision dated: 20-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": "V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. P. G. K. Wariyar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS. KODer" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 106 = 2000 SLD 106 = 2000 PTD 1163 = (2000) 81 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Director's perquisites\nDetails: The assessee, a director of a company, claimed exemption on perquisites under Rule 3(2)(c) of the Income Tax Rules, 1982, for working whole-time for the company, despite running his own private business. The Additional Commissioner disallowed the exemption, stating he was not a whole-time employee.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer's decision, ruling that the assessee was working for one company and his private business did not disqualify him from the perquisite exemption.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Mazhar Hussain 1988 PTD 563 PLD 1988 Kar. 438 and 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3195 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A Income Tax Rules, 1982=3(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2367/LB to 2370/LB of 1999, decision dated: 10-06-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Manzoor Ahmad for Appellant. Khalid Aziz Banth, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 107 = 2000 SLD 107 = 2000 PTD 1172 = (2000) 81 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax Ordinance - Cooperative Society - Taxation of interest and receipts\nDetails: Several issues regarding the taxation of interest income, membership fees, late fees, and transfer fees by a Cooperative Housing Society were addressed. The department contended that some income did not fall under the tax-exempt provisions.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal upheld that interest income was subject to tax under Section 80-B of the Income Tax Ordinance, while membership fees were capital receipts. It also ruled that late fees and transfer fees were taxable. Income from horticulture sales was classified as agricultural income, exempt from tax.\nCitations: 1998 PTD 2017, I.T.A. No.5453/LB of 1991, I.T.As. Nos. 2444 to 2450/LB of 1998, Messrs Engineering Cooperative Housing Society Limited's case", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(17),80B & FirstSched.PartI,Para.A,2(17) & SecondSched.,PartI,cl.103 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2920/LB to 2925/LB of 1998, 2650/LB to 2655/LB of 1998, decision dated: 7-05-1999, hearing DATE : 5-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMED SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Khan for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2650/LB to 2655/LB of 1998)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 108 = 2000 SLD 108 = 2000 PTD 1181 = (2000) 81 TAX 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Credit of super-tax to partners of firm\nDetails: The Assessing Officer did not grant full credit for super-tax paid by a registered firm in the assessment of its partners, leading to a dispute over the refund of super-tax.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the firm and its partners are distinct entities for income-tax purposes. Super-tax paid by the firm was not refundable to the partners. The decision of the First Appellate Authority was vacated.\nCitations: 1985 PTD 401, 1992 PTD 1632, I.T.As.Nos.388 to 390/KB of 1987-88; I.T.As. Nos.391 to 393/KB; I.T.A. No. 1129/KB of 1988-89", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched,PartI,para,A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 195/KB to 199/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 10-12-1999, hearing DATE : 10-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Akbar Depar, D.R. for Appellants. Minoo Bamjee, F.C.A. and Anthony Santamaria, I,T.P. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 109 = 2000 SLD 109 = 2000 PTD 1193 = 2000 PTCL 720 = 2000 CLC 595", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a):\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-S. 82-Decree against Government\nDetails:\nSection 82 of the Civil Procedure Code ensures that the Government can meet demands from decree-holders, not frustrate them.\nHeld:\nThe provisions of S. 82, C.P.C. allow the Government to satisfy the claims of a decree-holder.\nTopic (b):\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-S. 73-Principle of rateable distribution of proceeds of execution/sale among the decree-holders\nDetails:\nGovernment liability cannot have preference over the claim of secured creditors when such liabilities arise after a charge is placed on the property.\nHeld:\nThe claims of secured creditors take precedence over the Government’s subsequent liabilities.\nTopic (c):\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 92-Recovery of tax from persons holding money on behalf of an assessee\nDetails:\nRecovery of tax is permissible only if an assessee exists against whom the tax is due and if the amount held belongs to the assessee.\nHeld:\nConditions under S. 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance must be fulfilled before tax recovery can proceed.\nTopic (d):\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 92 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 73\nDetails:\nIncome-tax recovery from sale proceeds must first establish that the claim was duly assessed. Without a valid assessment, the claim cannot be prioritized over the decree-holders.\nHeld:\nWithout evidence of proper assessment, no preference is granted to the Government over the decree-holders.\nTopic (e):\nWest Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-S. 79 & 80-Recovery of Government dues as arrears of land revenue\nDetails:\nGovernment dues can only be recovered as arrears of land revenue after the dues have been officially determined and ascertained.\nHeld:\nThe recovery provisions of land revenue law apply only once the amount of dues is fixed and determined.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=92 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=82,73 ", + "Case #": "Suit No.318 of 1988; Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 1353 of 1999 in Ex.30 of 1997, 1268 of 1999 in Ex.51 of 1996, 1359 of 1999 in Ex.64 of 1998; Nazir Ref. dated 15-9-1999 and O.A.s Refs. dated 27-8-15199, 18-6-1999, decision dated: 22-01-2000", + "Judge Name:": "RASHEED AHMED RAZVI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hussain Shah Rashdi and Nasir Maqsood for the Decree-Holder. Nasrullah Awan for the Income-tax Department. Munirur Rehman, Addl. A.G. alongwith Gul Muhammad Soomro, Legal Advisor, K.T.C.", + "Party Name:": "Mst. SHANTI\nvs\nKARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 110 = 2000 SLD 110 = 2000 PTD 1205 = (1998) 233 ITR 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome-tax-Business expenditure-Accounting-Year in which expenditure is admissible\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a beedi manufacturer, claimed deductions for leave wages in the assessment year 1975-76 following statutory obligations under the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act.\nHeld:\nThe liability for leave wages was statutory and deductible, as it was accrued under the law in the relevant years.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No.300 of 1989, decision dated: 9-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. L. Nema for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISHAQ MUHAMMAD GULAM\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 111 = 2000 SLD 111 = 2000 PTD 1209 = (1998) 233 ITR 715", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a):\nIncome-tax-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Powers of Tribunal\nDetails:\nThe Tribunal has limited powers to admit additional evidence. In this case, it relied on additional evidence without admitting it, leading to a dispute between members regarding the conclusions drawn from the evidence.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal's reliance on additional evidence without following the proper procedures was deemed unfair, leading to the quashing of the Tribunal's order.\nTopic (b):\nIncome-tax-Reference-Powers of High Court\nDetails:\nThe High Court found that the Tribunal had violated rules regarding the admission of additional evidence and ordered the case to be reheard.\nHeld:\nThe High Court had the power to quash the Tribunal’s order and direct it to rehear the case with all proper materials.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 126 to 131 of 1992, 71 to 74 and 75 to 78 of 1996 and 64 to 67 of 1993, decision dated: l6th October 1996", + "Judge Name:": "V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. Joseph Markose and Joseph Kodianthara for the Assessee (in I.T.Rs. Nos. 126 to 131 of 1992 and I.T.Rs, Nos. 64 to 67 of 1993).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASIAN TECHS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 1 = 1999 SLD 1 = 1999 PTD 1 = (1998) 78 TAX 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Special rate of tax vs. Normal rate of tax\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a manufacturer of edible oil, opted out of the presumptive tax regime, but the Assessing Officer insisted on a special rate of tax.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's direction to assess the case under normal law, excluding the special rate of tax.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,50(4)(c),FirstSched.,Part1,para.E(b) & SecondSched.,PartIV,cl.(9),secondproviso ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 10/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 6th October 1998.hearing DATE : 22-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaista Abbas, D.R. for Appellant. Z. A. Jafri for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 2 = 1999 SLD 2 = 1999 PTD 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 62 & 32(3)-Assessment-Receipts-Rejection of declared receipts\nDetails:\nThe Assessing Officer rejected receipts declared by a hospital, adding amounts without providing prior notice of such additions.\nHeld:\nThe addition was deemed invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to provide notice or valid grounds for rejecting the receipts.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 & 32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.927/LB and 632/LB of 1998 , decision dated: 20-06-1998, hearing DATE : 21st April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jamil Hussain for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 927/LB of 1998). Mrs. Fiza Muzaffar, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 927/LB of 1998). Mrs. Fiza Muzaffar, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 632/LB of 1998). Jamil Hussain for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 632/LB of 1998)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 3 = 1999 SLD 3 = 1999 PTD 8 = (1999) 79 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.13(1)(d) - Property Valuation and Addition\n•\nDetails: The assessee purchased contiguous properties through separate sale-deeds on different dates. The Assessing Officer (AO) viewed it as a single unit to avoid stamp duty, which was deemed an attempt at evading taxes.\n•\nHeld: The AO’s view was logically unacceptable as there was no attempt to evade tax by bifurcating the property into two.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5554/LB of 1996, decision dated: 7-10-1998, hearing DATE : 28-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 4 = 1999 SLD 4 = 1999 PTD 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.13(1)(d) - Valuation of Property\n•\nDetails: The assessee purchased property where possession was occupied by tenants, some of whom claimed adverse possession. The AO refused to adjust the lack of possession in determining the fair market value.\n•\nHeld: The fair market value of the property was drastically affected by the lack of possession, leading to the deletion of the addition.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,50(4),99(3) & ThirdSched,R,8(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.749/LB and 1823/LB of 1997, decision dated: 27-05-1998, hearing DATE : 26-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 749/LB of 1997). Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 749/LB of 1997). Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Appellant (in T.A. No. 1823/LB of 1997). Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Respondent (in T.A. No. 1823/LB of 1997).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 5 = 1999 SLD 5 = 1999 PTD 28 = (1997) 223 ITR 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Business Expenditure - Capital or Revenue Expenditure\n•\nDetails: The case involved a company (MICO) paying compensation to terminate a sole distributorship agreement with a company (G) for commercial expediency, and whether this could be considered a deductible business expenditure.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal’s decision was upheld, allowing the deduction, as the payment was deemed a business expenditure made to remove a disadvantageous commercial relationship, not capital expenditure.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. C. No. 12 of 1992, decision dated: 9-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": "S.A. HAKEEM AND TIRATH S. THAKUR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. S.E. Dastur, Senior Advocate with F. Irani and K.P. Kumar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMOTOR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 6 = 1999 SLD 6 = 1999 PTD 53 = (1997) 223 ITR 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Validity of Partnership in Liquor Business\n•\nDetails: A partnership involving a liquor licensee was deemed invalid under the Kerala Abkari Act as the license prohibited selling or transferring the license without written consent.\n•\nHeld: The partnership was invalid and not entitled to registration for tax purposes under the Income Tax Act, as it violated the licensing conditions.\n•\nCitations: Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1995) 1 SCC 574\n•\nTopic: Interpretation of Statutes - Ejusdem Generis\n•\nDetails: The rule of ejusdem generis was applied to interpret the phrase “otherwise transfer” in the Kerala Abkari Act.\n•\nHeld: The expression was given its broadest meaning to prohibit the transfer of liquor licenses in any form, including through partnership agreements.\n•\nCitations: Bihari Lai Jaiswal v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 746 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.61 to 64 of 1991, decision dated: 14-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. SREEDHARAN, P.K. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND, J. B. KOSHY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "E.R. Venkiteswaran for the Assessees. P.K.R Menon Senior Advocate and N.R.K Hair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "NARAYANAN & CO and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 7 = 1999 SLD 7 = 1999 PTD 62 = (1997) 223 ITR 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Appeal to A.A.C. - Powers of A.A.C.\nDetails:\nThe Income-tax Officer (I.T.O.) made an addition to the business income of the assessee, claiming that part of the income had been diverted to a sister concern. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A.A.C.) sustained the addition on the ground that the assessee paid a higher price to the sister concern for the gripe-water, without any commercial justification. The A.A.C. did not consider a new source of income and his action was deemed valid.\nHeld:\n(i) The A.A.C. had the plenary powers to review the assessment and did not exceed his jurisdiction while disallowing part of the expenditure based on the price factor, which was deemed to have been considered by the I.T.O. in the assessment.\n(ii) The Tribunal found that the price paid by the company, H, could be considered the normal price, and adjusted the disallowance to Rs.26 per gross, which was proper.\nCitations:\nCIT (Addl.) v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC); CIT v. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC); CIT v. National Co. Ltd. (1993) 199 ITR 445 (Cal.); CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 176 and Reference No.90 of 1982, decision dated: 14-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": "THANNIKKAEHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nT.T. KRISHNAMACHARI & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 8 = 1999 SLD 8 = 1999 PTD 79 = (1997) 223 ITR 831", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Exemptions - Charitable purposes - Charitable trust\nDetails:\nSection 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, exempts income derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes. The Income-tax Officer computed the income of the business held by the trust and added back disallowed amounts. However, the Tribunal found that the amount of surplus spent on charitable purposes was more than sufficient to justify the exemption.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal's order was remitted for verification of the details of the surplus amount and whether it included accumulated surplus or had been applied for charitable purposes, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(1).\nCitations:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.11.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1307 and Reference No.458 of 1980, decision dated: 25-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": "THANIKKACHALAM AND, JAYARAMA CHOUTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nP.S.G. & SONS CHARITIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 9 = 1999 SLD 9 = 1999 PTD 87 = (1997) 225 ITR 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Exemption - Charitable trust\nDetails:\nA charitable trust claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Income-tax Officer to assess whether the trust had complied with Section 11 for applying or accumulating income. The Revenue's reference application was rejected.\nHeld:\nThe question whether the charitable institution was entitled to exemption under Section 11 arose out of the Tribunal’s order, thus a reference was made under Section 256(2) of the Act.\nCitations:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 11 & 256.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 15503 of 1995-S, decision dated: 12-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": "V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for Petitioner. K.T. Mayankutty Mather for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPALGHAT SHADI MAHAL TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 10 = 1999 SLD 10 = 1999 PTD 89 = (1997) 225 ITR 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Exemption - Special allowance or benefit granted to employee\nDetails:\nDutch nationals working on a ship in India had their boarding and lodging expenses met by their employer. The Income-tax Officer treated this as a perquisite, while the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal deleted the sums from taxable income.\nHeld:\nThe benefit provided by the employer for boarding and lodging did not qualify as a perquisite under Section 17(2)(iv). Since the expenditure was incurred solely for the performance of the assessees’ duties, it was exempt under Section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act.\nCitations:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.10(14) & 17(2)(iv).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.C.No.53 of 1988, decision dated: 13-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": "M. N. RAO AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVANDER C.C. MALEN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 11 = 1999 SLD 11 = 1999 PTD 92 = (1997) 225 ITR 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Penalty - Concealment of income\nDetails:\nThe Income-tax Officer levied a penalty for concealment of income, following a reassessment. The Tribunal canceled the penalty, questioning the I.T.O.’s jurisdiction to impose it. However, the amendment to Section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act allowed for penalties up to Rs.25,000.\nHeld:\nThe reassessment was completed in 1974, after the amendment to Section 274(2), which allowed penalties of up to Rs.25,000. The I.T.O. was within his jurisdiction to levy the penalty of Rs.10,000 in this case.\nCitations:\nVarkey Chacko v. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 885 (SC); CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.497 (Reference No_.439 of 1984), decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K.I. Mani for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nD. PUSHPAM AMMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 12 = 1999 SLD 12 = 1999 PTD 96 = (1997) 225 ITR 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment allowance - Cold storage plant\nDetails: The case deals with whether a cold storage plant qualifies for investment allowance under section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court examined the nature of cold storage, noting that it does not involve production or manufacture of goods but rather the storage of goods for preservation.\nHeld: The assessee was not entitled to investment allowance for the cold storage plant as it did not involve production or manufacturing activities.\nCitations:\n•\nDelhi Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 199 ITR 656 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Nandlal Cold Storage (1993) 199 ITR 327 (All.)\n•\nMittal Ice Cold Storage v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 18 (MP)\n•\nS.B. Cold Storage Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 646 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. S. Warriam Singh Cold Stores (1989) 178 ITR 585 (P & H) (dissented from)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 148 of 1985, decision dated: 18-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": "D. P. WADHWA, C.J. AND AFTAB ALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPAWANSUT COLD STORAGE (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 13 = 1999 SLD 13 = 1999 PTD 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital or revenue expenditure - Payment to retiring partner\nDetails: The issue arose over a payment of Rs. 70,000 made by a firm to a retiring partner, and whether this payment could be treated as revenue or capital expenditure. The firm claimed it as a revenue expenditure, while the Income-tax Officer treated it as capital expenditure.\nHeld: The payment was in discharge of a statutory liability, and thus it was considered revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.338 of 1991, decision dated: 22-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S.K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDELHI BIDI SALES AGENCIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 14 = 1999 SLD 14 = 1999 PTD 101 = (1997) 225 ITR 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital receipt - Development grant & Business expenditure - Guarantee commission\nDetails: The case discusses the receipt of a development grant from M.M.T.C. for acquiring new machinery, which was determined to be a capital receipt. Additionally, a guarantee commission paid to a bank for securing a deferred payment scheme was considered a revenue expenditure.\nHeld:\n(a) The development grant received was a capital receipt.\n(b) The guarantee commission paid was a revenue expenditure as it was related to securing a loan, not acquiring an asset.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Gogte Minerals (1996) 222 ITR 245 (Kar.)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Akkamba Textiles Ltd. (1979) 117 ITR 294 (AP)\n•\nSivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 211 (Mad.)\n•\nChallapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Mihir Textiles Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 112 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Rukmani Mills Ltd. (1982) 133 ITR 154 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 389 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. C. No. 162 of 1993, decision dated: 10-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": "S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R. V. RAVEENDRAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. S.S. Naganand for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOGTE MINERALS (No. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 15 = 1999 SLD 15 = 1999 PTD 105 = (1997) 225 ITR 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment allowance - Mining operations\nDetails: The case addressed whether mining operations for excavating iron ore qualify for investment allowance under section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee used machinery and plant in mining operations and claimed the investment allowance.\nHeld: Mining operations involving the excavation and separation of iron ore constituted a manufacturing process, and the assessee was entitled to investment allowance for the machinery used.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Kutch Oil and Allied Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 237 (Guj.)\n•\nChowgule & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1981) 47 STC 124 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Gogte Minerals (No.1) (1997) 225 ITR 57 (Kar.)\n•\nHind Nippon Rural Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 581 (Kar.)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. R. C. No. 163 of 1993, decision dated: 11-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": "S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R. V. RAVEENDRAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. S.S. Naganand for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOGTE MINERALS (No.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 16 = 1999 SLD 16 = 1999 PTD 107 = (1997) 225 ITR 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Perquisite - Accommodation provided at concessional rate\nDetails: The case involved a nationalized bank providing residential accommodation to its officers at a standard rent, and whether this amounted to a perquisite.\nHeld: As the rent was uniform and fixed under the bank's regulations without any concession, it was not considered a perquisite under section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Bank Officers Association v. Indian Bank (1994) 209 ITR 72 (Cal.)\n•\nOfficers Association, Bhilai Steel Plant v. Union of India (1983) 139 ITR 937 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.M.A.T.No. 2761 of 1994 with F.M.A.No.38 of 1997, decision dated: 29-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": "VISHESHWAR NATH KHARE, C.J. AND BARIN GHOSH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rupen Mitra and Prabir Kumar Bhowmick for Appellants. R. Murarka and Prasanta 1Cumar Mullick for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER and others\nVs\nALL INDIA VIJAYA BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 17 = 1999 SLD 17 = 1999 PTD 112 = (1997) 225 ITR 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business expenditure - Repairs & insurance of motor cars and Export business deductions\nDetails:\n(a) The case dealt with whether expenses for repairs and insurance of cars could be claimed as deductions under section 31, despite section 37(3-A).\n(b) The case also involved a deduction under section 80-HHC for export business, where the assessee had incurred a loss in exporting cardamom.\nHeld:\n(a) Expenditure on repairs and insurance of cars was allowed under section 31 and not subject to section 37(3-A).\n(b) Even if the export business resulted in a loss, the deduction under section 80-HHC was allowable based on export turnover, not income.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd (No. 1) (1989) 177 ITR 124 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 553 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. Price Waterhouse (1994) 207 ITR 564 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. H. M. T. Ltd. (No. 1) (1993) 203 ITR 811 (Kar.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 74 of 1994, decided- on 10-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. K.K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C.N. Ramachandran Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA.V. THOMAS & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 18 = 1999 SLD 18 = 1999 PTD 119 = (1997) 225 ITR 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2081\nTopic: Income-tax - Recovery of Tax - Attachment of Immovable Property, Tax Clearance Certificate, Writ\nDetails:\n•\nA Tax Recovery Officer attached the 1/4th share of two brothers in certain land for recovery of income-tax dues.\n•\nThe petitioners objected, claiming the land belonged to a firm and was sold to them in 1972.\n•\nThe Tax Recovery Officer dismissed their objections, stating the sale-deeds violated Section 230-A and that the property didn’t belong to the firm.\n•\nThe petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal.\nHeld:\n•\nThe sale-deeds were not in violation of Section 230-A as the value was below Rs.50,000.\n•\nThe Tax Recovery Officer failed to properly address possession and instead focused on title, which was outside the scope of Rule 11 of the Second Schedule.\n•\nThe matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.\nCitations:\n•\nGanpati Ram Bhande v. Baliram Raghunath Jadhav AIR 1974 Bom. 155,\n•\nAbdul Shukoor Saheb (C.T) v. Arji Papa Rao AIR 1963 SC 1150,\n•\nAnandilal Goenka v. TRO (1994) 208 ITR 46 (Cal.),\n•\nHirday Narain (L.) v. ITO (1970) 78 ITR 26 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.857 of 1983, decision dated: 17-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": "L. MANOHARAN AND G.D. PATIL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.C. Daga, L.S. Dewani and Ms. J.D. Uttamani for Petitioners. P. N. Chandurkar for Respondent No. 1. S.A Bobde for Respondents Nos.2 to 8.", + "Party Name:": "SUNDERLAL DAGA through Legal Heirs and another\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 19 = 1999 SLD 19 = 1999 PTD 137 = (1997) 225 ITR 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2082\nTopic: Income-tax - Penalty - Concealment of Income\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessee, engaged in tailoring business, faced reassessment due to suppression of income found during a departmental search.\n•\nPenalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c).\n•\nThe Tribunal cancelled the penalty, finding no deliberate suppression, as there were discrepancies in the omitted receipts and no mens rea in not disclosing certain charges.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Tribunal's decision was correct, and no question of law arose for reference.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Adamkhan (1997) 223 ITR 264 (Mad.),\n•\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petitions Nos.324 to 328 of 1996, decision dated: 21st January, 1997", + "Judge Name:": ".A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S.M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for Petitioner. T.C.A. Ramanujam assisted by R. Srinivasan and T.C.A. Sangeetha for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nV. GOPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 20 = 1999 SLD 20 = 1999 PTD 145 = (1997) 225 ITR 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2083\nTopic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Cash Payments\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessee, a firm, made cash payments exceeding Rs.2,500, which were disallowed under Section 40(a)(3).\n•\nThe assessee claimed the payments were due to exceptional circumstances or each was below Rs.2,500, but the Tribunal found no supporting evidence.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Tribunal's findings were based on evidence, and the plea raised was not considered before, thus no question of law arose for reference.\nCitations:\n•\nAgha Abdul Jabbar Khan v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 872 (SC),\n•\nCIT v. Aloo Supply Co. (1980) 121 ITR 680 (Orissa).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 191 of 1994, decision dated: 29-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": "ASHOK BHAN AND NK. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Barisal for Applicant. R.P. Sawhney and Sanjay Goyal for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "CHANANA ASSOCIATES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 21 = 1999 SLD 21 = 1999 PTD 154 = (1997) 225 ITR 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2084\nTopic: Income-tax - Depreciation - Renewable Energy Devices\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessee operated a cold storage plant powered by solar energy and claimed depreciation at 30% under renewable energy devices.\n•\nA certificate from a chartered engineer was provided.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Tribunal's decision to grant 30% depreciation was justified based on the evidence provided.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962, Appendix I, Part I, Item III-D(10-A)(vii).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 106 of 1995, decision dated: 14-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": "VISHESHWAR NATH KHARE, C.J. AND BARIN GHOSH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHARNARAYAN LOHIA & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 22 = 1999 SLD 22 = 1999 PTD 156 = (1997) 225 ITR 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Depreciation - Plant Meaning of - Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance\nDetails: This case addresses whether an air-conditioner used for crimping nylon yarn qualifies for extra shift depreciation. The court emphasized the specific interpretation of plant under the Indian Income Tax Act, distinguishing it from other factory components such as buildings and machinery. The specific provisions of depreciation related to artificial silk machinery and plant were considered.\nHeld: The air-conditioner, although necessary for manufacturing, does not qualify for extra shift depreciation as it is explicitly listed under a different category in the tax rules.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32; Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, Appendix I, Part I, Item III(i), (ii)B(2) & (iv)(2); Benson (Inspector of Taxes) v. Yard Arm Club Ltd. (1979) 2 All ER 336 (CA); Bharat Suryodaya Mills v. CIT (1995) 212 ITR 6 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 346 of 1983, decision dated: 4-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": "R.K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore instructed by Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. N.R. Divetia for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKIRAN CRIMPERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 23 = 1999 SLD 23 = 1999 PTD 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Entertainment Expenditure\nDetails: The issue at hand was whether expenses incurred on hospitality, partly for customers and partly for employees, were to be treated as entertainment expenditure under section 37(2-A). The expenses were not segregated.\nHeld: The expenditure was not considered entertainment expenditure under the Income Tax Act, and thus was deductible.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37(2-A), Explanation 2; CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.C.No.12 of 1988, decision dated: 4-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND B. SUDARSHAN REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. C. Kodanda Ram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nANDHRA SUGARS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 24 = 1999 SLD 24 = 1999 PTD 176 = (1997) 225 ITR 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Transfer of Assets - Revocable Transfer\nDetails: A trust was set up for the benefit of the assessee's prospective son-in-law and daughter-in-law. The trust deed stated that the trust would revert to the settlor if marriages did not occur within 20 years. The Income-tax Officer included the trust's income in the settlor's total income.\nHeld: The trust was not revocable during the assessment years in question, and the income from the trust was not includible in the settlor's total income.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.61, 62 & 63; Sakthi Charities v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 624 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 831, 832 and References Nos.746 and 747 of 1984, decision dated: 15-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner. R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM.K. CHANDRAKANTH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 25 = 1999 SLD 25 = 1999 PTD 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Total Income - Contributions to Trust\nDetails: The assessee, the mother of minor children, contributed to trusts set up by her husband for the benefit of the children’s future spouses. The Income-tax Officer included the trust income in the mother's income, citing the revocability clause.\nHeld: The contributions made by the assessee were gifts, and the trust income was not includible in her total income. The trust was not revocable during the assessment years in question.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.61; CIT v. M.K. Chandrakanth (1997) 225 ITR 101 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.482 to 486 and References Nos.424 to 428 of 1984, decision dated: 15-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRARNANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. M.C. SATHIYAVATHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 26 = 1999 SLD 26 = 1999 PTD 191 = (1997) 225 ITR 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Entertainment Expenditure\nDetails: The case examines the applicability of Explanation 2 to section 37(2-A) inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, concerning business hospitality.\nHeld: The expenses on hospitality fell under the definition of entertainment expenditure and were subject to the deduction limit under section 37(2-A).\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37(2-A), Expln.2; CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC); CIT v. Andhra Sugars Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 118 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.24 of 1988, decision dated: 29-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R. BAYAPU REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok and J.V. Prasad for the Commissioner. C. Kodanda Ram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOEMTAX\nVs\nPOLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 27 = 1999 SLD 27 = 1999 PTD 197 = (1997) 225 ITR 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - CBDT Circular - Gratuity\nDetails: This case discusses the conflict between a CBDT circular and Supreme Court rulings regarding the treatment of gratuity-related liabilities in tax assessments.\nHeld: The CBDT circular of 1974, which disallowed gratuity fund liabilities, was to be ignored in assessments for the year 1972-73. For subsequent years, the Supreme Court ruling in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. applied.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37 & 40-A(7); CBDT Circular No. 146, dated 26-9-1974; Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53; Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.M.As. Nos.568 of 1976 with 725 and 726 of 1978, decision dated: 17-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": "VISHESHWAR NATH KHARE, C.J. AND BARIN GHOSH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debi Pal and Miss Manisha Seal for Appellant. Rupendra Nath Mitra and Jaydeb Saha for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES\nVs\nCHLORIDE INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 28 = 1999 SLD 28 = 1999 PTD 202 = (1997) 225 ITR 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2091\nTopic: Income-tax - Purchase of immovable property by Central Government\nDetails: The petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase a flat for Rs.38 lakhs and filed the required Form 37-1. The Valuation Officer discounted the value to Rs.35,19,845. The appropriate authority later passed a pre-emptive purchase order based on comparable sale instances, deeming the property's market value to be Rs.46 lakhs. The petitioner contested the order, arguing that the value difference was not significant enough to warrant the pre-emptive purchase.\nHeld:\n•\nThe pre-emptive purchase order was set aside as the appropriate authority failed to substantiate the market value with proper sale instances and misinterpreted the property details.\n•\nNo undervaluation was found, and the purchase was valid.\n•\nInterest was to be paid to the vendors for the delay in payment.\nCitations: Rajalakshmi Narayanan v. Margaret Kathleen Gandhi (1993) 210 ITR 681 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1156 of 1994, decision dated: 5-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": "M. B. SHAH, C.J. AND P. S. PATANKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud with S.P. Kanuga for Petitioner. R. Ashokan with M.I. Sethna and H.D. Rathod for Respondents. Nos 1 to 4.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 29 = 1999 SLD 29 = 1999 PTD 210 = (1997) 225 ITR 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Collection of tax at source\nDetails: The validity of Section 206-C of the Income Tax Act, concerning the collection of tax at source, was pending before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. However, tax collection proceeded, with a provision for refund if the section was deemed unconstitutional. Additionally, the surcharge could only be collected from domestic companies.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Revenue could collect taxes under S.206-C despite pending constitutional validation, as refunds could be claimed later.\n•\nSurcharge could not be collected from a non-domestic company.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.206-C, Indian Finance Act, 1995, S.2(6)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.43838 of 1995, decision dated: 13-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": "G. C. BHARUKA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.C. Ramachandra for Petitioner. M.V. Seshachala, HCGP for Respondents Nos.1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "A. S. IBRAHIM\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 30 = 1999 SLD 30 = 1999 PTD 215 = (1997) 225 ITR 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Depreciation and meaning of plant \nDetails: The issue was whether a hotel building constituted plant under Section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act. The functional test was applied to determine if the building was integral to running the hotel business or merely served as a setting.\nHeld:\n•\nA hotel building could qualify as plant if it had special features integral to the hotel's business and could not function as a hotel without those features.\n•\nThe matter was remanded for further examination based on the specific facts of the case.\nCitations: CIT v. Kanodia Cold Storage (1975) 100 ITR 155 (All.), CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.9 of 1990, 1 of 1991, 3, 9, 10, 11, 39 and 40 of 1994, decision dated: 23rd August, 1996", + "Judge Name:": "D.P. WADHWA, C.J. AND AFTAB ALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Viyarthi and S.K. Sharan, for the Commissioner. L.N. Rastogi, Senior Advocate, A.K. Rastogi and Shailendra Kumar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLAWLY ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 31 = 1999 SLD 31 = 1999 PTD 224 = (1997) 225 ITR 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Export markets development allowance and business expenditures\nDetails: The assessee sought a weighted deduction for commission payments under Section 35-B. However, the payments were found to be rebates on goods supplied, not commission for business development. The assessee also sought extra-shift allowances on electrical machinery, which were disallowed as per the Income Tax Rules.\nHeld:\n•\nThe commission payment was actually a rebate and not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35-B.\n•\nExtra-shift allowances were not applicable to electrical machinery as wiring was excluded.\n•\nSurtax was not deductible as business expenditure.\nCitations: Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 213 ITR 106 (Bom.), Lubrizol India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 25 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.216 of 1983, decision dated: 3rd November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND M. G. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.D. Mistry for the Assessee, Dr. V. Balasubramaniam with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COLOUR CHEM LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 32 = 1999 SLD 32 = 1999 PTD 232 = (1997) 225 ITR 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Charitable trust—Exemption\nDetails: The assessee was a trust designed to care for the families of employees at Bhilai Steel Plant who were incapacitated due to accidents or had died. The income of the trust was taxed under section 13(1)(bb) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal both ruled that the trust was charitable and entitled to an exemption under section 11.\nHeld: The trust was engaged in charitable activities and did not conduct business for profit, making it eligible for exemption under section 11. The issue of invoking Rule 17 read with section 11 could not be raised for the first time in reference proceedings.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 11 & 13; Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, R. 17.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.341 of 1990, decision dated: 22-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KLUSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHILAI MAHILA SAMAJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 33 = 1999 SLD 33 = 1999 PTD 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Business loss—Firm\nDetails: The assessee, a registered firm, had its stock of seeds seized by the police. The goods were sold by auction and the amount deposited in court while a criminal case was pending. The firm claimed a deduction of Rs. 81,000 as a business loss, but the Tribunal rejected this claim.\nHeld: The loss on the stock-in-trade could not be claimed until the criminal case was decided. The Tribunal was correct in rejecting the claim for business loss before the case outcome.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.423 of 1990, decision dated: 22-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee, A. Sapre for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "POORANCHAND PATEI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 34 = 1999 SLD 34 = 1999 PTD 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Investment allowance\nDetails: The assessee, operating a hospital, sought investment allowance on various medical equipment, including X-ray machines, ultrasound scanners, and air conditioners. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim, but the Commissioner and Tribunal allowed it.\nHeld: The medical equipment, including the X-ray machines and ultrasound scanners, were eligible for investment allowance as they produced useful output (photographs and scans), qualifying as things under section 32-A of the Act. The assessee, a small-scale industrial undertaking, also met the financial requirements for this allowance.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 32-A.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.24 of 1992, decision dated: 10-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": "B.R. ARORA AND B.J. SHETHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner. Vineet Kothari for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTRINITY HOSPITAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 35 = 1999 SLD 35 = 1999 PTD 249 = (1997) 225 ITR 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Interest on refund—Search and seizure\nDetails: The petitioners’ property was searched, and cash and gold ornaments were seized. After an appeal to the CBDT, the ornaments and some cash were returned, but the petitioners requested interest on the refunded amount. The Income-tax Officer denied the claim.\nHeld: The Income-tax Officer was required to re-examine the claim for interest under section 132-B(4) as the rejection based on the retrospective nature of section 132-B was incorrect. The claim should be evaluated based on the amount retained, and the assessment proceedings.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 132-B(4) & 244.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.338 of 1985, decision dated: 22-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": "P. K. MUKHERJEE AND M. C. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Z.K. Hasan for Petitioners. Bharat Ji Agarwal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "BAQRI BIBI through Legal Heirs and others\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 36 = 1999 SLD 36 = 1999 PTD 257 = (1997) 225 ITR 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtYTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Reassessment—Notice\nDetails: The assessee challenged a reassessment notice on the grounds of limitation, specifically regarding the Additional Commissioner’s sanction for issuing the notice under section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld: The amendment to section 2(19-A) in 1994 allowed the Additional Commissioner to grant the necessary sanction for notices issued even prior to the amendment. The writ petition challenging the limitation was dismissed.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(19-A), 117, 148, 151(2); Constitution of India, Art. 226.", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No.304 of 1996, decided on-23rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": "M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. AND MS. KAMLESH SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.M. Khanna for Petitioner. Inder Singh for Respondent; Nos. 1 and 2. P.A. Sharma for Respondent No. 3.", + "Party Name:": "CHANDRA LAKSHMI TEMPERED GLASS.CO. (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 37 = 1999 SLD 37 = 1999 PTD 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Business expenditure—Provident fund contributions\nDetails: The assessee claimed deductions for contributions to the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) scheme under the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, while the Income-tax Rules imposed a cap on deductions for contributions to recognised provident funds. \nHeld: The restriction in rule 75 applied only to provident funds maintained by the company, not to contributions under the EPF scheme. Therefore, the full amount of Rs. 12,000 was deductible under section 36(1)(iv).\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(38) & 36(1)(iv); Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, R.75.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.C. Nos.38 of 1988; 102 of 1989 and 31 of 1990, decision dated: 10-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. N. RAO AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. P.R. Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDOCEAN ENGINEER (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 38 = 1999 SLD 38 = 1999 PTD 263 = (1997) 225 ITR 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Deduction - Interest on Borrowed Capital\nDetails: A partnership firm claimed a deduction of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for interest paid on capital borrowed for business purposes. The Income-tax Officer disallowed part of the deduction, claiming that some of the borrowed funds had been diverted for non-business purposes. The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Income-tax Officer, but the High Court held that the deduction should be allowed once the conditions under section 36(1)(iii) were met.\nHeld: The Tribunal's finding that part of the borrowings were diverted for non-business purposes was not a finding of fact, but an inference. The deduction should have been allowed under section 36(1)(iii) as the conditions were satisfied.\nCitations: Amna Bai Hajee Issa v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 835 (Mad.); CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 723 (Bom.); Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) and Ram Kishan Oil Mills v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 186 (MP) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.239 of 1977, decision dated: 20-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. JAGANNADHA RAO, C.J. AND MANMOHAN SARIN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.S Aggarwal with Salil Aggarwal and Pardeep Srivastava for the Assessee. R.C. Pandey with R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "REGAL THEATRE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 39 = 1999 SLD 39 = 1999 PTD 270 = (1997) 225 ITR 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reassessment - Limitation\nDetails: The case concerned the application of section 144-B to reassessments under section 147. The Income-tax Officer had reassessed the case under section 147 but the extended period of limitation in Explanation (1)(iv) to section 153 was not available for reassessments.\nHeld: The extended time limit under section 153 does not apply to reassessments under section 147, as the term assessment in section 144-B only refers to original assessments.\nCitations: Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC) rel.; CIT v. Ganeshram Nayak (1981) 129 ITR 43 (Orissa); CIT v. Padma Timber Depot (1988) 169 ITR 646 (AP); CIT v. Saraf (V.D.) (1994) 207 ITR 217 (Bom.) and others ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.573 to 575 and References Nos.313 to 315 of 1983, decision dated: 23rd April, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramanian for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee (in T.C. No. 573 of 1983).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUNDARAM SPINNING MILLS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 40 = 1999 SLD 40 = 1999 PTD 289 = (1997) 225 ITR 768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Firm - Registration\nDetails: A firm consisting of nine partners applied for registration. Two partners had not contributed the required capital initially, but their father had a significant credit balance in the firm. The Income-tax Officer refused registration, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed it, considering the credit balance as the partners' capital.\nHeld: The Tribunal found that all partners had contributed capital by the end of the accounting year. Therefore, the firm was entitled to registration under section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: Agarwal & Co. v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 10 (SC); CIT v. Agra Wines (1995) 201 ITR 875 (All.); CIT v. Hassanally & Sons (1971) 81 ITR 282 (Cal.) and others ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.489 (Reference No.431 of 1984), decision dated: 21st March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiramen for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nN.A. PAPPURAJA SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 41 = 1999 SLD 41 = 1999 PTD 298 = (1997) 225 ITR 1032", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Depreciation - Dumpers\nDetails: A firm claimed depreciation on dumpers at 40% as road transport vehicles, but the Commissioner allowed it at 30%, ruling that the dumpers were not road transport vehicles. The Tribunal later directed the Income-tax Officer to reconsider the claim for extra depreciation on the dumpers under sections 32(1)(ii-a) and 32-A.\nHeld: The Tribunal correctly directed the Income-tax Officer to allow extra depreciation, as the dumpers were not road transport vehicles, but earth-moving machinery, qualifying for higher depreciation. The claim for investment allowance was not permissible as the necessary reserve was not created.\nCitations: Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1975 SC 17; Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1992 SC 1371; CIT v. Indian Rare Earth Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 22 (Bom.) and others ref.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax References Nos.38, 38-A and 38-B of 1987, decision dated: 22-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner. R.C. Jain for the Assessees.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nABDUL KARIM STONE CONTRACTOR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 42 = 1999 SLD 42 = 1999 PTD 305 = (1997) 225 ITR 1040", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Firm — Registration — Cancellation\nDetails: The assessee-firm was originally constituted by three partners and was registered for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1961. One partner retired during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, and the remaining two partners continued the business. The Income-tax Officer granted registration after confirming the procedural compliance and genuineness of the firm. The Commissioner cancelled the registration, arguing that the income allocation was incorrect. The Tribunal confirmed this, but the court held that the registration could not be cancelled because the firm was found to be genuine.\nHeld: The registration could not be cancelled since the firm was found genuine during the relevant period, and there was no error in the allocation of profits.\nCitations: CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.340 of 1983, decision dated: 9-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND RAJESH BALIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.A. Mehta, R.K. Patel and B.D. Karia for K.C. Patel for the Assessee. M.J. Thakore and Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "RAVINDRA INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 43 = 1999 SLD 43 = 1999 PTD 314 = (1997) 225 ITR 1050", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Reference — Appeal to Appellate Tribunal — Powers of Tribunal\nDetails: The Tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding a factual mistake. The Revenue filed an application for reference, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. No final adverse order had been passed.\nHeld: The Tribunal’s recall of its order was based on a factual mistake, and no question of law arose.\nCitations: None", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.316 of 1992, decision dated: 22-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUMESHCHAND K. PATEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 44 = 1999 SLD 44 = 1999 PTD 317 = (1997) 225 ITR 1053", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Depreciation — Plant and Machinery — Extra-shift Allowance\nDetails: The assessee claimed an extra-shift allowance for depreciation on plant and machinery based on the number of days the machinery worked. The Tribunal allowed the claim for the full year, but the court held that the allowance should be based on actual days of operation for each machinery.\nHeld: The extra-shift allowance should be based on the actual days each machinery worked, not on the operation of the whole factory.\nCitations: Anantapur Textiles Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 851 (Cal.); Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 434 (Delhi); CIT v. J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 80 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. I.T.R. No.30 of 1983, decision dated: 5-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAIPUR UDYOG LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 45 = 1999 SLD 45 = 1999 PTD 325 = (1997) 225 ITR 348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Investment Allowance — Cinematograph Films\nDetails: The assessee, engaged in making positive prints from negatives of cinematograph films, claimed an investment allowance on machinery used in the process. The claim was rejected, but the Tribunal allowed it, ruling that making positive prints from negatives was a process of manufacture.\nHeld: The assessee was entitled to the investment allowance as the process of making positive prints from negatives constituted manufacture.\nCitations: CIT v. Manmohan Das (1966) 59 ITR 699 (SC); CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.C. No.68 of 1995 and I.T.C. No.50 of 1996, decision dated: 14-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. N. RAO AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. C. Kodanda Ram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRASAD FILM LABORATORIES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 46 = 1999 SLD 46 = 1999 PTD 336 = (1997) 225 ITR 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Reassessment — Notice — Limitation\nDetails: The Income-tax Officer issued notices for reassessment based on an inference that the balance amount from an investment reserve was not properly utilized. The assessee had fully disclosed the primary facts during the initial assessment.\nHeld: The reassessment notices were barred by limitation as the assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the Income-tax Officer could not base the reassessment on inferences.\nCitations: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 128 of 1997, decision dated: 17-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R.K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Soparkar for Petitioner. M.H. Joshi for Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent No.", + "Party Name:": "KRISHNA METAL INDUSTRIES\nVs\nH.M. ALGOTAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 47 = 1999 SLD 47 = 1999 PTD 340 = (1997) 225 ITR 901", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Special deduction—Computation of capital—Government subsidy\nDetails: A government subsidy was granted to an industrial undertaking with the condition that it must continue operations for at least five years. The subsidy was treated as a loan during this period. The issue was whether this subsidy could be included in the capital for purposes of computing deductions under Section 80-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld: The government subsidy, although initially treated as a loan, was considered a grant and not a debt or borrowed capital. It was therefore includible in the capital for the purposes of Section 80-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC), Agarwal Industries v. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 30 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No.45 of 1988, decision dated: 3rd April, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND V. G. PALSHIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) applied. Agarwal Industries v. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 30 (Raj.) fol.D.S. Shishodia with Govind Karan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "AGARWAL INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 48 = 1999 SLD 48 = 1999 PTD 343 = (1997) 225 ITR 842", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Reference—Pending special leave petition\nDetails: A reference was sought on the grounds that a special leave petition was pending in the Supreme Court against a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a previous case. The issue was whether this pending petition warranted a reference for re-evaluation.\nHeld: The question of law raised had already been concluded by the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision, and the pendency of the special leave petition did not justify a reference.\nCitations: CIT v. Mithalal Ashok Kumar (1986) 159 ITR 209 (MP), CWT v. Usha Devi (1990) 183 ITR 75 (MP), Ganga Cut Piece Centre v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 201 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.240 of 1989, 225 of 1990 and 226 of 1991, decision dated: 29-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S.B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. G.M. Chaphekar with S.S. Samvatsar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nABHAY KUMAR JASWANT KUMAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 49 = 1999 SLD 49 = 1999 PTD 346 = (1997) 225 ITR 845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Business—Firm running a hospital—Investment allowance\nDetails: The issue was whether a firm running a hospital could be considered to be carrying on a business for the purposes of claiming investment allowance under Section 32-A, and whether expenses for an X-ray plant, I.C.C.U., and E.C.G. equipment were eligible for this allowance.\nHeld: The firm was engaged in a business activity, including the provision of medical services and the operation of X-ray and medical equipment. Therefore, the firm was entitled to claim the investment allowance under Section 32-A.\nCitations: CIT v. Polyclinic (P.) Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 185 (Ker.), CIT v. Ramachandran (V.K.) (Dr.) (1981) 128 ITR 727 (Mad.), CIT v. Textile Machinery Corporation (1971) 80 ITR 428 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 104 of 1991, decision dated: 8-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, M.A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUPASANA HOSPITAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 50 = 1999 SLD 50 = 1999 PTD 353 = (1997) 225 ITR 863", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Salary—Personal allowance—Exclusion from salary for disallowance under Section 40(c)(iii)\nDetails: The case examined whether personal allowance should be considered part of salary for the purposes of computing disallowances under Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld: Personal allowance, not defined in the Act, does not partake the character of dearness allowance and is excluded from salary under the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, it was not subject to disallowance under Section 40(c)(iii).\nCitations: CIT v. India Radiators Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 680 (Mad.), Ronal Lloyd Powell v. Administrator-General AIR 1967 All. 231", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.87 of 1979, decision dated: 27-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharat Ji Agrawal for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHAMPARUN SUGAR WORKS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 51 = 1999 SLD 51 = 1999 PTD 357 = (1997) 225 ITR 867", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Reference—Penalty—Concealment of income\nDetails: The case concerned the imposition of a penalty for concealment of income after the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs.65,000 due to inability to explain its source. The Tribunal canceled the penalty, and the question was whether this was a matter of law for reference.\nHeld: The Tribunal's finding that there was no concealment of income was a question of law, justifying reference to a higher court.\nCitations: None specified in the summary.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No.162 of 1993, decision dated: 11-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. V.K. Jain for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMOHANLAL RADHAKRISHNA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 52 = 1999 SLD 52 = 1999 PTD 360 = (1997) 225 ITR 870", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Reference—Low household expenses—Marriage expenses—Estimate basis\nDetails: The case involved a dispute over the addition of low household expenses and underreported marriage expenses. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made estimates for these expenses, and the addition was unwarranted.\nHeld: The Tribunal's decision was based on its appreciation of the evidence and did not raise any questions of law for reference.\nCitations: CIT (Addl.) v. Noor Mohammed & Co. (1974) 97 ITR 705 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference Application No.78 of 1995, decision dated: 3rd May 1996", + "Judge Name:": " BX. ARORA AND A.S. GODARA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHANWARLAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 53 = 1999 SLD 53 = 1999 PTD 364 = (1997) 225 ITR 874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Special deduction under section 80-J for new industrial undertaking\nDetails: The assessee had claimed a deduction under section 80-J for the assessment year 1968-69, but it was allowed only for six months. In 1972-73, the assessee requested to compute and allow the deficiency in the deduction for the whole year. The claim was rejected, as it should have been raised in the appeal for the 1968-69 assessment year.\nHeld: The claim for the full deduction under section 80-J for the entire year 1968-69 could not be raised in the assessment year 1972-73. The issue should have been appealed in the 1968-69 assessment, and the Income-tax Officer's order for that year had become final.\nCitations: CIT v. Amrit Lal (1989) 180 ITR 251 (P & H); CIT v. Bluemount Ceramics Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 385 (Mad.); CIT v. Caps and Caps (1989) 179 ITR 235 (MP.); CIT v. Maneklal (T.) Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 268 (Bom.); CIT v. Mattoo Worsted Spinning and Weaving Mills (1983) 139 ITR 1020 (J & K); CIT (Addl.) v. Sheetalaya (1979) 117 ITR 658 (All.); CIT v. Sree Valliappa Textiles Ltd. (1987) 166 ITR 548 (Kar.); CIT v. Veljan Hydrair (P.) Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 734 (AP.); Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 660 (Cal.) & Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 152 ITR 308 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No.56 of 1984, decision dated: 21st March, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " YR. MEENA AND V.K. SINGHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.M. Ranka with Raj Kumar Yadav for the Assessee. G. S. Bafna for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "JAI DRINKS (P) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 54 = 1999 SLD 54 = 1999 PTD 375 = (1997) 225 ITR 831", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Deduction without actual payment of licence fee\nDetails: The assessee claimed a deduction for the price/consideration paid to the State Government for a licence to manufacture country liquor. The Revenue argued that it could be claimed only after actual payment under section 43-B. However, the court ruled that the licence fee was not a tax, duty, cess, or fee under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909.\nHeld: The price paid to the State for a licence to manufacture country liquor is not classified as tax, duty, cess, or fee under section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee could claim a deduction without actual payment.\nCitations: Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Anabeshahi Wine and Distilleries, Pvt., Ltd. AIR 1988 SC 771; Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner AIR 1975 SC 1121; Parma Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1975 SC 2008; State of Haryana v. Jage Ram AIR 1980 SC 2018; Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P AIR 1990 SC 1927.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 160 of 1992, decision dated: 5-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " VISHESHWAR NATH KHARE, C.J. AND BARIN GHOSH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sunil Mitra and Ram Chandra Prasad for the Commissioner. R.N. Bajoria, Senior Advocate, J.P. Khaitan and Sanjay Banerjee for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVARAS INTERNATIONAL (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 55 = 1999 SLD 55 = 1999 PTD 368 = (1997) 225 ITR 882", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Refund of advance tax after annulment of assessment\nDetails: After the annulment of an assessment for the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee sought a refund of the advance tax and tax paid on self-assessment. The issue was whether the amount could be refunded if the assessment was declared null and void.\nHeld: If an assessment is annulled, there is no lawful authority for the Revenue to retain the tax, including advance tax or self-assessed tax. The assessee is entitled to a refund under Article 265 of the Constitution.\nCitations: Gulabchand Motilal v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 62 (MP); Gopal Ramnarayan (R.) v. Third ITO (1980) 126 ITR 369 (Kar.); Deep Chand Jain v. ITO (1984) 145 ITR 676 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.368, 369 of 1993 and Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.2750 of 1984 and 3773 of 1987, decision dated: 9-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S.K. KULSHRESTKA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHELLY PRODUCTS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 56 = 1999 SLD 56 = 1999 PTD 382 = (1997) 225 ITR 839", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Reference to High Court\nDetails: The issue was whether the pendency of similar issues before the Supreme Court could be grounds for directing a reference to the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld: The pendency of the same issues before the Supreme Court is not grounds for directing a reference to the High Court under section 256(2).\nCitations: CWT v. Smt. Usha Devi (1990) 183 ITR 75 (MP); Ganga Cut Piece Centre v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 201 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No.48 of 1985, decision dated: 19-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S. B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Putambekar for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "GANGA CUT PIECE CENTRE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 57 = 1999 SLD 57 = 1999 PTD 385 = (1997) 225 ITR 904", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Reassessment and Revision\nDetails: The Income-tax Officer issued a notice for reassessment under sections 147/148. The issue was whether the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise an assessment under section 263 was affected.\nHeld: The powers under sections 147/148 for reopening an assessment and section 263 for revising an assessment can coexist. The order of assessment is not wiped out under sections 147/148; it remains in suspension until finalized.\nCitations: CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC); Sharda Trading Co. v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 19 (Delhi); General Beopar Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 86 (Cal.); Jaganmohan Rao (V.) v. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.546 to 551 of 1992, decision dated: 26-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner. G.N. Purohit for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGULAM RASOOL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 58 = 1999 SLD 58 = 1999 PTD 396 = (1998) 78 TAX 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance — Workers Welfare Fund\nDetails: The issue was whether an additional tax could be levied on the demand inclusive of the Workers Welfare Fund under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nHeld: The additional tax on the Workers Welfare Fund could only be levied under the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, not under section 89 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations: 1996 PTD 3 and 1987 PTD (Trib.) 580.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=89,62 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4(8) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1868/KB and 1869/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 18-09-1998, hearing DATE : 27-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Anwar Kamal for Appellant. Mrs. Shaista Abbas, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 59 = 1999 SLD 59 = 1999 PTD 401 = (1998) 78 TAX 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S.66-A [before amendment]—C.B.R. Circular No.8 of 1991, dated 30th June, 1991—Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioners' order—Assessment Years 1987-88 to 1990-91\n•\nDetails: Before the amendment to S.66-A, merely filing an appeal before a higher forum prevented the Inspecting Additional Commissioner from revising the Deputy Commissioner’s order.\n•\nHeld: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s order was declared void due to the pending appeal, as S.66-A before amendment restricted such revisions during an appeal.\n•\nCitations: PICIC 1988 PTD 626; Anjuman Shaheen v. I.A.C. 1993 PTD 1232; Glaxo Laboratories v. I.A.C. 1992 PTD 932.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S.2(7) (Assessment Definition) —Doctrine of Merger\n•\nDetails: The doctrine of merger applies irrespective of the S.2(7) definition of assessment.\n•\nHeld: S.2(7) does not control the doctrine of merger.\n(c) Managed Cement Establishments (Payment to Corporation) Rules, 1987—R.3—Cement Development Fund—Taxability\n•\nDetails: The Fund, if used for business, could be treated as receipts, otherwise as untaxed income.\n•\nHeld: Taxability depends on the use of the fund by the corporation.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S.62—Cement Development Fund—Taxability\n•\nDetails: Disallowed freight subsidy payment under S.23, but the Appellate Tribunal allowed revision of returns based on the agreement between the assessee and revenue.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal’s decision to reconsider the taxability of the Cement Development Fund was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,66A,2.(7),62,23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.576/LB to 579/LB of 1995, 4092/LB of 1994, 3113/LB, 6606/LB of 1992-93, 2156/LB to 2758/LB of 1996, decision dated: 8-08-1998.hearing DATE : 9-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Hussain Naqvi and Jamil Akhtar Baig, A.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 576/LB to 579/LB of 1995, 4092/LB of 1994, 3113/LB of 1992-93, 2756/LB to 2758/LB of 1996. Ratra Munir Hussain. L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 576/LB to 579/LB of 1995 , 4092/LB of 1994, 3113/LB of 1992-93, 2756/L", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 60 = 1999 SLD 60 = 1999 PTD 426", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S.129—Appeal to the Appellate Commissioner—Notice\n•\nDetails: The Commissioner passed an ex parte order without notice to the appellant.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was remanded for de novo consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 7561/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 31st December, 1997, hearing DATE : 25-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. Amjad Malik, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 61 = 1999 SLD 61 = 1999 PTD 428 = (1997) 225 ITR 921", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Interest—Motor Vehicles Act, 1939—S.110-CC\n•\nDetails: Interest awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act is a revenue receipt.\n•\nHeld: Interest under S.110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act is taxable.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. (1973) 87 ITR 666 (Ker.); Govinda Choudhury v. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 497 (Orissa).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B.I.T. Reference No. 36 of 1983, decision dated: 6-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. K.S. Gupta for G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "KAILASH NARAIN GUPTA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 62 = 1999 SLD 62 = 1999 PTD 431 = (1997) 225 ITR 924", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Purchase of immovable property by Central Government—Devolution upon heirs—Muslim Law of Inheritance\n•\nDetails: The property devolved to heirs as co-owners. Despite the composite agreement, each co-owner’s share remained below Rs.10 lakh, exempting the property from pre-emptive purchase by the government.\n•\nHeld: The pre-emptive purchase rights of the Central Government under S.269-UD(1) were not applicable.\n•\nCitations: Appropriate Authority v. Raghava Reddy (J.S.V.) (1993) 199 ITR 508 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.O. No.5779 (W) of 1994, decision dated: 31st January, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " V .K. GUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pradip 6hosh and Gurudas Mitra for Petitioner, Pranap Pal and Miss Manisha Seal for the Appropriate Authority. R. Murarka and S. Panda for Respondents.Jaydeb Saha for the Union of India", + "Party Name:": "WEBSTER INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 63 = 1999 SLD 63 = 1999 PTD 438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Investment Allowance—Conditions for Grant—X-Ray Machines\n•\nDetails: The issue of whether an X-ray machine used by a doctor qualifies for investment allowance under S.32-A, depending on whether the activity is a business or profession.\n•\nHeld: The matter was remanded for factual determination of whether the activity constituted a business.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Trinity Hospital (1997) 225 ITR 178 (Raj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 339 of 1983, decision dated: 2-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " R.K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.R. Divetia for the Assessee. Bharat J. Shelat instructed by Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "NATVARLAL AMBALAL DAVE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 64 = 1999 SLD 64 = 1999 PTD 449 = (1997) 225 ITR 947", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Loss—Carry Forward and Set-Off—Same Business or Separate Business\n•\nDetails: The assessee continued activities with similar machinery after K Co.'s closure. Losses from earlier years could be set off against current income.\n•\nHeld: The business activities were interdependent, and the carry forward of losses was allowed.\n•\nCitations: Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 739 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. C. No. 160 of 1994, decision dated: 11-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. RAJENDHA BABU AND KUMAR RAJARATNAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sarangan, Senior Advocate for the Assessee. Inderkumar for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "KARNATAKA LIGHT METAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 65 = 1999 SLD 65 = 1999 PTD 453 = (1997) 225 ITR 952", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Capital Gains—Computation of Capital Gains—Shares—Bonus Shares\n•\nDetails: The cost of bonus shares should be determined based on the fair market value of original shares as of 1st January, 1964.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal upheld the calculation of capital gains based on the fair market value of the original shares.\n•\nCitations: Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. v. ITO (1971) 82 ITR 788 (SC); CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (1964) 52 ITR 567 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 784 (Reference No. 699 of 1984), decision dated: 24-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG.N. VENKATAPATHY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 66 = 1999 SLD 66 = 1999 PTD 460 = (1997) 225 ITR 960", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Return – Requirement of Signature and Verification\nDetails: Under the Income Tax Act, 1961, a return of income must be signed and verified by the assessee or their authorized representative to be considered valid. Section 140 explicitly requires that the return should be signed by the individual (in the case of a person), the Karta (in the case of a Hindu Undivided Family), or the managing partner (in the case of a firm). If the return is filed without signature or verification, it cannot be treated as a valid return under the law.\nSection 292-B of the Act allows for the curing of minor defects in the return or other proceedings, provided the essence of the document is in compliance with the purpose of the Act. However, the failure to sign or verify the return is not considered a minor defect, but rather a violation of a mandatory requirement under Section 140. The use of the word “shall” in Section 140 indicates that this requirement is mandatory, and thus, a return filed without a signature or verification cannot be treated as valid.\nHeld: The failure to sign or verify a return is a serious defect that cannot be cured. Therefore, any return filed without the signature and verification of the assessee is considered invalid.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 139, 140, 292-B", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 106 of 1990, decision dated: 12-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S.K. KULSHRESETHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. A. Sapre for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "KHIALDAS & SONS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 67 = 1999 SLD 67 = 1999 PTD 463 = (1997) 225 ITR 963", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Draft Assessment Order and Limitation\nDetails: Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act requires that in cases where the Assessing Officer proposes to make a variation in the income or loss returned by the assessee, prejudicial to the assessee, and the variation exceeds a prescribed amount, a draft assessment order must be forwarded to the assessee. The period for completing the assessment process is governed by Section 153(1)(a) and is subject to an extension period under Explanation 1(iv) of that section, particularly when Section 144-B applies.\nThe limitation period is extended by 180 days from the date the draft assessment order is forwarded to the assessee. The term “forward” is interpreted to mean the date when the draft order is handed over to a process-server, posted at the post office, or delivered to the assessee's representative.\nIn the present case, the Income-tax Officer forwarded the draft assessment order to the assessee’s representative on March 29, 1979. The assessment year in question was 1976-77, and the order should have been passed before September 24, 1979, after excluding the period between March 29, 1979, and September 22, 1979, which was the time taken for approval by the Deputy Commissioner. However, the order was passed on September 26, 1979, which was beyond the prescribed limitation period.\nHeld: The assessment order was barred by limitation as it was passed after the extended period under Section 153(1)(a) had expired.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 144-B, 153(1)(a), Explanation 1(iv); Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.23 of 1988, decision dated: 22-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND B.S. RAIKOTE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHAHZADI BEGUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 68 = 1999 SLD 68 = 1999 PTD 470 = (1997) 225 ITR 970", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Timing of Expenditure Deduction\nDetails: In the case of an assessee engaged in manufacturing goods, a provision for excise duty payable is claimed as a deduction. The issue arose when, despite being aware of the liability, the Excise Authorities initially ruled that the goods were not liable for excise duty. Later, the assessee received a notice from the Excise Department demanding excise duty on its manufactured goods.\nThe assessee, which maintained its books of accounts on the mercantile system, made a provision for excise duty in the accounting year ending on March 31, 1977, despite the actual demand being received in July 1977. The Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) initially disallowed the provision, claiming that the liability did not arise until the demand notice was received.\nHowever, the Tribunal held that the liability for excise duty had already crystallized in February 1977, when the assessee applied for a licence and the duty was formally confirmed. The assessee was entitled to claim the deduction for excise duty provision in the assessment year 1977-78, as the liability had accrued when the licence was issued in February 1977.\nHeld: The provision for excise duty made by the assessee in the accounts for the year ending March 31, 1977, was allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 1977-78 because the liability had accrued when the licence was issued.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37; Abad Fisheries v. CIT (1995) 213 ITR 694 (Ker.); CIT v. Century Enka Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 267 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No.816 (Reference No.731 of 1984), decision dated: 17-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramanian for the Commissioner. Uttam Reddy for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nENGLISH ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 69 = 1999 SLD 69 = 1999 PTD 482 = (1997) 225 ITR 983", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Disallowance of Interest Paid to Directors\nDetails: Section 40-A(8) of the Income Tax Act disallows interest paid by a company on deposits made with the company if such deposits do not conform to the provisions of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The Rules were amended on September 18, 1975, to exclude deposits from directors from the definition of deposits. \nPrior to the amendment, the term “deposit” included deposits made by directors. However, no such amendment was made to Section 40-A(8) of the Income Tax Act. As a result, even after the amendment to the Companies Rules, the interest paid to directors and shareholders still falls within the purview of Section 40-A(8), and such interest may be disallowed to the extent prescribed under the provision.\nHeld: Interest paid to directors on deposits with the company may be disallowed to the extent prescribed in Section 40-A(8) of the Income Tax Act, as no amendment was made to this section after the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules were amended in 1975.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 40-A(8); Indian Companies Act, 1956, Section 58-A; Indian Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 142 of 1992, decision dated: 12-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K.K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "UNITED MERCANTILE CO. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 70 = 1999 SLD 70 = 1999 PTD 485 = (1997) 225 ITR 993", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Power of Appellate Authorities and Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer\nDetails: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) remanded a case back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of disallowances related to machinery repairs. However, the Assessing Officer, while reassessing the matter, also made an addition related to the undervaluation of closing stock. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had exceeded the scope of the remand order, which only specified a reconsideration of the disallowance for machinery repairs.\nThe issue at hand was whether the Assessing Officer was empowered to make new additions while conducting a reassessment in pursuance of a remand order. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to make any fresh disallowances outside the scope of the remand, and the additions related to undervaluation of the stock were rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).\nHeld: The Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions related to the undervaluation of closing stock during the reassessment, which was outside the scope of the remand. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in affirming the deletion of the additions.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 256(2); Kundanlal Maru v. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 84 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.264 and 267 of 1993, decision dated: 4th April 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for Appellant. S.C. Bagadiya for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHOPE TEXTILES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 71 = 1999 SLD 71 = 1999 PTD 489 = (1997) 225 ITR 1002", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Export Deduction – Time for Bringing Sale Proceeds into India\nDetails: Section 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act provides a special deduction to exporters of certain goods, based on the profits derived from such exports. One condition for claiming this deduction is that the sale proceeds from the export must be received or brought into India within six months from the end of the previous year. However, this limitation is not absolute, and the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner can allow further time if the assessee is unable to bring the sale proceeds into India due to circumstances beyond their control.\nThe Act does not specify that an application is required to be made for the extension of time or for claiming the deduction. Section 80-HHC provides the right to claim a deduction if the sale proceeds are received within the specified period or if an extension is granted due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee. No specific procedure or application is required under the Act.\nHeld: The time limit mentioned in Section 80-HHC(2)(a) is not a limitation for claiming the deduction but a condition that must be fulfilled. There is no requirement for an application, and the Commissioner has the discretion to allow additional time if the assessee is unable to meet the condition within the specified period.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80-HHC; CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. (1961) 12 STC 182; AIR 1961 SC 1047; Hirday Narain (L.) v. ITO (1970) 78 ITR 26 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 665(M/B) of 1995, decision dated: 20-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " BRIJESH KUMAR AND D. K. SETH, IJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sulabh Singh and S.P. Gupta for Petitioner. S.C. Misra for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "AZAD TOBACCO FACTORY (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 72 = 1999 SLD 72 = 1999 PTD 496 = (1997) 225 ITR 1027", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Reference—Penalty—Concealment of income—Additions made to income—No appeal by assessee against such additions—Levy of penalty—Cancellation of penalty by Tribunal—Justification of cancellation\nDetails:\nFor the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee reported an income of Rs. 99,690. However, the Assessing Officer made two additions: Rs. 10,000 for undisclosed transactions of purchase and sale, and Rs. 2,563 for discrepancies in Bardana accounts. The assessee did not challenge these additions, making them final. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated, and the penalty was imposed. The Tribunal canceled the penalty, reasoning that the assessee could have succeeded in appealing and having the additions deleted if they had filed an appeal.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal's cancellation of the penalty was based on the assumption that the additions could have been deleted if the assessee had filed an appeal. The issue was whether the Tribunal had sufficient material to justify canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The matter was referred for further examination.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 Ss. 256, 271(1)(c)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.290 of 1992, decision dated: 22-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGAJRAJ SINGH NATHU SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 73 = 1999 SLD 73 = 1999 PTD 498 = (1997) 225 ITR 1029", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Depreciation—Rate of depreciation—30% depreciation for earth moving machinery—Interpretation of rules—Rigs for drilling borewells eligible for 30% depreciation\nDetails:\nItem III-D(4) of Appendix I, Part I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 grants a 30% depreciation for earth moving machinery employed in heavy construction works like dams and tunnels. This description was interpreted as illustrative, not exhaustive, due to terms like such as and etc. The assessee owned rigs engaged in drilling borewells and claimed 30% depreciation.\nHeld:\nRigs used for drilling borewells were entitled to 30% depreciation, as the classification of earth moving machinery included such rigs. This ruling followed CIT v. Super Drillers (1988) but dissented from CIT v. Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation (1991).\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 S. 32, Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962 Appendix I, Part I, Item III-D(4), CIT v. Super Drillers (1988) 174 ITR 640, CIT v. Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation (1991) 192 ITR 108", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.25 of 1988. decided on 29-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R. BAYAPU REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHIVA SHANKER BORE WELLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 74 = 1999 SLD 74 = 1999 PTD 501 = (1997) 225 ITR 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Depreciation—Rate of depreciation for rope-way structure-carriers—Export markets development allowance—Expenditure eligibility for deduction\nDetails:\n(a) The firm installed a lift in its office building and sought depreciation at 15% for this rope-way structure. (b) The assessee sought a weighted deduction under section 35-B for export market development expenses. The deduction was disputed for expenditures related to export activities and legal costs.\nHeld:\n(a) The lift in the office building qualified for a 15% depreciation as a rope-way structure-carrier per Item III(ii)B(15) of the Income Tax Rules. (b) The weighted deduction was allowed for salaries related to export sales under section 35-B(1)(v), but legal expenses and other non-export-specific expenditures were not eligible.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 S. 32, S. 35-B, Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, CIT v. Jyoti Limited (1987) 163 ITR 274, CIT v. V.D. Swami & Co. Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 129, CIT v. Continental Device India Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 680", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.667 and Reference No.368 of 1983, decision dated: 19-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "V.D. SWAMI & CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 75 = 1999 SLD 75 = 1999 PTD 509 = (1997) 225 ITR 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Deposit—Restriction on mode of repayment—Court order—Contempt of court\nDetails:\nIn a motor accident claim, the Court directed a bank to release Rs. 25,000 to the respondent. The bank manager refused to release the payment in cash, citing section 269-T of the Income Tax Act, which mandates certain modes of payment for amounts over Rs. 20,000. The Court initiated contempt proceedings, but the manager justified the refusal based on compliance with tax laws and Reserve Bank circulars.\nHeld:\nThe Court had not specified the mode of payment in cash, so the bank manager's reliance on section 269-T was valid. There was no willful disobedience of the Court's order, and thus no contempt of court occurred. The manager was discharged after tendering an unconditional apology.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 S. 269-T, Indian Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 S. 2", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 1996, decision dated: 4-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. AND MS. KAMLESH SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.D. Verma, B.P. Sharma, Rajiv Sharma and Shrawan Dogra for Petitioner. R.L. Sood for Respondent No. 1. Indar Singh, A.G. for Respondent No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION\nVs\nMANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 76 = 1999 SLD 76 = 1999 PTD 513 = (1997) 225 ITR 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Special deduction—New industrial undertaking in backward area—Export compensatory support as revenue receipt\nDetails:\n(a) The deduction under section 80-HH was to be calculated from commercial profits after subtracting investment allowance, and other relevant deductions.\n(b) Cash compensatory support (CCS) and other export-related incentives were scrutinized for taxability.\nHeld:\n(a) The deduction under section 80-HH should be calculated after accounting for investment allowance and other specified deductions.\n(b) CCS and similar export incentives are taxable as business income under section 28 and 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, as clarified by the CBDT circular.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 Ss. 2(24), 28, 80-HH, Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 448, CBDT Circular No.572 (1990)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No.4 of 1991, decision dated: 14-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.R. ARORA AND B.J. SHETHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner. Vineet Kothari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAJASTHAN UDYOG" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 77 = 1999 SLD 77 = 1999 PTD 516 = (1997) 225 ITR 471", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Firm—Business income or income from property—Leasing activity—Status of firm for tax purposes\nDetails:\nThe assessee-firm was involved in real estate business, leasing out properties it developed on land leased by the firm. Despite its real estate activity, the firm sought to be assessed as an association of persons (AOP) based on its leasehold property arrangements.\nHeld:\nThe leasing activity was part of the firm's business, and income from such activity was considered business income. Therefore, the firm could not be assessed as an AOP under section 26, as the partnership deed did not provide for co-ownership of the property. The firm was rightly assessed as a registered firm.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 S. 26, Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300, D.R. Puttanna Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 162 ITR 468, Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. Cs. Nos. 162 and 163 of 1994, decision dated: 14-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " P. KRISHNA MOORTHY AND S.R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.V. Javali for the Assessee. Indra Kumar, CGSC for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "BALAN ENTERPRISES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 78 = 1999 SLD 78 = 1999 PTD 525 = (1997) 225 ITR 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business Income – Export Incentives\nDetails: The case involves the effect of the insertion of clauses (iii-a), (iii-b), and (iii-c) into section 28 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. These clauses relate to the taxability of export-related incentives like the sale of import entitlement licences, cash compensatory support, and duty drawbacks. The amendments state that these receipts are chargeable as income from business. The amendments are applicable retrospectively from the date the incentives were introduced.\nHeld: The cash compensatory support received by an exporter is assessable as income from business.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(24), 28, Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 448 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B.I.T. Reference No.30 of 1992. decided on 14-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.R. ARORA AND B.J. SHETHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner. Vineet Kothari for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nEMERY STONE MANUFACTURING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 79 = 1999 SLD 79 = 1999 PTD 527 = (1997) 225 ITR 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Reference Procedure – Restoration of Application\nDetails: The case discusses the procedure for restoring an application when it has been dismissed due to non-appearance or failure to take necessary steps. The High Court has inherent powers to restore such applications but will only exercise this power when sufficient cause for the non-appearance and failure to take steps is demonstrated.\nHeld: The High Court can restore the application, but in this case, the applicant's failure to take steps was due to negligence, and the application was dismissed.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 256, Indian Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 151; O. 3, Rr. 4(1), 6(2), O. 9, Rr. 2, 4 & O. 48, R. 1(1), Gasper (A.) v. CIT (1991) 192 ITR 382 (SC), Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 653 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 368 to 374 and 376 to 383 of 1996, decision dated: 21st September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND SHAMBHOO SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.M. Mathur and Vivek Sharan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHAGIRATH & BROS. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 80 = 1999 SLD 80 = 1999 PTD 534 = (1997) 225 ITR 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2143\nTopic: Income-tax – Reassessment – Interest on Fixed Deposits\nDetails: This case revolves around the reassessment of income under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in the export of rugs and druggets, was allowed a deduction under section 80-HHC on interest from fixed deposit receipts. The assessment was reopened on the grounds that the interest should have been assessed under the head Income from other sources. The reassessment was contested by the assessee, claiming that the reopening was based on the Tribunal's decision for a different year (1986-87), which could not be mechanically applied to the 1988-89 assessment.\nHeld: The reassessment is invalid as it was based on an erroneous application of the Tribunal’s finding from a different assessment year. The reopening was an exercise of review, not reassessment.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147, 148, 80-HHC, Constitution of India, Art. 226", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 530 of 1994, decision dated: 3rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " PARITOSH K. MUKHERJEE AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sudhir Chandra and S.D. Singh for Petitioner. Shekhar Srivastava for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Smt. JAMILA ANSARI\nVs\nIncome Tax DEPARTMENT and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 81 = 1999 SLD 81 = 1999 PTD 540", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business Income – State Subsidy for Film Production\nDetails: The assessee, a private limited company engaged in film production, received a subsidy from the Kerala State Government for producing regional films. The assessee treated this as a capital receipt, but the Income-tax Officer (ITO) considered it income. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's treatment, but the High Court reversed the decision.\nHeld: The subsidy is assessable as income, as it was received in the course of business.\nCitations: Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1989) 180 ITR 134 (Ker.), A. M. Moosa v. C.W.T. (1997) 225 ITR 391 (Ker.), Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. C.W.T. (1974) 93 ITR 603 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.30 of 1990, decision dated: 20-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, Dale P. Kurian and M A Firoz for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUDAYA PICTURES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 82 = 1999 SLD 82 = 1999 PTD 544 = (1997) 225 ITR 510", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Capital Gains – Agricultural Land Sale\nDetails: This case deals with whether the proceeds from the sale of agricultural land are considered capital gains or agricultural income. The assessee sold agricultural land, and the question was whether the proceeds constituted capital gains or agricultural income.\nHeld: The proceeds from the sale of agricultural land are capital gains, not agricultural income, as they arise from the disposal of capital assets.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(1)(a), 45, C.I.T. v. T.K. Sarala Devi (1987) 167 ITR 136 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 146 of 1987, decision dated: 17-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, M. A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nR. KRISHNARJUNAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 83 = 1999 SLD 83 = 1999 PTD 549 = (1997) 225 ITR 302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Writ to Restrain Appropriate Authority\nDetails: Disputes arose between the transferor and transferee of immovable property regarding the signing of a blank Form No. 37-I. The petitioners sought to prevent the appropriate authority from acting on this form.\nHeld: The writ petition was dismissed because no order had been passed by the appropriate authority, and there was no basis for seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. Authorities are presumed to act in accordance with the law.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 269-UD; Constitution of India, Art. 226", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous No.3146 in C.W. No.1773 of 1995, decision dated: 19-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. WADHWA AND DR. M. K. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. N. Marwaha with A. K. Marwaha for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Dr. RAVI SINGH and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 84 = 1999 SLD 84 = 1999 PTD 552 = (1997) 225 ITR 363", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes and Levy of Interest\nDetails: The assessee failed to file a return on time, leading to rectification proceedings where the Assessing Officer charged interest under sections 139(8) and 217. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially allowed the appeal, but the Tribunal upheld the imposition of interest.\nHeld: Interest could be charged during the rectification of an assessment order.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 139(8), 154, 217", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.27 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. K. Joshi for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nARUNACHAL SAW AND VENEER MILLS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 85 = 1999 SLD 85 = 1999 PTD 554 = (1997) 225 ITR 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment and Limitation\nDetails: The assessment under section 143 and reassessment under section 147 are different. The extended period of limitation under section 153 does not apply to reassessments.\nHeld: The extended period of limitation under section 153 is not available for reassessment under section 147.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 143, 147, 153", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.644 (Reference No.345 of 1983), decided on.25-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK. R. CHENNI KRISHNA CHETTY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 86 = 1999 SLD 86 = 1999 PTD 555 = (1997) 225 ITR 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Transfer of Case\nDetails: Writ petitions were filed challenging the transfer of assessment proceedings from Patna to Delhi, citing violations of natural justice and undue inconvenience. The petitioners were Members of Parliament and had multiple bank accounts in Delhi.\nHeld: The transfers were valid as proper notices were issued, the reasons were adequate, and the petitioners would not be unduly inconvenienced.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 127", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos.4141 to 4143 of 1996, decision dated: 20-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " DHARMPAL SINGH AND N. N. SINGHJustice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. MoI T Ra and S.K. Datta for Petitioners. Debi Prasad and K.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SHIBU SOREN and 2 others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 87 = 1999 SLD 87 = 1999 PTD 559 = (1997) 225 ITR 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Offences and Prosecution for Failure to File Return\nDetails: Partners of a firm were prosecuted for the late filing of returns, with the delay attributed to the managing partner's failure to provide necessary details. The petitioners argued that their returns were filed voluntarily and without discovery of failure.\nHeld: The prosecution proceedings were valid as the petitioners wilfully failed to file returns within the due time.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 139, 276-CC, 278-E", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 15 of 1992, 20 of 1994 and 34 of 1995, decision dated: 21st November, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. AND MS. KAMLESH SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with R.K. Raghvan and N.D. Sharma for Petitioners. Inder Singh, A.G. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PARKASH NATH and 2 others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 88 = 1999 SLD 88 = 1999 PTD 572 = (1997) 225 ITR 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment for Failure to Disclose Material Facts\nDetails: The assessee filed returns declaring non-taxable income but was found to have inflated agricultural income. Reassessment proceedings were initiated, and the additions were sustained by the Tribunal.\nHeld: Reassessment was valid as the assessee failed to prove the agricultural income, which was rightly classified as income from undisclosed sources.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 147, 56", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. I. T. R. No.5 of 1990, decision dated: 10-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND B., J. SHETHNA, Justice(s),", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vineet Kothari for the Assessee. Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GOPI RAM LILA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 89 = 1999 SLD 89 = 1999 PTD 579 = (1997) 225 ITR 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax—Capital Gains—Computation of Capital Gains—Cost of Acquisition of Capital Asset\n•\nDetails: This case deals with the applicability of Sections 50(2) and 55(2) of the Income Tax Act, specifically regarding the substitution of fair market value as on 1-1-1954 as the cost of acquisition for capital assets acquired by modes specified under Section 49. The issue revolves around the scope of these provisions and the conditions under which fair market value can be substituted for cost of acquisition.\n•\nHeld: Subsection (2) of section 50 is limited to assets acquired in the modes specified under Section 49. Section 55(2) does not apply to depreciable assets, and provisions of Section 50 and Section 55 should be interpreted to exclude general provisions when a special provision applies. The cost of acquisition of capital assets acquired in the specified modes under Section 49 should be adjusted according to depreciation and fair market value as on January 1, 1954. Further, contributions to approved gratuity funds are not to be included in salary for the purpose of computing expenditure for disallowance under Section 40-A(5). Certain expenditures, such as fees for increasing authorized capital, are capital expenditures.\n•\nCitations: Rajnagar Vaktapur Ginning, Pressing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 99 I T R 264 (Guj.), CIT v. Mihir Textiles Ltd. (1994) 206 I T R 112 (Guj.), Goculdas Dossa & Co. v. Shah (J.P.) (1995) 211 I T R 706 (Bom.), Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. C IT (1993) 202 I T R 214 (Guj.), CIT v. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. (1993) 202 I T R 942 (Guj.), CIT v. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (1982) 137 I T R 389 (Guj.), CIT v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. (1994) 207 I T R 670 (Bom.), New India Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 203 I T R 933 (Guj.), Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 162 I T R 800 (Guj.), CIT v. Commonwealth Trust Ltd. (1982) 135 I T R 19 (Ker.), CIT v. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. (1994) 207 I T R 553 (Cal.), CIT v. Upper Doab Sugar Mills (1979) 116 I T R 240 (All.), India Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 136 I T R 597 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 130 of 1983, decision dated: 5-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " RAJESH BALIA AND M.S. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for the Assessee. B.J. Shelat for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "WHIR TEXTILES LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 90 = 1999 SLD 90 = 1999 PTD 599 = (1997) 225 ITR 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax—Business Expenditure—Disallowance—Advertisement, Sales Promotion, Motor Cars, Hotels, and Subsidy\n•\nDetails: This case addresses the interpretation of section 37 of the Income Tax Act, particularly regarding the disallowance of business expenditure under subsection (3-A) and (3-B). The expenditure for advertisement, publicity, motor cars, and hotel costs is analyzed for whether it should be considered capital or revenue in nature. Additionally, the treatment of film production subsidies as income is explored.\n•\nHeld: Expenditure for advertisement, publicity, motor cars, and hotels, as per Sections 37(3-A) and (3-B), should be evaluated independently of whether the expenditure is capital or revenue in nature due to the non-obstante clause in these sections. The disallowance provisions of Section 37 are applicable irrespective of the capital or revenue nature of the expenses. Film production subsidies granted by the State Government are treated as income.\n•\nCitations: Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1979) 118 ITR 101 (HP), C.I.T. v. Udaya Pictures (P.) Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 394 (Ker.), Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1989) 180 ITR 134 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.88 of 1992 and 53 of 1991, decision dated: 2-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNAVODAYA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 91 = 1999 SLD 91 = 1999 PTD 609 = (1997) 225 ITR 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax—Co-operative Society—Special Deduction—Cooperative Bank—Locker Rent, House Rent, Interest on Securities\n•\nDetails: The case involves the entitlement of a co-operative bank to special deductions under Section 80-P of the Income Tax Act concerning income derived from locker rent, house rent, and interest on securities. The bank's receipts related to its banking business are also under scrutiny for special deduction eligibility.\n•\nHeld: The income derived from locker rent and interest on securities earmarked to reserve fund and gratuity is not entitled to special deduction under Section 80-P. However, miscellaneous receipts attributable to the banking business are entitled to the special deduction. House rent is not considered attributable to the banking business, and thus not eligible for special deduction.\n•\nCitations: Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank v. C.I.T. (1988) 169 ITR 573 (MP), M. P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Addl. C.I.T. (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC), C.I.T. v. Dhar Central Cooperative Bank (1984) 149 ITR 438 (MP), C.I.T. v. Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. (1987) 164 ITR 713 (MP), C.I.T. v. Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 423 (MP), C.I.T. v. Jhaveri (P.K.) (1990) 181 ITR 79 (SC), C.W.T. v. ambukumarsingh Kasliwal (1987) 166 ITR 623 (MP), Distributors Baroda (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M C. C. No.373 of 1993, decision dated: 13-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Sapre for the Commissioner. H. S. Shrivastava for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYAUIT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 92 = 1999 SLD 92 = 1999 PTD 614 = (1997) 225 ITR 570", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from business - Adventure in the nature of trade\nDetails: The assessee sold agricultural land and claimed the surplus from the sale was not taxable as business income. The Income-tax Officer assessed it as business income based on repeated sales and purchases of land. The Tribunal, however, found no systematic business activity and ruled the surplus was not assessable as business income.\nHeld: Dismissing the application for reference, the Tribunal's findings were based on the appreciation of evidence, and no question of law arose.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.313 of 1992, decision dated: 22-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas and Bhadang for the Commissioner Kochatta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. BILKISHBAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 93 = 1999 SLD 93 = 1999 PTD 617 = (1997) 225 ITR 574", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Special deduction - New industrial undertaking in backward area\nDetails: The assessee sought a special deduction under section 80-HH, but the computation was contested as to whether it should be based on gross income or net income after deductions such as depreciation.\nHeld: The special deduction under section 80-HH is calculated based on net income, after deductions like depreciation, as per section 80-AB.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.80-HH; C.I.T. v. Vishnu Oil and Dal Mills (1996) 218 ITR 71 Raj.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.59 of 1989/DB, decision dated: 29-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND B., J. SHETHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 94 = 1999 SLD 94 = 1999 PTD 619 = (1997) 225 ITR 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from property vs. business income\nDetails: The assessee, whose business had closed 35 years ago, rented out its premises and staff quarters. The Tribunal initially treated the rental income as business income, but this was disputed.\nHeld: The rental income from the premises, after the business ceased, was not business income, and each assessment year must be treated as a separate unit for determining liability.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Central Studios (P.) Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 298 (Mad.); Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1949) 17 ITR 308 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.72 and 73 of 1983, decision dated: 6-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. K. Vidyarthi and S. K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAMDAS & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 95 = 1999 SLD 95 = 1999 PTD 623 = (1997) 225 ITR 432", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Clubbing of income - Gift to daughter-in-law\nDetails: The assessee gifted money to his daughter-in-law, which was invested as capital in firms. The income derived by her was clubbed with the assessee’s income.\nHeld: The share income of the daughter-in-law, derived from the firms after her capital contribution, was not includible in the assessee’s income.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Kanji Bhai Tivraj Bhai (1989) 176 ITR 273 (MP); C.I.T. v. Prahladrai Agarwala (1989) 177 ITR 398 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.509, 510 (References Nos.451 and 452 of 1984), decision dated: 14-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. C. Rajappa for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "B. PALANISWAMY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 96 = 1999 SLD 96 = 1999 PTD 630 = (1997) 225 ITR 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Transfer of case\nDetails: The assessee's case was transferred under section 127 of the Income Tax Act without recording the reasons for the transfer.\nHeld: The transfer order was invalid as the reasons for the transfer were not recorded.\nCitations: Ajantha Industries v. C.B.D.T. (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. W. P. No.5383 of 1996, decision dated: 22-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. K. Sud for Petitioner. R. P. Sawhney and Sanjay Goel for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ANIL MITTAL and others\nVs\nCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 97 = 1999 SLD 97 = 1999 PTD 632 = (1997) 225 ITR 576", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business loss - Embezzlement\nDetails: The assessee claimed business loss due to alleged embezzlement by an employee. No criminal or civil proceedings were initiated, and the loss was not proved as irrecoverable.\nHeld: The loss could not be deducted as a business loss due to insufficient evidence and failure to take necessary legal action.\nCitations: Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 1 (SC); Hopkin and Williams (Travancore) Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 76 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 134 of 1980, decision dated: 19-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. M. LAL AND ALOK CHAKRABARTI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Srivastava for the Commissioner. A.N. Mahajan for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASHWANI KUMAR LILADHAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 98 = 1999 SLD 98 = 1999 PTD 637 = (1997) 225 ITR 586", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment - Escaped income\nDetails: Reassessment was initiated after a significant increase in circulating capital in the wealth tax return for a different year, based on information from wealth tax assessment.\nHeld: The reassessment was valid as the information from the wealth tax assessment provided a legitimate ground for reopening the earlier income tax assessment.\nCitations: Sri Krishna (Pvt.) Ltd. v. ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 139 of 1988, decision dated: 26-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. P.D. UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atul Jasani with K. Shivram, K.B. Bhujle and A.S. Dalvi for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MULJIMAL N. RAGHUVANSHI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 99 = 1999 SLD 99 = 1999 PTD 641 = (1997) 225 ITR 590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Purchase of immovable property by Central Government - Condition precedent\nDetails: A transfer of immovable property was not valid due to judicial restraints and the lack of title by the transferor.\nHeld: The agreement for property transfer was void, and no proceedings could be taken under section 269-UD of the Income Tax Act.\nCitations: Appropriate Authority v. Tanvi Trading and Credits (P.) Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 307 (SC); Gautam (C.B.) v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.34312 of 1994, decision dated: 2-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. BHARUKA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Madhusudhana R. Naik for Petitioners. H. L. Dattu for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Vikas Jain for Respondent No. 3", + "Party Name:": "CHAMUNDI HOTELS (PVT.) LTD. and another\nVs\nAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 100 = 1999 SLD 100 = 1999 PTD 660 = (1997) 225 ITR 611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment - Supreme Court decision as information\nDetails: The reassessment was initiated based on a Supreme Court decision that investment allowance was not allowable for certain machinery and plants.\nHeld: The reassessment was valid, and the decision of the Supreme Court constituted information under section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act.\nCitations: Bhimraj Panna Lal v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 289 (Pat.); Builders Associations of India v. Union of India (1994) 209 ITR 877 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.B. Civil Writ- Petition No.5595 of 1993, decision dated: 22-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.M. Ranka, Senior Advocate with J.K. Ranka for Petitioner. G.S. Bapna for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHANDI RAM\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 101 = 1999 SLD 101 = 1999 PTD 680 = (1997) 225 ITR 548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax—Rectification—Firm—Partner—Voluntary Disclosure—Search and Seizure—Voluntary Disclosure Act, 1976\n•\nDetails: The partners of various firms filed declarations under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, following a search and seizure operation. The Income-tax Officer initially granted deductions based on these declarations but later rectified the order, including the voluntarily disclosed income in the partners' total income. The Commissioner and Tribunal had differing views on the rectification, with the Tribunal finding debatable issues.\n•\nHeld: The Income-tax Officer's rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act was justified as the income disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure Act should be included in the partners' total income. The firm, not being a separate legal entity, means the rectification was necessary.\n•\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 154, 182 & 184; Indian Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, Ss. 3, 8 & 14; Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 28 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.205 to 228 of 1988, 77 to 80 of 1989 and 11 of 1990, decision dated: 20-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P.C. Chacko, Roy Chacko, C. Kochunni Nair, M.A. Firoz, Dale P. Kurien and Madhavan for the Assessees", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGEORGE JACOB and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 102 = 1999 SLD 102 = 1999 PTD 691 = (1997) 225 ITR 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax—Surtax—Computation of Chargeable Profits—Royalty Deduction\n•\nDetails: The assessee claimed a deduction for royalty under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Initially, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim citing the need for approval under section 80-MM of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, but the Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction based on a different interpretation of the surtax rules.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction of royalty while computing the chargeable profits was valid, as the requirement for approval under section 80-MM did not apply in this case.\n•\nCitations: Indian Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, Ss. 11 & 13; Rule 1(ix) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.902 (Reference No.467 of 1983), decision dated: 12-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASIA MATCH CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 103 = 1999 SLD 103 = 1999 PTD 695 = (1997) 225 ITR 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Assessment-Loss-Constitutional validity of provisions-Section 143(lA) amended with retrospective effect- Levy under S.143(1-A)(a)(B) is compensatory in nature-Parliament has power to enact laws with retrospective effect-Section 143(1-A)(a)(B) is valid-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.143(1-A)(a)(B)-Constitution of India, Sched. VII, List I, Entry 82.\n \nEntry 82, List 1, of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to enact the law on income-tax and when Parliament is competent to enact the law prospectively, it can also lay down the law retrospectively.\n \nUnder section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1993, with effect from April 1, 1989, what was being taxed was the difference between the income declared in the return and the income determined as a result of adjustments under section 143(1)(a). But now, the actual reduction in the loss has been directly made taxable at 20 per cent of the tax payable as if such differences were the total income, as additional tax. The incidence of tax is not on the loss. This is a device to check evasion of tax by clever taxpayers. Hence, it is of a compensatory nature. There is no illegality in section 143(1-A)(a)(B) of the Act of 1961.\n \nRai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar (1963) 50 ITR 171 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4337 of 1994, decision dated: 25-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND RAJIV GUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for Petitioners. V.K. Tankha for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "SANCTUS DRUGS PHARMACEUTICALS (PRIVATE) LTD. and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 104 = 1999 SLD 104 = 1999 PTD 700 = (1999) 79 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—Revisional Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner—Capital Investment Inquiry\n•\nDetails: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner exercised revisional powers under section 66-A to revise an assessment order on the grounds that the source of capital investment was not properly probed. The Appellate Tribunal held that the revision was based on surmises and not on valid grounds.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal correctly set aside the revisional order, as there was no error apparent or prejudice caused by the original assessment, and the revision was based on assumptions rather than clear evidence.\n•\nCitations: 1969 PTD (Trib.) 144, 1994 PTD 659 = 203 ITR 108", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.681/LB of 1998, decision dated: 9-10-1998, hearing DATE : 25-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghaffar Hussain for Appellant. Ahmad Kamal, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 105 = 1999 SLD 105 = 1999 PTD 704 = (1999) 79 TAX 25 = 1999 PTCL 718", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—Power of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to Grant Stay of Tax Payment\n•\nDetails: Circular No. 3 of 1997 imposed conditions for granting stay on tax payments, requiring a 30% payment of the demand. The validity of the circular was challenged as being beyond the authority of the Central Board of Revenue (CBR).\n•\nHeld: The CBR Circular No. 3 of 1997 was found to be without lawful authority and had no legal effect. The concerned authority was directed to decide on the stay application without being influenced by the conditions set in the circular.\n•\nCitations: 1993 SCMR 1232", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.21861 of 1998, decision dated: 28-10-1998, hearing DATE : 28-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. Shafqat Mahmood Chauhan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "R.A.C. ASSOCIATES (PVT:) LIMITED through Riaz Ahmad Chowhan, Director\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 106 = 1999 SLD 106 = 1999 PTD 708 = (1999) 79 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax—Business—Income from Interest—Intention to Carry on Business—Deductions\n•\nDetails: The issue arose over whether interest earned from deposits constituted business income or income from other sources. The assessment involved analyzing the intention to carry on business and distinguishing between income from business and interest income.\n•\nHeld: Interest income, where money is not used as stock in trade, is considered income from other sources under section 30 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Deductions related to borrowed capital interest expenditure were governed under section 31(1)(b) for business income, not for interest income.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 22, 30, 31(1)(b), 15, 23(1)(vii), Second Schedule, Part I, Cl. (119), Case law references from 1988 PTD (Trib.) 369, 1996 PTD 11, 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3319", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,30,15,31(1)(b) & SecondSched,PartI,Cl(118D),23(1)(vii)c,31(1)(b) & 23(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2863/KB of 1986-87, 1301/KB, 1302/KB of 1997-98 and 114/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 19-10-1998, hearing DATE : 26-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Moin Khan for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2863/KB of 1986-87). Muhammad Majid, D. R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2863/KB of 1986-87). Muhammad Majid, D. R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1301/KB and 1302/KB of 1997-98). Kh. Mazher-ud-Din Siddiqui for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1301/KB and 1302/KB of 1997-98). Muhammad Majid, D. R. for Appellant (in 1.T.A. No. 114/KB of 1991-92). Tayyabji Adeeb, C. A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 114/KB 1991-92).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 107 = 1999 SLD 107 = 1999 PTD 726 = (1999) 79 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Air Transport Business of Non-Residents\n•\nDetails: The case revolves around the treatment of receipts from non-resident airlines under the Income Tax Ordinance. A non-resident airline running an OFF LINE business declared net receipts after accounting for transportation costs paid to other airlines under a multilateral agreement with IATA. The Assessing Officer taxed the gross receipts declared in Form F.P. submitted to the State Bank of Pakistan. The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that only the airline's actual share of receipts was subject to tax, and amounts paid to other carriers were to be taxed in their hands.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was allowed, establishing that the airline's tax liability should only cover the net receipts.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 80-A and 80-A(1-A); Circular No.26 of 1980, dated 12-10-1980", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80A(1A) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1993/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 21st October, 1998, hearing DATE : 20-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Pasha for Appellant. Ansar Ahmed, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 108 = 1999 SLD 108 = 1999 PTD 736", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Balochistan Local Government Ordinance (II of 1980) - Computation of Octroi on Imported Ships\n•\nDetails: A contractor argued that ad valorem cost for octroi on imported ships should include income tax. However, the High Court found that taxes in the notification referred specifically to import-related taxes, not income tax. Consequently, the court directed the contractor to refund the excess octroi charged by including income tax in the value of imported ships.\n•\nHeld: The High Court's decision required the contractor to refund the excess octroi charged, excluding income tax from the computation of the imported goods' value.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 80-C(4); Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, Section 70 & 137; Notification No.5-182/81 (PLGB) A.O.-IV, dated 8-4-1982", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=70 & 137,80C(4) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.453 and 976 to 982 of 1998, decision dated: 9-10-1998, hearing DATE : 9-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, C.J., MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ashraf Khan Tanoli, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all Petitions). Akhtar Ali Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C. Ps. Nos.976 and 978 of 1998). Malik Sikandar Khan, A.G., Balochistan and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2. Anwar H. Mir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 3 (in all Petitions). Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Dy. A.G. (on Notice).", + "Party Name:": "ZIARAT ENTERPRISES and another\nVs\nAHMED STEEL (PVT.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 109 = 1999 SLD 109 = 1999 PTD 740 = (1997) 225 ITR 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax - Export Markets Development Allowance\n•\nDetails: The case involved a dispute over whether expenses related to the maintenance of a warehouse outside India were deductible under section 35-B of the Indian Income Tax Act. The Tribunal allowed the deduction under the relevant provisions, emphasizing the actual controversy over whether warehouse maintenance expenses were reimbursable and deductible under the act.\n•\nHeld: The High Court reframed the question to determine eligibility for expenses under section 35-B(1)(b)(iv), concluding that expenses towards maintenance of a foreign warehouse were deductible.\n•\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 35-B, 256; C.I.T. v. Sint. Anusuya Devi (1968); C.I.T. v. Assam Frontier Tea Ltd. (1997)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.7 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd August, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. R. Gogoi, H. Roy and S. Saikia for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 110 = 1999 SLD 110 = 1999 PTD 746 = (1997) 225 ITR 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax - Depreciation on Trucks\n•\nDetails: The case focused on whether the assessee, which leased trucks to contractors for exclusive use in its transport operations, was entitled to depreciation under the Indian Income Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee maintained ownership rights under contractual terms, allowing for depreciation claims.\n•\nHeld: The assessee was entitled to depreciation on trucks, as it satisfied the conditions of ownership and use under the act.\n•\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 32; K. L. Johar & Co. v. Deputy C.T.O. (1965); Damodar Valley Corporation v. State of Bihar (1961)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R. C. Nos. 13, 22 and 101 of 1988, decision dated: 5-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R. BAYAPU REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA. P. PAPER MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 111 = 1999 SLD 111 = 1999 PTD 753 = (1997) 225 ITR 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax - Exemption for Charitable Trust\n•\nDetails: An association formed for the benefit of company employees was denied exemption under income tax due to its restricted benefits to specific members. The managing committee retained discretion over benefits, which the court held did not constitute a charitable purpose.\n•\nHeld: The association was not entitled to income tax exemption, as its benefits were not public but private.\n•\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(15), 11; CIT v. Andhra Pradesh Police Welfare Society (1984); Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association v. CIT (1977)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Case No. 129 of 1994, decision dated: 18-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " R. P. SETHI, C.J. AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "E.R. Indrakumar for the Commissioner. K.R. Prasad for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nB.E.L. EMPLOYEES DEATH RELIEF FUND AND SERVICE BENEFIT FUND ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 112 = 1999 SLD 112 = 1999 PTD 765 = (1997) 225 ITR 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax - Transfer of Case for Proper Investigation\n•\nDetails: The case dealt with the transfer of a case involving a political party from Ranchi to Delhi for coordinated investigation by the CBI and compliance with the High Court's monitoring. The transfer was deemed necessary for proper assessment, revenue collection, and effective case handling.\n•\nHeld: The transfer was valid, grounded in public interest and administrative convenience, as it facilitated proper and coordinated investigation.\n•\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 127; Moideen Kunhi (Y.) & Co. v. ITO (1993); Shivajirao Angre v. CIT (1986)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4075 of 1996 (R), decision dated: 21st January, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " NAGENDRA RAI AND S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Moitra and S.K. Dutta for Petitioner. L.N. Rastogi and K.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "JHARKHAND MUKTI MORCHA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 113 = 1999 SLD 113 = 1999 PTD 778 = (1997) 225 ITR 525 = (2001) 83 TAX 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2176\nTopic: Income-tax-Business expenditure-Deduction-Mercantile system of accounting\nDetails: The assessee-firm manufactured welding rods and maintained its accounts on the mercantile system. It obtained welding rods on loan from its sister concern under an agreement to return the same on demand. The assessee made a provision for an additional liability due to the rise in the price of wire rods from the previous year. The Income-tax Officer and Tribunal did not allow the deduction for the additional liability. The assessee argued for the provision's deductibility under the mercantile system of accounting.\nHeld: The Court ruled that the provision was a legitimate business expense under the mercantile accounting system, as it reflected a liability incurred for goods taken on loan, even though the actual expenditure had not occurred. Therefore, the provision for Rs.5,18,237.31 due to the price rise of raw materials was allowable. The Tribunal's decision was overturned.\nCitations: Aruna Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom.); Badridas Daga v. C.I.T. (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC); Keshav Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1953) 23 ITR 230 (SC) and New India Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1993) 203 ITR 933 (Guj.)\nSLD #: 2176\nTopic: Income-tax-Business expenditure-Deduction-Mercantile system of accounting\nDetails: The assessee-firm manufactured welding rods and maintained its accounts on the mercantile system. It obtained welding rods on loan from its sister concern under an agreement to return the same on demand. The assessee made a provision for an additional liability due to the rise in the price of wire rods from the previous year. The Income-tax Officer and Tribunal did not allow the deduction for the additional liability. The assessee argued for the provision's deductibility under the mercantile system of accounting.\nHeld: The Court ruled that the provision was a legitimate business expense under the mercantile accounting system, as it reflected a liability incurred for goods taken on loan, even though the actual expenditure had not occurred. Therefore, the provision for Rs.5,18,237.31 due to the price rise of raw materials was allowable. The Tribunal's decision was overturned.\nCitations: Aruna Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1957) 31 ITR 153 (Bom.); Badridas Daga v. C.I.T. (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC); Keshav Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1953) 23 ITR 230 (SC) and New India Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1993) 203 ITR 933 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.83 of 1983, decision dated: 16-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N., J. PANDYA AND S. D. PANDIT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. P. Shah for the Assessee. M. J. Thakore for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "WELDING RODS MANUFACTURING CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 114 = 1999 SLD 114 = 1999 PTD 784 = (1997) 225 ITR 532", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax-Business expenditure-Obsolescence allowance\nDetails: The assessee claimed a deduction for the cost of a Pan catalyst purchased in 1971, which became obsolete due to changes in the production process. The assessee wrote off the catalyst's cost in the assessment year 1975-76 as an obsolescence allowance, but the Income-tax Officer disallowed it. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, but the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.\nHeld: The Court ruled that the Pan catalyst could only be written off as a loss when it was sold or disposed of. Since it was not sold or disposed of, the deduction was not allowed in the year it was written off. Additionally, the Tribunal was correct in disallowing the claim for depreciation on leasehold land, stating it should not be included in the building's cost.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Alps Theatre (1967) 65 ITR 377 (SC); Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. (No.2) v. C.I.T. (1990) 186 ITR 594 (Bom.) and C.I.T. v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 363 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.4 of 1984, decision dated: 10-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. U. Khatri with J. P. Deodhar instructed by S. G. Shah for the Commissioner. J. D. Mistry instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHEREDILLA CHEMICALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 115 = 1999 SLD 115 = 1999 PTD 789 = (1997) 225 ITR 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax-Business expenditure-Commission and Consultancy fee\nDetails: The assessee-company paid consultancy fees and service charges under an agreement to promote aircraft sales. The payment of Rs.5 lakhs was challenged by the Income-tax Officer as not being for business purposes. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the consultancy fee paid to a director fell under disallowance provisions.\nHeld: The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the Rs.5 lakh consultancy fee was for business purposes, as it was non-refundable and not dependent on sales transactions. The consultancy fee paid to the director was also correctly excluded from disallowance under section 40(c)(i).\nCitations: C.I.T. v. R. M. Investment and Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. (1994) 209 ITR 121 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Referencce No.94 of 1992, decision dated: 9-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " VISHESHWAR NATH KHARE, C.J. AND BARIN GHOSH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. K. Mitra and R. C. Prasad for the Commissioner. R. N. Bajoria, J. P. Khaitan and A.K. Dey for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nR. M. INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 116 = 1999 SLD 116 = 1999 PTD 793 = (1999) 79 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtURlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Manufacturing and Manufacturing Process\nDetails: The assessee, engaged in purchasing LPG cylinders and filling them for sale, claimed exemption under section 118(c) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner ruled that the process of filling cylinders was not considered manufacturing.\nHeld: The Court confirmed the ruling of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner, stating that the process did not qualify as manufacturing, as the raw material (LPG) remained the same after filling the cylinders. Therefore, the exemption under section 118(c) was not applicable.\nCitations: Appeejay Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1995 PTD 813 = 206 ITR 367; C.I.T. v. Hindustan Metal Refining Works (Pvt.) Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 472; Chowgule & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1981) 47 STC 124; Nilgiri Ceylon Tea Supplying Co. v. State of Bombay (1959) 10 STC 500 (Bon.)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,SecondSched.,cl.(118C(2)(d)) ", + "Case #": "I. T.A. No. 1392/LB of 1997, decision dated: 28-04-1997, hearing DATE : 11-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND SIKANDAR KALIM FAZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehman Mir, F.C.A. for Appellant. Muhammad Akram Tahir, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 117 = 1999 SLD 117 = 1999 PTD 811 = (1999) 79 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Minimum tax liability and tax credit\nDetails: The Assessing Officer did not allow the replacement, balancing, and modernization tax credit under section 107 of the Income Tax Ordinance while charging turnover tax under section 80-D. The First Appellate Authority upheld the decision.\nHeld: The Court upheld the decision, noting that the overriding effect of section 80-D prevented any other exemption, concession, or relief, including under section 107. The action of the subordinate officers was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D & 107 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No-6815/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 18-08-1998, hearing DATE : 25-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal Khan, F.C.A. for Appellant. Farooq Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 118 = 1999 SLD 118 = 1999 PTD 816 = (1999) 79 TAX 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioner’s order\nDetails: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner revised the Deputy Commissioner's order under section 66-A, focusing on interest transferred to the assessee's suspense account. The assessee questioned the jurisdiction of the I.A.C. to invoke revision under section 66-A.\nHeld: The Court affirmed the I.A.C.'s authority to revise the order under section 66-A, explaining the difference between sections 65 and 66-A, and that revisional jurisdiction could be exercised if the order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The revision on the interest matter was valid.\nCitations: 1992 PTD 932 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,66A,138 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 111/KB and 112/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 2-11-1998, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SIRAJUL HAQUE MEMON FOR APPELLANT. MRS. SHAISTA ABBAS, D.R. FOR RESPONDENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, Chairman and Muhammad Mahboob Alam, Accountant Member, Sirajul Haque Memon for Appellant. Mrs. Shaista Abbas, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 119 = 1999 SLD 119 = 1999 PTD 825 = (1999) 79 TAX 410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Determination of Public Company Status\n•\nDetails: The assessee was a public limited company with 50% of its shares held by a corporation (Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation), which was fully owned by the government. The company claimed Public Company status for tax purposes, but the Assessing Officer rejected this, stating that partial ownership by a corporation did not equate to government ownership.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal and High Court held that the 50% shareholding by the corporation did not qualify the company as a Public Company under tax law, and thus, it could only be considered a Private Limited Company. \n•\nCitations: Central Board of Revenue v. S.I.T.E. PLD 1985 SC 97; 1973 PTD 499; PLD 1971 SC 585; 1998 PTD (Trib.) 273; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1106 and 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1100; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1435 approved.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=First Schedule,PartIV,paraB(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.23 of 1998, decision dated: 14-10-1998, hearing DATE : 4-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": " AMANULLAH ABBASI AND RAJA QURESHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barrister Kamal Azfar and Mazhar Jafri for Appellant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INDUS STEEL PIPES LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES=II, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 120 = 1999 SLD 120 = 1999 PTD 908 = (1997) 225 ITR 829", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deductibility of Entertainment Expenditure\n•\nDetails: The assessee claimed a deduction for providing coffee to clients during the 1976-77 assessment year. However, the Finance Act of 1983 retrospectively amended the Income Tax Act to disallow such expenditure as entertainment expenditure. \n•\nHeld: The expenditure on providing coffee to clients was not deductible as it fell under the category of entertainment expenditure under section 37(2-A).\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Green Roadways (1985) 154 ITR 639 (Raj.); CIT v. Central Distillery and Breweries Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 45 (Delhi); CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.593 of 1984 (Reference No.519 of 1984), decision dated: 21st March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner, R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKARUR VYSYA BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 121 = 1999 SLD 121 = 1999 PTD 832 = (1997) 225 ITR 517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2184\n•\nTopic: Deduction of Cash Payments Exceeding Rs. 2,500\n•\nDetails: A firm made cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 to a company for printing charges, both being owned by the same individuals. The payment was disallowed under section 40-A(3) despite genuine circumstances.\n•\nHeld: The disallowance was unjustified, as the payment was made under exceptional circumstances, including business exigencies and convenience, where both the firm and company operated from the same premises.\n•\nCitations: Paul Brothers v. C.I.T. (1990) 186 ITR 356 (Gauhati); Shri Mahabir Industries v. C.I.T. (1996) 220 ITR 459 (Gauhati); C.I.T. v. Bijoy Kumar Pandya (1993) 200 ITR 667 (Gauhati).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 26 of 1993, decision dated: 17-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Agarwalla, D.K. Misra and C.T. Jamir for the Assessee. G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "THE JANAMBHUMI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 125 = 1999 SLD 125 = 1999 PTD 839 = (1997) 225 ITR 516", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Special Deduction for New Industrial Undertaking\n•\nDetails: The special deduction under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act was to be calculated on net income after accounting for depreciation and investment allowance.\n•\nHeld: Depreciation and investment allowance must be deducted before calculating the special deduction under section 80HH.\n•\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Vishnu Oil and Dal Mills (1996) 218 ITR 71 (Raj.).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. I.T.R. No.22 of 1992, decision dated: 20-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND B., J. SHETHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAJENDRA TEXTILES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 126 = 1999 SLD 126 = 1999 PTD 841 = (1997) 225 ITR 506", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Penalty and Prosecution in the Absence of Tax Demand\n•\nDetails: A school correspondent was issued a notice for penalty and prosecution under various sections, despite no tax demand or levy being raised against her.\n•\nHeld: The proposed penalty and prosecution were impermissible as no tax demand or assessment had been made.\n•\nCitations: Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. Panchal (J.B.), I.T.O. (1986) 162 ITR 331 (Bom.); Mohnot (N. K.) v. Dy. C.I.T. (1995) 215 ITR 275 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6605 of 1996, decision dated: 4-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. N. RAO AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. R. Sivaswamy for Petitioner. J. V. Prasad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Smt. N. SUSHEELA NAIDU\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 127 = 1999 SLD 127 = 1999 PTD 844 = (1997) 225 ITR 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deductibility of Provision for Purchase Tax\n•\nDetails: The assessee, involved in seafood purchasing, claimed a deduction for purchase tax provisions. Despite pending sales tax assessments, the liability for purchase tax was considered.\n•\nHeld: The provision for purchase tax was an allowable deduction as the liability continued to exist until officially resolved by the sales tax authorities.\n•\nCitations: Abad Fisheries v. C.I.T. (1995) 213 ITR 694 (Ker.); A. L. A. Firm v. C.I.T. (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC); C.I.T. v. Royal Boot House (1970) 75 ITR 507.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. Rs. Nos. 130 to 132 of 1991, decision dated: 10-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BABY MARINE EXPORTS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 128 = 1999 SLD 128 = 1999 PTD 852 = (1997) 225 ITR 640", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Cash Credit and Genuineness Determination\n•\nDetails: The assessee's cash credits were disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, but the Tribunal affirmed the Deputy Commissioner’s decision after verifying the credits.\n•\nHeld: The finding regarding the genuineness of the cash credits was based on factual findings and did not involve a question of law.\n•\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); Rameshchandra v. C.I.T. (1989) 176 ITR 503 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.335 of 1992, decision dated: 22-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nazir Singh for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBARJATIYA CHILDREN TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 129 = 1999 SLD 129 = 1999 PTD 855 = (1997) 225 ITR 642", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction for Writ Petition on Search and Seizure\n•\nDetails: A writ petition was filed in the Guwahati High Court challenging the legality of a search conducted in Delhi.\n•\nHeld: The writ petition was dismissed as no part of the cause of action arose within Guwahati’s jurisdiction.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 1805 of 1995, decision dated: 6-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Gogoi, S. Mitra, R. Goenka and A. Dutta for Petitioners. G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "JAGDISH PRASAD SARAOGI and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 130 = 1999 SLD 130 = 1999 PTD 860 = (1997) 225 ITR 648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business expenditure, Bad debt, Bonus\nDetails: The assessee paid a recoverable bonus under an agreement with employees in 1971, but by a 1973 Board resolution, it was decided not to recover the amount. The assessee claimed this as a deduction in the 1974-75 assessment year, asserting that it was a loan which was written off. The Tribunal accepted this, but there was no evidence to support the claim.\nHeld: The Tribunal's view was incorrect. No evidence showed the sum was a loan, and the payment was not an allowable business loss or expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 36(1)(ii), (2), 37", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1080 and Reference No. 361 of 1980, decision dated: 5-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nWHEEL AND RIM CO. OF INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 131 = 1999 SLD 131 = 1999 PTD 864 = (1997) 225 ITR 654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Loss carry forward, Return filing, Late filing\nDetails: The assessee filed a return showing a loss but not within the time prescribed under section 139(1). The Assessing Officer denied the carry forward of the loss, but the Tribunal held the assessee entitled to carry it forward.\nHeld: The Tribunal was justified in allowing the carry forward of the loss, as previous rulings had concluded that a belated return did not bar the carry forward of losses. No question of law arose.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 139(1), 256(2)\nCases Cited: C.I.T. v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. (1970), Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1983)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.338 of 1992, decision dated: 22-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nazir Singh for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDEVSHREE VIPANAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 132 = 1999 SLD 132 = 1999 PTD 866 = (1997) 225 ITR 665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Acquisition of immovable property, Fair market value\nDetails: Proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act were initiated based on a transfer where the fair market value was less than the apparent consideration by 15%. The property was encumbered and involved a dispute over ownership.\nHeld: The proceedings were not valid as the competent authority failed to consider relevant factors like the encumbrance and the dispute over ownership. The Circular No. 455 (1986) applied.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 269-C\nCases Cited: Ashis Mukerji v. Union of India (1996), C.I.T. v. Rattan Chand Sood (1987), Kighore (K. V.) v. Appropriate Authority (1991)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeals from Appellate Order (M. A. Nos.) 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287 and 288 of 1980, decision dated: 30-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. WADHWA, C.J. AND S., J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "L. N. Rastogi and S. K. Sharan for Appellants. Raj Kishore Prasad, Tej Bahadur Roy and Sint. Amita Roy Choudhary for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMPETENT AUTHORITY (ACQUISITION)\nVs\nSmt. LALITA TODI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 133 = 1999 SLD 133 = 1999 PTD 875", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for concealment of income\nDetails: The assessee had discrepancies in stock records and claimed that part of the stock belonged to a third party, S. The explanation was unsupported by evidence. The Assessing Officer added the undisclosed income to the assessee’s total income and imposed a penalty for concealment.\nHeld: The penalty was valid as the assessee's explanation lacked credible evidence. The levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271(1)(c), Explanation (B)\nCase Cited: CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan (1990)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.49 of 1983, decision dated: 6-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. BALI AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney for the Commissioner. A.C. Jain for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLAL CHAND TIRATH RAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 134 = 1999 SLD 134 = 1999 PTD 883 = (1997) 225 ITR 686", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable trust, Business income exemption\nDetails: The assessee, a charitable trust, conducted Kuries (chit funds) and claimed exemption under section 11(1) for income from the business. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption due to the insertion of section 11(4-A).\nHeld: Income from the Kury business, held in trust, was exempt from tax under section 11(1) and was not governed by section 11(4-A).\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(15), 11(1), (4-A)\nCases Cited: CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (1974), CIT v. Krishna Warriar (1962)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.42 of 1994, decision dated: 10-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K.K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P.G.K. Wariyar and M.K. Kesavan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHARMODAYAM CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 135 = 1999 SLD 135 = 1999 PTD 889 = (1997) 225 ITR 693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Firm registration, Delay in filing\nDetails: The partnership firm applied for registration after the death of a partner, citing a delay due to the widow's custom of confinement. The delay was beyond the prescribed time, and the Income-tax Officer denied registration.\nHeld: The delay was due to reasonable cause, and the delay in filing the application for registration was condoned.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 184(4), 184(5)\nCases Cited: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987), Ramamohan Motor Service v. CIT (1979)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 168 of 1983, decision dated: 12-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N.J. PANDYA AND S.D. PANDIT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.A. Mehta, R.K. Patel and B.D. Karia for K.C. Patel for the Assessee. Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "SANJAY CONSTRUCTION CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 136 = 1999 SLD 136 = 1999 PTD 902 = (1997) 225 ITR 725", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Acquisition of immovable property, Circular No. 455\nDetails: Acquisition proceedings were initiated despite the apparent consideration being less than Rs. 5 lakhs, which was contrary to the provisions of Circular No. 455.\nHeld: The Circular applied to such proceedings, and the acquisition proceedings should have been dropped.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 269-C, 269-D\nCases Cited: CIT v. Gobind Ram (1996), CIT v. Export India Corporation (P.) Ltd. (1996)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No.7 of 1980, decision dated: 18-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " G.S. SINGHVI AND B. RAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Mahajan and Ms. Aparna Mahajan for Appellant. D.S. Nehra, Senior Advocate instructed by Arun Nehra for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos.7, 8 and 9 of 1980),\nNemo for Respondents (in other Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGURSHER SINGH and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 137 = 1999 SLD 137 = 1999 PTD 904 = (1997) 225 ITR 786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business expenditure, Capital vs Revenue\nDetails: The assessee, running a hotel, claimed a deduction for the tax paid under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, but it was disallowed.\nHeld: The Kerala Building Tax was a one-time payment on completion of the building, making it a capital expenditure and not deductible under section 30 or 37 of the Income Tax Act.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 30, 37, Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.52 of 1990, decision dated: 4-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MICHAEL JOSEPH & COMPANY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 138 = 1999 SLD 138 = 1999 PTD 917 = (1997) 225 ITR 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax Exemptions, Stock Exchange, and Charitable Institution Continuance\nDetails: The Ahmedabad Stock Exchange applied for the continuance of its exemption under section 10(23-C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Central Board of Direct Taxes rejected the application, stating the exemption applied under section 10(23-A) instead. The Board later deleted the reasoning in its order and the application was rejected again.\nHeld: The Court directed the petitioner to apply afresh for exemption under section 10(23-A), emphasizing that the Central Government must exercise discretion with due consideration to the provisions of the Act.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.10(23-A), S.10(23-C)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.348 of 1984, decision dated: 12-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " T. S. DOABIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "ACME FABRIK PLAST CO\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 139 = 1999 SLD 139 = 1999 PTD 920 = (1997) 225 ITR 761", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtUTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax Exemptions, Stock Exchange, and Charitable Institution Continuance\nDetails: The Ahmedabad Stock Exchange applied for the continuance of its exemption under section 10(23-C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Central Board of Direct Taxes rejected the application, stating the exemption applied under section 10(23-A) instead. The Board later deleted the reasoning in its order and the application was rejected again.\nHeld: The Court directed the petitioner to apply afresh for exemption under section 10(23-A), emphasizing that the Central Government must exercise discretion with due consideration to the provisions of the Act.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.10(23-A), S.10(23-C)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.2164 of 1996, decision dated: 9-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.H. Kaji for Petitioner. Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "STOCK EXCHANGE\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 140 = 1999 SLD 140 = 1999 PTD 924 = (1997) 225 ITR 790", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax Reference, Capital vs Revenue Expenditure\nDetails: The issue concerned whether the registration fee paid by a company for increasing its authorized share capital is a capital or revenue expenditure. While the High Court had previously ruled in favor of the assessee, differing views from other High Courts and the grant of special leave by the Supreme Court warranted a reference.\nHeld: The question of whether the registration fee is capital or revenue expenditure must be referred to the Supreme Court.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No.393 of 1995, decision dated: 24-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. C.N. Ramachandran Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nFERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 141 = 1999 SLD 141 = 1999 PTD 926 = (1997) 225 ITR 766", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax Total Income, Inclusions, and Minor's Income from Partnership\nDetails: The case dealt with whether income arising from the admission of a minor to a partnership should be included in the total income of the parent. The amendment to section 64 in 1976 changed the tax treatment of such income.\nHeld: For assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the minor's income was not included in the parent's total income, but for the assessment year 1977-78, it was.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.64", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.59 to 61 (References Nos.27 to 29 of 1984), decision dated: 7-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. NALLAKAMU CHETTIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 143 = 1999 SLD 143 = 1999 PTD 929 = (1997) 225 ITR 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax Capital vs Revenue Expenditure, Fees for Increase in Share Capital\nDetails: The question was whether fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increasing authorized share capital were capital expenditures. The fees were not deductible under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld: Fees paid for increasing the authorized share capital are capital expenditures and cannot be deducted as business expenses.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.70 of 1992, decision dated: 15th Apri1, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM.P. AUDHYOGIK VIKAS NIGAM LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 144 = 1999 SLD 144 = 1999 PTD 2369 = (1997) 227 ITR 931", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax Business Expenditure, Bonus and Commercial Expenditures\nDetails: The issue involved whether a provision for bonus made under an agreement could be deducted and whether non-lifting commissions paid to distributors were deductible.\nHeld: The provision for bonus made for business considerations was allowable in the assessment year 1974-75. Payments made to distributors for commercial considerations, including non-lifting commissions, were deductible.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.36(1)(ii)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Reference No.43 of 1985, decision dated: 1st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND M.A. A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. S. Gupta for G. S. Rapna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPREMIER VEGETABLE PRODUCTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 145 = 1999 SLD 145 = 1999 PTD 933 = (1997) 225 ITR 778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax Reference, Business Expenditure, Gifts to Dealers\nDetails: The issue was whether expenditure on gifts (watches) given to dealers at a sales conference was deductible. The Revenue disallowed the expenditure but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.\nHeld: The Tribunal's finding that the expenditure was for maintaining good relations rather than advertisement was a finding of fact. No question of law arose, and the reference was not allowed.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37(3-A), 256(2); Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, R.6-B(3)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference Application No.25 of 1996, decision dated: 17-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND, J. C. VERMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAYURVED SEWA ASHRAM LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 146 = 1999 SLD 146 = 1999 PTD 936 = (1997) 225 ITR 360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax Reference, Business Expenditure, Capitalization of Expenses\nDetails: The assessee claimed a portion of the expenses for setting up a cement plant as revenue expenditure, while capitalizing others. The Tribunal treated all expenses as revenue expenditure.\nHeld: Whether the capitalized expenses of Rs.54,09,885 were rightly treated as revenue expenditure is a question of law to be referred.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.29 of 1993, decision dated: 4-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. WADHWA AND DR. M. K. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Rajendra and D. N. Malhotra for Petitioner. P.N. Monga and Lalit Behl for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJ.K. SYNTHETICS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 147 = 1999 SLD 147 = 1999 PTD 939 = (1998) 232 ITR 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Advance Tax - Interest\nDetails:\nThis case involves the question of whether the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the period from April 1, 1970, to August 31, 1978, following the set-aside of the original assessments. The original assessments had been completed on December 28, 1970, and the subsequent order for reassessment was passed on August 31, 1978. The Department initially denied the assessee's claim for interest from the date of the original assessment till the completion of the reassessment, despite the regular assessment being made in 1970. The High Court refused to refer the issue for adjudication, but the Supreme Court granted leave, treated the matter as referred, and ruled in favor of the Department. The Supreme Court concluded that the assessee was entitled to interest only up to the date of the original assessment.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court concluded that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 214 only up to the date of the original assessment, not for the extended period after reassessment.\nCitations: Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4683 of 1997 and S.L.P. (Civil) No.14332 of 1986, decision dated: 15-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. SEN AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "\"\"Ranvir Chandra, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nT.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with him) for Respondent\"\"", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAMALGAMATIONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 148 = 1999 SLD 148 = 1999 PTD 950 = (1998) 232 ITR 316 = (1999) 79 TAX 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Capital or Revenue Expenditure\nDetails:\nThe assessee entered into an agreement with a foreign company granting it an exclusive license to use patents and designs in India for a period of 10 years, with an option to extend or renew the agreement. As per the agreement, the foreign company undertook not to surrender its patents without consent and provided the assessee with any modifications or improvements to the patents. The assessee also had the right to defend counterfeiting of the patents. The dispute arose on whether the payment made under the agreement was capital or revenue expenditure. The High Court ruled that the payment was a license fee, which was a revenue expenditure, as the agreement provided the assessee with an exclusive license, not an acquisition of a capital asset. On appeal by the Department to the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the decision of the High Court.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's ruling that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was revenue in nature, not capital expenditure, and that payments for a license to use patents and designs were deductible as revenue expenditure.\nCitations: CIT v. IAEC (Pumps) Ltd. (1977) 110 ITR 353 affirmed; CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2334 to 2336 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Ms. Renu George and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nI.A.E.C. (PUMPS) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 149 = 1999 SLD 149 = 1999 PTD 952 = (1998) 232 ITR 709", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Development Rebate\nDetails:\nThe issue in this case was whether pontoons and tugs qualify as ships under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus are entitled to the higher rate of development rebate (40%) instead of the standard rate (25%). The appellant contended that pontoons, being flat-bottomed boats used as ferry boats, should fall within the expanded definition of ship. The Court looked at the broader description of ships under the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and found that ships included tugs and other similar vessels used mainly for dredging and inland water transport. The Supreme Court noted that, although pontoons were not explicitly listed as ships, they fell within the expanded definition due to their use as vessels operating on inland waters. The Court ruled that pontoons, like tugs, should be considered ships and therefore eligible for the higher development rebate.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the view that pontoons and tugs are ships and entitled to the higher development rebate under Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: CIT v. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 253 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2830 of 1992, decision dated: 16-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (Harish Chander, C.R. Iyer and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant, O. P. Gaggar, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDIGVIJAY CEMENT CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 150 = 1999 SLD 150 = 1999 PTD 963 = (1998) 232 ITR 350 = (1999) 79 TAX 469", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Special Deduction\nDetails:\nIn this case, the assessee had invested in shares, both in industrial and non-industrial companies, and had borrowed funds for the same. The assessee received dividends of Rs. 62,160 on the shares, of which Rs. 18,516 was from industrial companies. The interest on the borrowed funds amounted to Rs. 55,197. The Income-tax Officer had allowed a deduction of Rs. 18,516 under section 80-K of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for dividends from industrial companies but disallowed Rs. 51,162 from the interest payment. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the interest should be allowed as a deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act, as it related to earning dividend income. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, and the issue was referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the deduction under section 80-K should be calculated after deducting the interest from the dividend income.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court ruled that interest paid on borrowed funds for investments in shares should first be deducted from the dividend income, and only the remaining dividend amount would qualify for the deduction under Section 80-K.\nCitations: Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 243 (SC); Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5753 of 1983, decision dated: 26-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. A. Subhashini C. Radha Krishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nG.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (K.B. Rohtagi and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Advocates, with him) for Respondent\"\"", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSWARAN SINGH KANWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 151 = 1999 SLD 151 = 1999 PTD 972 = (1998) 232 ITR 2 = (1999) 79 TAX 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Accrual of Income\nDetails:\nThis case involved the determination of mesne profits in a suit filed by the assessee for specific performance of an agreement to purchase a factory from a vendor. The Supreme Court in its decree in 1958 had granted the appellant the right to specific performance and directed the trial court to ascertain the mesne profits. The trial court quantified the mesne profits at Rs. 57,093 by an order dated December 22, 1962. The amount was received by the appellant in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65. The Income-tax Officer had assessed the mesne profits in the assessment year 1963-64. The Tribunal, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the High Court all upheld the taxability of the mesne profits in the year 1963-64, arguing that the right to receive the profits was established only when the trial court determined the amount in 1962. The issue was taken up by the Supreme Court, which concluded that mesne profits were assessable in the year the liability was ascertained (1962), and not in the year the amount was received.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and ruled that the mesne profits were rightly taxed in the assessment year 1963-64 when they became due, not in the year they were received.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Mariappa Gounder (P.) (1984) 147 ITR 676 (SC); Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin and Sons v. C.I.T. (1969) 74 ITR 651 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4582 and 4583 of 1984, decision dated: 21st January, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Balakrishnan and M.K.D. Namboodri, Advocates for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "P. MARIAPPA GOUNDER\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 152 = 1999 SLD 152 = 1999 PTD 977 = (1998) 232 ITR 864", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax & Wealth Tax - Reassessment\nDetails:\nThis case dealt with the validity of reassessments under both the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act based on information provided by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC). The assessee had previously declared the interest accrued on cross gifts made by the Kartas of their respective Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs). The Assessing Officer had originally concluded that the interest was not taxable under either Act. However, based on the interpretation of law by the IAC, the assessments were reopened. The Tribunal ruled that the interpretation of law by the IAC did not constitute information for the purpose of reassessment under sections 147(b) of the Income Tax Act and section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, thereby rendering the reassessment invalid. The High Court concurred with this view, confirming that a mere interpretation of the law by the IAC was not sufficient grounds for reassessment.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the reassessments were invalid because the IAC's interpretation of law did not qualify as information under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax and Wealth Tax Acts.\nCitations: Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.Cs. Nos.857 to 863 of 1983 (References Nos.432 to 438 of 1982), decision dated: 18-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S.M. SIDDICK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. N. Devandhan for the Assessee (in T.Cs. Nos.857 and 858 of 1983). Philip George for the Assessee (in T.Cs. Nos.859 to 863 of 1983)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nVs\nS. MUTHUKUMARASAMY UDAYAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 153 = 1999 SLD 153 = 1999 PTD 1012 = (1997) 226 ITR 242 = (1999) 79 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Capital or Revenue Expenditure\nDetails:\nFor the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee, an authorized dealer of Godrej Products, sought to claim a deduction of Rs. 42,000 for expenses incurred on renovating a rented showroom. The Income-tax Officer initially held that the expenditure was of a capital nature, but the Tribunal disagreed, ruling that it was a revenue expenditure. The matter was referred to the High Court, which held that the renovation expenses were of a revenue nature, as there was no evidence to show that they would qualify under Section 32(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with capital expenditures for renovations. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court affirmed that the expenditure on renovation was a revenue expense and was deductible, as there was no finding that it was a capital expenditure subject to Section 32(1-A).\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 32(1-A) & 37", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.6 of 1986, decision dated: 25-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. WADHWA, C.J. AND S., J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "L. N. Rastogi and S. K. Sharan for the Commissioner. K. N. Jain and Miss Dr. R. Jha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHARAT COMMERCIAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 154 = 1999 SLD 154 = 1999 PTD 1014 = (1997) 226 ITR 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business – Previous Year – Firm – Dissolution and Formation of New Firm\nDetails:\nA firm was engaged in two businesses: paper and stationery, until the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70. The firm dissolved on March 31, 1969, and a new firm (the assessee) was formed starting from April 1, 1969. The new firm took over the paper business, while another firm took over the stationery business. The assessee adopted the accounting year ending on September 30, 1969, but the Income-tax Officer insisted that the firm should prepare its trading and profit and loss account up to March 31, 1970, following the financial year used by the dissolved firm. The Tribunal held that the paper business was a newly set-up business, separate from the old business, and the new firm was entitled to adopt a different accounting year.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal’s decision was upheld. The paper business carried on by the new firm was considered a new business, and the assessee was entitled to adopt a previous year different from that of the dissolved firm under Section 3(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Bharat Builders and Engineers (1982) 29 CTR 267 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.65 of 1979, decision dated: 6-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta for the Commissioner. O.P. Dua for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGHASITA MAL MELA RAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 155 = 1999 SLD 155 = 1999 PTD 1018 = (1997) 226 ITR 235 = (1999) 79 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2214\nTopic: Income-tax – Appeal to Appellate Tribunal – Additional Evidence – Reference\nDetails:\nThe Tribunal was tasked with considering an appeal where the assessee had claimed there were no unexplained investments in the relevant financial year. The Income-tax Officer had sought to make additions based on alleged unexplained investments. The Tribunal found no unexplained investment for the relevant period and deleted the addition. The Department sought a reference, claiming that the Tribunal had erroneously rejected additional evidence. The Tribunal, however, had based its decision on the facts already available in the assessment proceedings and did not admit new evidence.\nHeld:\nThe High Court ruled that there was no need for a reference under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act, as the Tribunal’s findings were factual and no question of law arose. The correctness of the facts was not disputed, and the Tribunal’s decision was justified.\nCitations: Sections 69 & 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.242 of 1995, decision dated: 7-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHREE RAM JAISWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 156 = 1999 SLD 156 = 1999 PTD 1021 = (1997) 226 ITR 230 = (1999) 79 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Capital or Revenue Expenditure – Replacement of False Ceiling\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a public limited company manufacturing cotton yarn, incurred expenditure replacing a false ceiling made of hardboard with asbestos sheets in the assessment year 1977-78. The Department argued that the expenditure was of a capital nature, as the asbestos sheets had a longer lifespan and would provide enduring benefits. The Tribunal, however, treated the expenditure as revenue in nature, as the replacement did not create a new asset or provide a significant enduring benefit to the business.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the expenditure on replacing the false ceiling was revenue in nature, as it did not create a new asset or enduring benefit. The expenditure was allowable as a revenue expense under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. B.V. Ramachandrappa & Sons (1991) 191 ITR 34 (Kar.); C.I.T. v. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1516 (Reference No.1105 of 1984), decision dated: 1st August, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAWAHAR MILLS LTD. (No.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 157 = 1999 SLD 157 = 1999 PTD 1026 = (1997) 226 ITR 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Penalty – Concealment of Income\nDetails:\nIn the assessment for the year 1984-85, the assessee was initially assessed on Rs. 84,474. A search revealed unaccounted on money income. The assessee later agreed to add Rs. 12,196 in its return. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c), but the Tribunal cancelled the penalty, concluding there was no concealment. The Department sought a reference under Section 256.\nHeld:\nThe High Court dismissed the reference application, affirming the Tribunal’s finding that there was no concealment. The addition made by the assessee was voluntary, and the penalty was unjustified. The case presented factual findings, not a question of law.\nCitations: Sections 256 & 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Reference No.28 of 1996, decision dated: 26-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND, J. C. VERMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSANT DAS NIHAL CHAND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 158 = 1999 SLD 158 = 1999 PTD 1029 = (1997) 226 ITR 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Exemptions – Charitable Trust – Use of Trust Property\nDetails:\nA public charitable trust purchased a refrigerator before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the residence of the managing trustee. The Income-tax Officer denied the exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the refrigerator was used for the benefit of a prohibited person (the managing trustee) under Section 13(2)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, stating that the refrigerator, though purchased for the trust, was used by the trustee without adequate compensation, thus violating the provisions for exemption.\nHeld:\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, confirming that the refrigerator was used for the benefit of a prohibited person, and thus the trust was not entitled to exemption under Section 11. The term property includes both movable and immovable property, and the trust’s actions violated Section 13(2)(b).\nCitations: Sections 11 & 13(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.24 of 1992, decision dated: 8-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran and George George K. for the Assessee. P. K. R. Menon forthe Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "AGAPPA CHILD CENTRE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 159 = 1999 SLD 159 = 1999 PTD 1037 = (1997) 226 ITR 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Income-tax — Business income — Income from property\nDetails: The assessee, a company engaged in selling Tata diesel vehicles, owned a building used for its business on Mount Road, Madras. The ground and first floors were used for business, while the second floor was rented to a Government Department after the company shifted some operations outside Madras. The Income-tax Officer classified the rental income from the second floor as income from house property, but the Tribunal ruled it as business income.\nHeld: The building was a commercial asset used initially for business purposes, and its later rental income after the company's expansion was correctly treated as business income, not property income.\nCitations: C.E.P.T. v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC)\nTopic (b): Income-tax — Business expenditure — Commission\nDetails: The assessee paid commission to a firm for services, despite a director of the assessee company being a partner in the firm. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the commission, but the Tribunal allowed it, referencing past years where commission payments were accepted.\nHeld: The Tribunal's decision to allow the commission as a business expense was upheld, and the Court would not interfere with its factual findings.\nCitations: East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC); O. Rm. SV. Firm v. C.I.T. (1960) 39 ITR 327 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.991 and 992 (References Nos.887 and 888 of 1984), decision dated: 24-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nV. S. T. MOTORS (P.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 160 = 1999 SLD 160 = 1999 PTD 1069 = (1999) 79 TAX 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Income Tax Rules, 1982 — Power of Receiver — Sealing of premises\nDetails: A Receiver, appointed under the Income Tax Rules, 1982, sealed the assessee’s premises, but the Court ruled that while the Receiver could take control of the business, he did not have the authority to seal the premises.\nHeld: The sealing of the premises by the Receiver was not valid.\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199\nTopic (b): Income Tax Rules, 1982 — Threat of arrest\nDetails: The Receiver threatened the assessee with arrest, but the High Court ruled that no unlawful harassment or threats of arrest could be made, and directed the Receiver to deseal the premises.\nHeld: The threat of arrest was unlawful, and the Receiver was directed to deseal the premises.\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.160 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17533 of 1998, decision dated: 1st September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioners. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JAVED AVIATION SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director and another\nVs\nSPECIAL OFFICER, COMPANIES, CIRCLE 06, COMPANIES Zone-II, MAIN MARKET, GULBERG, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 161 = 1999 SLD 161 = 1999 PTD 1070 = (1999) 79 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Punjab Finance Act, 1977 — Provincial taxes\nDetails: The issue was whether a tax on professions, trades, callings, and employments imposed by the Punjab Finance Act, 1977, could legally be considered an income tax, which is under the federal jurisdiction. The Court ruled that such provincial taxes could be levied but were not considered income tax.\nHeld: The provincial tax could be levied on professions but was not classified as income tax, even though it may function similarly.\nCitations: B.K. Bhander v. Dhaman Gaon Municipality AIR 1966 SC 249\nTopic (b): Punjab Finance Act, 1977 — Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941\nDetails: The Provincial Assembly could not levy a tax on professions beyond Rs.50, as fixed by the Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941.\nHeld: The Punjab Finance Act, 1977, could not impose a tax exceeding Rs.50 on professions.\nCitations: Excise and Taxation Officer, Karachi v. Burmah Shell Storage and Distribution Company of Pakistan Limited 1993 SCMR 338\nTopic (c): Punjab Finance Act, 1977 — Tax on professions\nDetails: The Court ruled that the taxable event for professions taxes is being in the trade, and tax rates must be based on this fact rather than income. The Court held that taxes beyond Rs.50 or based on income tax were illegal.\nHeld: The tax on professions could not exceed Rs.50, and income-based taxation was illegal.\nCitations: Excise and Taxation Officer, Karachi v. Burmah Shell Storage and Distribution Company of Pakistan Limited 1993 SCMR 338", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Finance Act, 1977=3 & SecondSched Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=163,FourthSched ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.20056 of 1997, heard on 2-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz R. Siddiqui for Petitioner. H. Ghulam Haider Alghazali, Addl. A.G. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SIEMEN PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED\nVs\nTHE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Punjab, Provincial Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 162 = 1999 SLD 162 = 1999 PTD 1173 = (1999) 79 TAX 428", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Finance Act, 1978 — Export rebate\nDetails: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether export rebates under S. 3(4)(a) of the Finance Act, 1978, applied to both registered firms and their partners.\nHeld: The case concerned the entitlement to export rebate and whether it applied to both firms and partners, with the outcome dependent on the specific provisions of the Finance Act, 1978.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income tax v. Indo Marine Agencies (1973) 87 ITR 41\nTopic (b): Interpretation of statutes — Proviso to a section\nDetails: The Court discussed the role of a proviso, explaining that it only carves out exceptions from the enacting section without overriding the main provision.\nHeld: A proviso cannot exclude what is clearly covered by the enacting part of the statute.\nTopic (c): Finance Act, 1978 — Export rebate for registered firms and partners\nDetails: The Court ruled that both the registered firm and its partners are entitled to export rebate on super-tax and income-tax, as per the provisions of S. 3(4)(a) of the Finance Act, 1978.\nHeld: Both the firm and its partners were eligible for export rebates on taxes paid.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1978=3(4)(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.959 of 1993 and 321 of 1994, decision dated: 30-11-1998, hearing DATE : 11-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SAIDDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNASIR ALI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 163 = 2000 SLD 163 = 2000 PTD 1962 = (1999) 235 ITR 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Notice under S.148\nDetails: The Assessing Officer issued multiple notices under S.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while assessments were pending. The Court ruled that no further notices could be issued once assessments or reassessments were already in progress.\nHeld: The second notice was invalid as assessments for the years 1986-87 and 1988-89 were still pending when it was issued.\nCitations: Ashok Kumar Dixit v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR 669 (All.); CIT v. Adinarayana Murthy (K.) (1967) 65 ITR 607 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 17555 of 1997-M, decision dated: 28-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " G. SIVARAJAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.G.K. Warrier and P. Balakrishnan for Petitioners, N.R.K. Nair and P.K.R. Menon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Smt. NILOFER HAMEED and another\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 164 = 1999 SLD 164 = 1999 PTD 1188 = (1997) 226 ITR 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Capital gains and Amalgamation of companies\nDetails:\n•\nThe case concerns the interpretation of transfer in the context of an amalgamation of companies.\n•\nThe order of the court sanctioned the amalgamation, and shareholders were allotted shares in the amalgamated company.\n•\nThe question was whether this allotment constituted a transfer under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the computation of capital gains when the shares were sold seven years later.\n•\nThe court ruled that the allotment of shares during the amalgamation did not amount to a transfer, and the sale of shares after seven years should be taxed based on the original face value of the shares.\nHeld:\n•\nThe court held that there was no transfer under section 47 of the Income Tax Act during the amalgamation as the transaction was conducted pursuant to a court order.\n•\nThe shares were considered to have been acquired at their face value, and the capital gains were calculated based on that value when they were sold.\n•\nThe Tribunal's view that the shares' original cost of Rs.100 should be used, rather than calculating based on their reduced value of Rs.7.50, was upheld.\nCitations:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(47), 45, 47, 49", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 269 to 277 of 1985, decision dated: 3rd June, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MUHAMMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair and M.C. Madhavan for the Assessees. P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. GRACE COLLIS and others\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 165 = 1999 SLD 165 = 1999 PTD 1211 = (1998) 233 ITR 166 = (1999) 79 TAX 526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Salary of foreign technician\nDetails:\n•\nThe issue was whether the salary of a foreign technician paid by a foreign company for services rendered in India was taxable in India under section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the salary was paid by a foreign company, not an Indian company, during the relevant years (1973-74 and 1976-77).\nHeld:\n•\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that since the salary was paid by a foreign company and not by an Indian company, it did not arise in India, and hence was not subject to tax in India.\nCitations:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 9(1)(ii)\nC.I.T. v. S. R. Patton (1992) 193 ITR 451 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.307 of 1993, decision dated: 16-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. L. Vishwanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (T. C. Sharma and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant. C. N. Sree Kumar, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS. R. PATTON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 166 = 1999 SLD 166 = 1999 PTD 1212 = (1998) 233 ITR 50 = (1999) 79 TAX 516", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2225\nTopic: Income-tax - Depreciation and Advance tax\nDetails:\n•\nThe case concerned the computation of depreciation for a company maintaining accounts in foreign currency and its obligation to compute the written-down value (WDV) in rupees.\n•\nIt also dealt with the determination of the regular assessment date for the calculation of interest on advance tax under section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld:\n1.\nFor purposes of depreciation and other related calculations, the WDV of assets should be computed in Indian rupees, regardless of the currency in which the company maintains its accounts.\n2.\nThe first order of assessment under section 143 or 144 is the regular assessment, and subsequent orders are considered assessments made in consequence of a higher authority's direction.\nCitations:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 32, 41, 214\nModi Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC)\nCalcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1989) 179 ITR 580", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 16682 of 1996, decision dated: 16-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. SEN AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Mathur, Advocate for Appellant. K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad and N. K. Agarwal, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CESC LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 167 = 1999 SLD 167 = 1999 PTD 1218 = (1998) 233 ITR 53 = (1999) 79 TAX 519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Charitable Trust and Exemption\nDetails:\n•\nThe case involved a registered public trust that had received voluntary contributions but did not apply them exclusively for charitable or religious purposes, impacting its eligibility for exemptions under section 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nThe income of the trust, including voluntary contributions, was scrutinized to determine if it qualified for exemption.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Supreme Court upheld the finding that the voluntary contributions were not applied solely for religious or charitable purposes, and therefore the trust was not entitled to exemption under section 12(1).\nCitations:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 11, 12\nC.B.T. Circular No. 20/10/67-IT(AI), dated 1-5-1967\nR.B. Shreeram Religious and Charitable Trust v. C.I.T. (1988) 172 ITR 373\nC.I.T. v. Billeswara Charitable Trust (1984) 145 ITR 29 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1761 of 1987, decision dated: 16-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ganesh, Ms. Bina Gupta and Ms. Rakhi Ray, Advocates for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Dhruv Mehta and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "R. B. SHREERAM RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 168 = 1999 SLD 168 = 1999 PTD 1234 = (1998) 233 ITR 282 = (1999) 79 TAX 538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Capital or revenue expenditure—General principles\nConclusion: Expenditure on constructing a new building by the assessee, although at its own expense, was considered revenue expenditure. The assessee did not acquire a capital asset but obtained a business advantage in the form of reduced rent for the new building. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling that the expenditure was deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee, a company selling motor parts, leased premises for 39 years.\n•\nThe lease allowed the lessee to demolish existing premises and construct new buildings at its own cost.\n•\nThe new building was owned by the lessor, and the assessee only had a right to occupy it at a low rent.\n•\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the amount spent on construction was a business expense, not a capital investment.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Madras Auto Service Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 740 affirmed.\n•\nReferences: Assam-Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC); Atherton v. British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd. (1925) 10 TC 155 (HL).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.6066, 6067 and 6068 of 1983, decision dated: 12-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, Advocate for B. K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Appellant\nT. A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran and Ms. H. Wahi, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMADRAS AUTO SERVICE (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 169 = 1999 SLD 169 = 1999 PTD 1245 = (1998) 233 ITR 282 = (1999) 79 TAX 528", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Cooperative society—Special deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i)\nConclusion: A cooperative society engaged in banking business is entitled to a special deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) on interest income from government securities and dividends on shares of the Industrial Finance Corporation, as the interest income was attributable to its business. The Tribunal’s findings were upheld by the Supreme Court.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee was a cooperative society carrying on banking business.\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, stating that the investments were made out of reserves.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the interest income was directly linked to the business of the cooperative.\n•\nThe Supreme Court agreed, ruling in favor of the assessee’s entitlement to the special deduction.\nCitations:\n•\nMadhya Pradesh Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. C.T. (Addl.) (1996) 218 ITR 438 (SC) distinguished.\n•\nReferences: Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1960) 39 ITR 114 (SC); Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1300, 1301 and 1302 of 1993, decision dated: 24-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. SRINIVASAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Hemant Sharma and N.D.B. Raju, Advocate for B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant, G. Sarangan, Senior Advocate (Ms. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nANGALORE DISTRICT COOPERATIVECENTRAL BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 170 = 1999 SLD 170 = 1999 PTD 1252 = (1998) 233 ITR 203 = (1999) 79 TAX 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Bad debt—When debt becomes bad\nConclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Kerala High Court’s decision that the amount written off by the assessee could not be considered a bad debt for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The point of when a debt becomes bad is a factual matter for determination.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee claimed a deduction for an amount written off as a bad debt.\n•\nThe issue revolved around whether the debt had become bad during arbitration proceedings.\n•\nThe Supreme Court upheld the factual finding that the debt had not become bad during the relevant period.\nCitations:\n•\nTravancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1992) 197 ITR 528 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 11369 of 1995, decision dated: 17-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "TRAVANCORE TEA ESTATES CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 171 = 1999 SLD 171 = 1999 PTD 1253 = (1998) 233 ITR 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Business expenditure—Statutory impost\nConclusion: The deduction for statutory imposts like penalties, interest, or damages depends on whether the impost is compensatory or penal. The authority is required to examine the nature of the impost to determine the allowable deduction. The case was remanded for reconsideration on the compensatory versus penal elements.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee sought to deduct damages and penalties related to delayed payments of employee contributions and sales tax.\n•\nThe Supreme Court clarified that if the impost is purely compensatory, the full amount is deductible. If it is penal, it is not deductible.\n•\nThe case was remanded to determine the compensatory and penal elements of the payments under the Employees Provident Funds Act and Central Sales Tax Act.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 747 reversed in part.\n•\nReferences: C.I.T. v. Geeta Ram Kali Ram (1980) 121 ITR 708 (All.); Prakash Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1993) 210 ITR 684 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1804 of 1982, decision dated: 1st May, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Mahajan for Appellant. G. C. Sharma for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SWEDESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 172 = 1999 SLD 172 = 1999 PTD 1257 = (1998) 233 ITR 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Financial corporation—Deduction for special reserve\nConclusion: The Supreme Court clarified that the deduction for special reserves under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act should be calculated on the total income before allowing any deductions under the section. It overruled the Karnataka High Court's judgment in favor of a different interpretation.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee, a financial corporation, was engaged in providing long-term finance.\n•\nThe Court clarified that the total income must be computed according to sections 30 to 43-A, excluding Section 36(1)(viii) for calculating deductions related to special reserves.\n•\nThe decision in Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. C.I.T. was overruled.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (No.2) (1990) 182 ITR 67 (Ker.) approved.\n•\nReferences: Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC); C.I.T. v. Bihar State Financial Corporation (1983) 142 ITR 518 (Pat.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 3315 and 3316 of 1993, decision dated: 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND A. P. MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Rey Abrahim and M. M. Kashyab, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 173 = 1999 SLD 173 = 1999 PTD 1260 = (1997) 226 ITR 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome-tax - Business Expenditure - Damages for Breach of Contract:\no\nCase Overview: The assessee agreed to supply cashew kernels to foreign buyers but was unable to fulfill the contract due to a shortage in raw cashewnuts and an increase in prices. The contract specified arbitration for disputes. The foreign buyers made claims for damages.\no\nTax Issue: The assessee claimed a deduction for damages in the financial year ending December 31, 1977. However, the damages were unliquidated, meaning the final amount had not been adjudicated through arbitration or legal proceedings.\no\nCourt's Decision: Since the damages were unliquidated, no deduction could be claimed until they were finalized in a legal process. The right to recover damages arises only after quantification by an adjudicating authority, and therefore, these damages were not deductible in the assessment year 1978-79.\no\nRelevant Law:\n\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 37.\n\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73.\n2.\nIncome-tax - Export Markets Development Allowance - Weighted Deduction:\no\nIssue: The assessee sought a weighted deduction under Section 35-B for the commission paid for gathering market information about foreign markets.\no\nCourt's Decision: The commission paid for such purposes was eligible for the weighted deduction under Section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, as it was related to business expenses aimed at improving export markets.\no\nRelevant Law: Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 35-B.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.336 alongwith Income-tax Reference No.337 of 1985, decision dated: 4-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee. P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "N. SUNDARESWARAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 174 = 1999 SLD 174 = 1999 PTD 1269 = (1997) 226 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome-tax - Business Expenditure - Payment to Retiring Partners:\no\nCase Overview: A firm made payments to retiring partners in exchange for their interest in the firm, including assets and goodwill. The firm claimed these payments as business expenses for the assessment year 1975-76.\no\nTax Issue: The firm argued that the payments were made to remove inefficient partners, and thus, the payments should be treated as a business expenditure.\no\nCourt's Decision: The court held that the payments made to the outgoing partners were not business expenditures but capital in nature. The payments were made for acquiring the outgoing partners' rights, including their share in the assets and goodwill, and not for facilitating the running of the business. Payments made in connection with the settlement of a partner’s interest in the firm are capital in nature and cannot be deducted as a business expense.\no\nRelevant Law: Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.351 of 1983, decision dated: 10-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharat J. Shelat instructed by Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. D. A. Mehta, R. K. Patel and B. D. Karia for K. C. Patel for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSTANDARD MALTINGS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 175 = 1999 SLD 175 = 1999 PTD 1282 = (1997) 226 ITR 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax - Appellate Tribunal - Rectification - Mistake Apparent from Record\nUnder Section 254(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal's order is final once passed and cannot be altered. However, under Section 254(2), the Tribunal can rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record, typically relating to clerical, arithmetical, or grammatical errors. A mistake is apparent when no re-argument or reappraisal of facts is necessary. If a document was not produced before the Tribunal or considered by lower authorities, it cannot form the basis for a rectification. In this case, the Tribunal did not consider certain documents regarding the cost of acquisition of trees, and the plea based on this document was not raised during the original proceedings. Therefore, the rectification application was correctly dismissed.\nReference: Kilasho Devi Burman (Smt.) v. C.I.T. (1996) 219 ITR 214 (SC) and New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1959) 37 ITR 11 (SC).\n(b) Income Tax - Capital Gains - Trees of Spontaneous Growth\nSpontaneously growing trees do not have a cost of acquisition or improvement, and therefore, the sale of such trees cannot result in taxable capital gains. This type of income is not taxable as it is considered a receipt of a capital nature. The principle is that if no cost is incurred for acquiring or improving the asset, no taxable gain arises on the sale of that asset. The decision aligns with precedents which hold that sale proceeds from spontaneously grown trees are not subject to capital gains tax.\nReference: Beverley Estates Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1979) 117 ITR 302 (Mad.); C.I.T. v. Ambat Echukutty Menon (1979) 120 ITR 70 (SC); C.I.T. (Addl.) v. Ganapathi Raju Jegi, Sanyasi Raju (1979) 119 ITR 715 (AP); C.I.T. v. Jacob (E.C.) (1973) 89 ITR 88 (Ker.); C.I.T. v. Kothari Plantations and Industries Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 547 (Cal.); C.I.T. v. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji (H.H.) (1986) 162 ITR 93 (MP).\n(c) Income Tax - Capital Asset - Tea Business - Tea Bushes\nTea bushes, though part of agricultural land, are capital assets of a tea business. These bushes are maintained to harvest tea leaves, and their value continues over time. Even though they are a part of agricultural activity, they do not qualify as agricultural land and should be considered as capital assets of the business, not part of the land itself. The sale of these bushes, like other capital assets, is subject to tax regulations but does not qualify as part of the agricultural land under tax law.\nReference: C.I.T. v. Srinivasa Setty (B.C.) (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 201 of 1991 and 103 of 1993, decision dated: 4-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " VISHESHWAR NATH KHARE, C.J. AND BARIN GHOSH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sunil Mitra and R. C. Prosad for the Commissioner (in I.T.R. No. 201 of 1991). Jaydev Saha for the Commissioner (in I. T. R. No. 103 of 1993).N.\nK. Poddar and Debasis Mitra for the Assessee (in both Cases)\"\"", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUMAN TEA AND PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 176 = 1999 SLD 176 = 1999 PTD 1329 = (1999) 79 TAX 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance - Method of Accounting - Export Sale\nThe method of accounting for export sales, such as FOB (Free on Board) or CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight), pertains to international export trade practices and does not directly influence the accounting method. The distinction between FOB and CIF involves the allocation of risk and cost during international shipping, rather than the method used for accounting revenue. The treatment of export sales should align with these practices, but the choice between FOB and CIF is more about cost and responsibility allocation in the trade transaction.\nReference:\n•\nE. Clemens Horst Co. v. Biddell Bros. (1911) 1 KB 93.4\n•\nSeth Kishori Lal Bubulal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. ITR 1963 Vol. XLIX 503.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance - Method of Accounting - Computation of Profit\nThe Assessing Officer has discretion to reject defective or discrepant accounts, and can adopt a reasonable method to compute taxable income under the provisions of Sections 60 to 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The use of a reasonable method is authorized by these sections, and the rejection of accounts due to discrepancies is within the Assessing Officer's power. Section 32 does not directly cover the computation of taxable income in such cases, emphasizing the need for a fair method of accounting and ensuring that income tax is computed appropriately.\nReference:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and others ITR 1964 (LIII) 122.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance - Reference to High Court\nWhen the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directs that export sales be accounted on a CIF basis instead of an FOB basis, the Department may seek the High Court’s opinion on whether this direction was correct. However, if the questions raised do not involve any legal interpretation or significant issues, the High Court may dismiss the reference. In this case, the High Court dismissed the reference, determining that the issues were not substantial enough to warrant a legal interpretation.\nReference:\n•\nDhakeshwar Prasad Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa (1936) 4 ITR 71.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance - Reference and Sales on CIF Basis\nRegarding export sales under Section 80-CC, opinions on the use of CIF or FOB for earlier years would not be relevant to the assessment of later years, especially under the newly incorporated provisions of Section 80-CC for the 1992-93 assessment year. The introduction of new provisions during the pendency of a case can render the earlier legal context irrelevant for the updated tax assessments.\nReference:\n•\nM/s Prime Chemicals Limited v. Federation of Pakistan etc. 1995 PTD 493\n•\nSamina Shaukat Ayub v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rawalpindi PLD 1981 SC 85.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,136,60,65,80CC Income Tax Rules, 1982=8,216 ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 61 of 1990, heard on 26-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND CH. IJAZ AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Dr. Ilyas Zafar and Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax ZONE, GUJRANWALA\nVs\nMessrs ANWAR ENTERPRISES, SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 177 = 1999 SLD 177 = 1999 PTD 1351 = (1999) 79 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss. 2(6) & 129 - Assessee - Appeal\nIn this case, an assessment was framed in the name of a company, which was part of a group of companies. An appeal was filed in the name of the group rather than the individual company. The First Appellate Authority wrongly entertained the appeal filed by the group, rather than the individual company. The Court held that only the assessee (the company) could file an appeal, not any other party or group. The appeal was thus invalid, and the First Appellate Authority’s order was annulled for being without jurisdiction.\nReference:\n•\nKikabhai Abdulali v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (1957) 32 ITR 762\n•\nTatawarthy Narayana Murty v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh (1963) 49 ITR 766\n•\nTatawarthy Narayana Murty v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958) 33 ITR 360.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(6),129 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.349/KB to 351/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 19-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashraf-ud-Din Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant. Sirajul Haque Memon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 178 = 1999 SLD 178 = 1999 PTD 1367 = (1997) 226 ITR 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Revision - Condition Precedent\nFor an order of revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is required that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The loss to the Revenue must be significant for the Commissioner of Income-tax to exercise revision powers. In this case, the Tribunal found that the loss to the Revenue was marginal and concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid, as the error did not substantially affect the interests of the Revenue.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. P.M. Muthuraman Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 710 (SC)\n•\nRam Chandra Munna Lal v. CIT (1949) 17 ITR 394 (East Punjab)\n•\nSouth Indian Industrials Ltd. v. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 11 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 79 of 1986, decision dated: 5-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochuttni Nair, M.A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 179 = 1999 SLD 179 = 1999 PTD 1373 = (1997) 226 ITR 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax - Court Jurisdiction - Purchase of Immovable Property by Central Government\nIn a case where the Central Government purchased immovable property in Patna but the agreement was executed in Calcutta, a notice under Section 269-UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was sent by the appropriate authority in Lucknow to the transferor in Calcutta. The Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to consider a petition against this order, as a part of the cause of action had accrued within its territorial jurisdiction, including the receipt of the order and communication of notices in Calcutta.\nReference:\n•\nOil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711\n•\nState of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289; (1985) 3 SCC 217.\n(b) Income Tax - Purchase of Immovable Property by Central Government - Adequate Opportunity to be Heard\nUnder Section 269-UC, it is essential for the transferor to be given an adequate and effective opportunity to be heard before an order is passed. In this case, the petitioner was not afforded such an opportunity before the appropriate authority issued the order. The matter was remanded to the authority for reconsideration, ensuring that the petitioner’s right to be heard was respected.\nReference:\n•\nOil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711\n•\nState of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289; (1985) 3 SCC 217.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 11593 (W) of 1996, decision dated: 22-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. GUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Murarka and V. Murarka for Petitioner. J.C. Saha for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "ORIENT BEVERAGES LTD\nVs\nAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 180 = 1999 SLD 180 = 1999 PTD 1379 = (1997) 226 ITR 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Firm—Registration—Cancellation of Registration\nThe assessee-firm, consisting of three adult partners and one minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership, faced a cancellation of registration under section 186(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The partnership deed stated that profits would be shared as 20:25:30 among the adult partners, and the minor would share 25 paise per rupee in profits but would not share in losses except as allowed under the Partnership Act. The Assessing Officer argued that the deed did not specify the distribution of losses properly, and thus cancelled the registration.\nThe Tribunal, however, found that the partnership deed specifically outlined the distribution of losses, noting that losses should be shared among the adult partners in the same ratio as profits, and the minor should not be liable for losses. The Tribunal quashed the cancellation order, affirming that the deed was clear in how losses should be shared among the adult partners. The Revenue's argument that some losses were left undistributed was dismissed as incorrect. The minor’s non-liability for losses was explicitly defined, and the Tribunal’s decision was upheld.\nReference:\n•\nMandyala Govindu & Co. v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Krishna Mining Co. (1980) 122 ITR 362 (AP)\n•\nConpro Corporation v. CIT (1985) 151 ITR 1 (Kar.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 116 of 1980, decision dated: 9-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " P. K. MUKHERJEE AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shekhar Srivastava for the Commissioner. S.P.L. Srivastava for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNAND LAL JAGDISH PRASAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 181 = 1999 SLD 181 = 1999 PTD 1384 = (1997) 226 ITR 296 = (1999) 79 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Appeal to Appellate Tribunal—Rectification of Mistakes\nUnder section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes that are apparent from the record of its orders. This is not a power to review decisions based on different interpretations or jurisdictional decisions. The Tribunal cannot base its rectification on decisions from courts outside its jurisdiction, especially when such decisions may contradict the view taken by the Tribunal.\nIn the case at hand, the Tribunal had relied on a decision from the Calcutta High Court in Century Enka Ltd. v. ITO (1977) 107 ITR 909, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 152 ITR 208. Since the decision of the Calcutta High Court was not binding on the Tribunal and two views could be taken, the Tribunal’s rectification of its earlier order based on that non-binding precedent was held to be incorrect.\n(b) Precedent\nThe Tribunal, as a statutory body, must follow its jurisdictional High Court’s decisions or Supreme Court rulings. Decisions from other jurisdictions are not binding, and the Tribunal has the discretion to take a different view from non-jurisdictional courts. The Tribunal's reliance on a Calcutta High Court decision was deemed improper, and the rectification based on that was invalid.\nReference:\n•\nBalaram (T.S.), ITO v. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)\n•\nCentury Enka Ltd. v. ITO (1977) 107 ITR 909 (Cal)\n•\nLohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 152 ITR 308 (SC)\n•\nSatyanarayan Laxminarayan Hedge v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Timmale (1960) AIR 1960 SC 137", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.41 of 1981, decision dated: 13-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney and Mahavir Ahlawat for the Commissioner. A.K. Mittal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVARDHMAN SPINNING" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 182 = 1999 SLD 182 = 1999 PTD 1393 = (1997) 226 ITR 281 = (1999) 79 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome-Tax - Business Expenditure (Ceiling on Expenditure):\no\nIssue: The case concerns the ceiling limits on remuneration and perquisites paid to directors or employees, especially when the director is also a foreign technician, exempt under Section 10(6)(vii-a) of the Income Tax Act. This exemption should not be considered for fixing the ceiling under Section 40(c) or 40-A(5) of the Act.\no\nRuling: The salary or perquisite exempt under Section 10(6)(vii-a) should not be included when calculating the ceiling limits for expenditure under Section 40(c). A harmonious interpretation of sections 10, 40(c), and 40-A(5) indicates that the exemption granted by the Central Government to a foreign technician is not unreasonable or excessive, and such remuneration should not be taken into account while applying the ceiling under Section 40(c).\n2.\nIncome-Tax - Business Expenditure (Surtax):\no\nIssue: Whether surtax paid under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, can be deducted while calculating business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nRuling: Surtax is not deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. This is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, and no deduction is allowed for surtax when computing business income.\n3.\nIncome-Tax - Business Expenditure (Export Markets Development Allowance):\no\nIssue: The eligibility of a company not substantially interested in the public to claim a weighted deduction under Section 35-B of the Income Tax Act.\no\nRuling: A company not substantially interested by the public is entitled to a weighted deduction of only 1-1/3 times its expenditure, not more.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1816 to 1818 of 1984, decision dated: 11th April 1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLUCAS TVS LTD (and vice versa)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 183 = 1999 SLD 183 = 1999 PTD 1406 = (1997) 226 ITR 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome-Tax - Deduction of Tax at Source (Contractor):\no\nIssue: The applicability of Section 194-C (which relates to tax deduction at source for contractors) for contracts involving the carriage of goods, and whether a circular by the CBDT extending the provisions of Section 194-C to transport contracts is valid.\no\nRuling: The Circular No.681, which extends Section 194-C to transport contracts, is invalid. The Supreme Court ruling in the Associated Cement Co. case only discussed the application of Section 194-C to work contracts and did not specifically include carriage contracts. Therefore, the Circular’s extension of the section is a misreading of the law.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Jurisdiction Cases Nos.7770 of 1994, 456, 1411 to 1415 of 1995, decision dated: 12-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. MOHAPATRA, ACTG. C.J. AND P. C. NAIK, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.N. Mohanty for Petitioners. A. K. Ray for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SETHI TRANSPORT and others\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 184 = 1999 SLD 184 = 1999 PTD 1413 = (1997) 226 ITR 270 = (1999) 79 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome-Tax - Recovery of Tax (Appeal):\no\nIssue: Whether an assessee can be treated as a defaulter for tax payments during the pendency of an appeal if the issue was previously decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years.\no\nRuling: According to Circular No.530, if the disputed demand relates to issues that have been decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years, the assessee should not be treated as a defaulter during the pendency of the appeal. In the case, the assessee had paid the taxes, and there was no justification for the imposition of a 20% advance payment requirement for the disputed amount.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.9392 of 1996, decision dated: 16-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Applicant. Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 185 = 1999 SLD 185 = 1999 PTD 1416 = (1997) 226 ITR 264 = (1999) 79 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome-Tax - Residence (Non-Resident Exemption for NRE Account):\no\nIssue: The eligibility of a person who acquired foreign nationality (Malaysian) but has family residing in India, and property interests in India, to claim exemptions under the Non-Resident (External) Account (NRE Account) provisions.\no\nRuling: The assessee, who had Malaysian citizenship and was residing in India with family interests, is considered a resident in India. As a result, he is not entitled to the exemptions for income or wealth tax on his Non-Resident (External) Account under Section 10(4-A) of the Income Tax Act. The authorities held that since the assessee was residing in India and had family and property interests here, he should be treated as a resident for tax purposes.\nThese rulings clarify various aspects of tax law, particularly concerning the eligibility for tax exemptions, business expenditure deductions, the applicability of tax at source provisions, and the treatment of foreign citizens with ties to India.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.109, 113 and 114 of 1992, decision dated: 10-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. T.M. Sreedharan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK. RAMULLAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 186 = 1999 SLD 186 = 1999 PTD 1423 = (1997) 226 ITR 260 = (1999) 79 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nIncome-Tax Penalty & Interest Waiver: Section 273-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, allows the Commissioner of Income-tax to waive interest (under sections 139(8) and 215) and penalties (under section 271(1)(a)) for delayed filing of returns if certain conditions are met.\n2.\nConditions for Waiver:\no\nThe assessee must file returns voluntarily without notice under sections 139(2) or 148.\no\nThe assessee must cooperate in the investigation.\no\nThe assessee must have either paid the tax demand or made satisfactory arrangements for its payment.\n3.\nPayment vs. Arrangement: The payment of tax is not mandatory if satisfactory arrangements for payment have been made, as determined by the Commissioner.\n4.\nCase Outcome: In this case, the Commissioner rejected the waiver application solely due to the non-payment of penalties and interest. However, the application had not been dealt with in a timely manner, and the Commissioner had failed to assess whether satisfactory arrangements for payment had been made. The order was quashed, and the Commissioner was directed to reconsider the application.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.5809 of 1996, decision dated: 24-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Soparkar and Dhiresh T. Shah for Applicant. Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "SANGAM PLASTIC CENTRE\nVs\nP.K. TIWARY, COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 187 = 1999 SLD 187 = 1999 PTD 1426 = (1997) 226 ITR 253 = (1999) 79 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nBusiness Expenditure: Under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes is deductible, even if the loan is for a new unit that is not yet operational.\n2.\nCase Facts:\no\nThe assessee took a loan to purchase plant and machinery for a new unit intended to manufacture specific chemicals.\no\nThe loan interest was disallowed by the Assessing Officer since production had not started during the assessment year.\n3.\nTribunal Ruling: The Tribunal ruled that the new unit was an expansion of the existing business, and thus, interest on the loan was deductible.\n4.\nHigh Court Ruling: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding, as it was based on proper facts. The case was about the business expansion and not a new independent venture.\n5.\nJurisdictional Note: In references to the High Court under section 256, the jurisdiction is advisory, and the court can only provide opinions on questions of law, not on questions of fact.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.23 of 1995, decision dated: 27-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND SHAMBHOO SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Sharan for the Commissioner. Mr. Saboo for the, Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMALWA VANASPATI AND CHEMICALS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 188 = 1999 SLD 188 = 1999 PTD 1433 = (1999) 79 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nLevy of Taxes: Various terms and provisions related to tax assessment are discussed:\no\nLevy: Meaning of levy in taxation, referencing past case law.\no\nAssessment: The connotation of assessment in income tax, including the application of taxes and penalties under different sections of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n2.\nTax Liability and Penalties:\no\nAdditional Tax: If tax or penalty is not paid on time, additional tax is levied. For instance, in the case discussed, the Assessing Officer levied additional tax on unpaid tax demands under section 89 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nAppeals: The First Appellate Authority had cancelled the additional tax, but this was overturned by the Assessing Officer, as tax had to be paid under section 89.\n3.\nInterest on Tax Payment: In a case regarding assessment year 1991-92, an appeal stayed the payment of tax, but the Tribunal confirmed that additional tax of 24% was applicable based on the current law, rejecting the assessee's claim for a 15% tax rate.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=89,62,80D,85(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.91/KB and 92/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 5-01-1999, hearing DATE : 26-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Qureshi, D.R. for Appellant. Sirajul Haque Memon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 189 = 1999 SLD 189 = 1999 PTD 1444 = (1999) 79 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nInterpretation of Statutes:\no\nThe trend in statutory interpretation has shifted from the literal approach to the purposive approach. The purposive approach focuses on the legislative intent and purpose behind the provisions, rather than just the literal meaning of the text.\no\nThe leading provision of an enactment determines which provisions must yield to the other. Courts and authorities must prioritize the provision that aligns with the broader purpose and legislative intent.\n2.\nIncome from Rental (Self-Hired House):\no\nSection 19(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: A provision related to rental income from a self-hired house. The assessee, an employee, declared rental income from a self-hired house and claimed an exemption. The Assessing Officer added the rental income to the total income.\no\nThe First Appellate Authority ruled in favor of the assessee, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal overturned this decision, citing the legislative intent of the amendment to Section 19, inserted by the Finance Act of 1996. The Tribunal's view was that the insertion of an Explanation was a leading provision, which dictated the treatment of the rental income.\n3.\nIncome from House Property:\no\nThe Tribunal concluded that rental income should be taxed as income from house property under Section 19 of the Ordinance, despite the house rent allowance (HRA) received by the assessee under employment terms. The Tribunal found that any tax assessment without adjusting for the HRA would be inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 19 & 20 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nReference:\n•\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 318\n•\nManj Khan v. The Controlling Authority PLD 1968 Lah. 202\n��\nMuhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police PLD 1992 Lah. 178\n•\nInspector of Taxes v. Hart 1993 SCMR 1019\n•\nIn re: Marr and another (Bankrupts) (1990) 2 All ER 880\n•\nMaxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 1969, 12th Edn.\n•\nWood v. Riley (1867) LR 3 CP 26\n•\nPatent Agents v. Lockwood (1894) AC 347\n•\nOwnes Bank Ltd. v. Gerard Cauche (1989) 1WLR 559\n•\nRabnawaz v. Jahana PLD 1974 SC 210\n•\nMerwan K. Irani v. The Commissioner of Income-tax 1968 PTD 429", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19(3),19 ", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos.314/IB to 316/113 of 1996-97, decision dated: 23rd November, 1998, hearing DATE : 13-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, MANSOOR AHMAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Riaz, D.R. for Appellant. Respondent in person", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 190 = 1999 SLD 190 = 1999 PTD 1460 = (1997) 226 ITR 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Validity of Trust\nKey Points:\n1.\nTrust and Assessment:\no\nThree individuals filed returns, claiming income was received as trustees under a trust deed. They sought to be assessed as representative assessees, but the Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the trust’s validity and assessed them as a body of individuals.\no\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal initially ruled that the trust was valid, but the High Court disagreed, ruling that no valid trust existed.\n2.\nEffect of High Court Decision:\no\nGiven that the High Court's decision on the trust’s validity became final, the Tribunal correctly directed the restoration of the Income-tax Officer’s order, treating the three individuals as a body of individuals.\no\nThe principle followed here is that when a jurisdictional issue (like the validity of a trust) is decided by the High Court, that decision must be followed in further proceedings, even if earlier authorities disagreed.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Seematti Trust (1985) 154 ITR 771 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 19 to 22 of 1987, decision dated: 7-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair, M.A Firoz and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SEEMATTI TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 191 = 1999 SLD 191 = 1999 PTD 1465 = (1997) 226 ITR 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Points:\n1.\nPowers of the Tribunal to Stay Recovery:\no\nThe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has independent power to grant or refuse stay in tax recovery proceedings. This power is not constrained by a prior stay granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT), even if the stay was conditional.\no\nIn the case discussed, the CIT had granted a conditional stay, which required the assessee to deposit 10% of the demand (approximately Rs. 78.8 lakh). However, the Tribunal was still required to decide on the stay application based on its merits.\n2.\nCase Outcome:\no\nThe Tribunal cannot refuse to exercise its independent power to stay recovery proceedings simply because the CIT had already granted conditional stay. It must assess the matter on its own merits, including considering the grounds for the stay application.\nReference Cases:\n•\nSri Balaji Trading Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (1989) 175 ITR 428 (Mad.)\n•\nMani Goyal (Mrs.) v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 641 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. W. P. No. 1631 and C. M. No. 2909 of 1997, decision dated: 22-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.S. Aggarwal and Anil Sharma for Petitioner. R.D. Jolly and Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 192 = 1999 SLD 192 = 1999 PTD 1468 = (1997) 226 ITR 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration and Protective Assessment\nKey Points:\n1.\nFirm Registration and Appeal to Appellate Tribunal:\no\nThe assessee filed a return as a partnership firm and sought registration under Section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the registration claim, arguing that the firm was not genuine, and assessed the firm protectively.\no\nThe ITO believed that the firm, formed by the deed dated December 15, 1979, was only a paper transaction and that the business was still being run by the co-owners. Despite this, a protective assessment was made on the firm.\n2.\nTribunal’s Decision:\no\nThe Tribunal granted protective registration to the firm. It found that the firm was constituted as per the Partnership Act, and the filing of the return by the firm was sufficient to suggest it was running the cinema business during the relevant year. The protective registration could later be canceled under Section 186 if proven invalid.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 143 & 185", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No.35 of 1986, decision dated: 4-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. P. RAVANI, C.J. AND D. C. DALELA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 193 = 1999 SLD 193 = 1999 PTD 1471 = (1997) 226 ITR 485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Fines and Penalties\nKey Points:\n1.\nFines and Penalties under Section 14-B:\no\nSection 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 deals with penalties for employers failing to comply with the Act’s requirements. The damages imposed under this section are punitive and meant to deter further violations.\no\nSection 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows deductions for business expenditures, but since the damages under Section 14-B are penal in nature, they are not deductible as business expenses.\n2.\nCase References:\no\nThe court referred to several cases, including Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India and Saray Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, to reinforce the principle that penalties and fines under Section 14-B are punitive and cannot be deducted.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37\n•\nIndian Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, S.14-B\n•\nOrgano Chemical Industries v. Union of India (1979) 55 FJR 283\n•\nSaray Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 587 (All) (FB)\n•\nCIT v. Albuquerque & Sons (1992) 198 ITR 609 (Kar.)\n•\nHasimara Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 659 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.475 of 1983, decision dated: 3rd April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. R.D. Jolly and Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ROHTAK TEXTILES MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 194 = 1999 SLD 194 = 1999 PTD 1473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Tax and Self-Assessment\nKey Points:\n1.\nRefund and Self-Assessment Tax:\no\nSection 237 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that only the excess tax paid by an assessee can be refunded. Taxes paid via advance tax, self-assessment tax, or tax deducted at source are considered legally paid.\no\nIf an assessment is annulled, the taxes paid (such as advance tax and self-assessment tax) remain valid as the assessee's legal liability until a new assessment is made. The assessee is not entitled to a refund unless an excess tax has been determined.\n2.\nCase Outcome:\no\nThe assessee’s request for a full refund of the prepaid taxes was rejected because the amount paid was still considered properly chargeable, and no excess had been demonstrated. The court emphasized that the refund could only be made according to the provisions of the Act.\nReference:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 140-A, 143, 237, 240 & 241\n•\nSaurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. ITO (1992) 194 ITR 659 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Chittoor Electric Supply Corporation (1995) 212 ITR 404 (SC)\n•\nHari Nandan Agarwal (HUF) v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 816 (All", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.431 of 1986, decision dated: 23rd August, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " P. K. MUKHERJEE AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anil Sharma for Petitioner. Bharat Ji Agarwal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SARAYA SUGAR MILLS LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 195 = 1999 SLD 195 = 1999 PTD 1482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Deduction Only on Actual Payment\nCase Summary:\nUnder section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, deductions for business expenditures, such as tax, interest, and employee welfare contributions, are allowed only when actually paid. The first proviso to section 43-B and Explanation 2 must be read together. Explanation 2 is retrospective, so the first proviso must also be interpreted as having a retrospective effect. Without this proviso, the scope of section 43-B would be unduly wide, disallowing certain payments from deductions that were not intended to be prohibited.\nConclusion:\nThe first proviso to section 43-B, being retrospective, ensures that certain payments made by the assessee are not unduly excluded from deductions, which were previously not intended to be disallowed.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.43-B\n•\nAllied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Shree Tea Co. (1997) 226 ITR 445 (MP)\n•\nCIT v. Satpal Vijay Kumar (1997) 226 ITR 449 (MP)\n•\nCIT v. Sumermal Gopichand (1997) 226 ITR 456 (MP) (overruled)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.653 of 1993, 72, 235, 49 and Income-tax References Nos.62 and 79 of 1994 and 2 of 1996, decision dated: 24-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, CJ, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI AND DIPAAK MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner. B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAGHAVJI VERRJI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 196 = 1999 SLD 196 = 1999 PTD 1484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Deduction on Actual Payment and Retrospective Effect of Amendments\nCase Summary:\nThe first proviso to section 43-B, inserted on 1-4-1988, was found to be declaratory of pre-existing law and merely explanatory in nature. It does not affect vested rights and applies retroactively from the assessment year 1984-85, even though the amendment became effective in 1988.\nConclusion:\nThe retrospective application of the first proviso to section 43-B ensures that it is considered procedural and does not affect any pre-existing rights, and thus, it applies to assessments from 1984-85.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.43-B\n•\nSanghi Motors v. Union of India (1991) 187 ITR 703 (Delhi) (dissented from)\n•\nCIT v. Chandulal Venichand (1994) 209 ITR 7 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Dhiraj Kumar & Co. (1997) 226 ITR 443 (MP)\n•\nCIT v. Edcons (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 86 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.432, 434, 435, 441, 443, 449, 451, 457, 465, 474, 475, 478, 482 to 484, 516, 524, 535, 568 and 683 of 1992, decision dated: 7-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSATPAL VIJAY KUMAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 197 = 1999 SLD 197 = 1999 PTD 1490 = (1997) 226 ITR 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Retrospective Application of Provisions of S.43-B\nCase Summary:\nThis case reaffirmed the ruling in SLD 2255, confirming that the first proviso to section 43-B, although inserted in 1988, is procedural and explanatory. It is retroactively applicable from the assessment year 1984-85, as it clarifies the law under section 43-B without affecting vested rights.\nConclusion:\nThe retrospective effect of the first proviso to section 43-B ensures that the provisions apply to assessments from the 1984-85 assessment year, maintaining consistency and legal clarity in tax deductions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.43-B\n•\nCabell v. Markhan (1945) 148 F 2d 737\n•\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Bhandari Capacitors (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 647 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.514, 417, 422, 426, 440, 445, 450, 452 to 454, 456, 460 to 462, 464, 466, 480, 503, 508, 511, 521, 529, 530, 539, 565, 595 of 1992 and 551 of 1994, decision dated: 17-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S.B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHREE TEA CO. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 198 = 1999 SLD 198 = 1999 PTD 1494 = (1999) 79 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Precedent - Binding Effect and Precedent Per Incuriam\nCase Summary:\nThe court discussed the binding effect of judicial precedents and clarified that decisions made per incuriam (without proper legal consideration) do not carry binding precedent. Additionally, the case involved wealth tax exemption related to foreign exchange and the conversion of foreign exchange into other assets, specifically focusing on whether the assets created through such conversions were exempt from wealth tax.\nConclusion:\nThe ruling confirmed that precedents made per incuriam do not bind future decisions, and it clarified the scope of exemptions under the Wealth Tax Act for assets derived from foreign exchange, which continue to enjoy exemptions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nPLD 1963 (W.P.) Kar. 280\n•\nAbdul Razzak v. The Collector of Customs 1995 CLC 1453\n•\nWealth Tax Act, 1963, Ss. 5(1)(xv)(ii), 17-B & Second Schedule\n•\nW.T.A. No.251/HC of 1990, W.T.A. No.71/KB of 1986-87\n•\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 1928 (overruled)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 326/KB to 329/KB, 311/KB to 320/KB of 1997-98, 57/KB, 58/KB, 5/KB to 8/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 9-12-1998, hearing DATE : 19-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Appellant (in W.T.As. Nos. 326/KB to 329/KB of 1997-98, 57/KB and 58/KB of 1998-99). Miss Lubna Pervaiz, Advocate, Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh, C.I.T., Imtiaz Ahmed Barakzai, I.A.C./D.R. and Shafique Hussain, D.C.W.T. for Respondent (in W.T.As. Nos. 326/KB to 329/KB of 1997-98). Miss Lubna Pervaiz, Advocate, Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh, C.I.T., Mrs. Farzana Jabeen, I.A.C./D.R. and Shafique Hussain, D.C.W T. for Respondent (in W.T.As. Nos. 57/KB and 58/KB of 1998-99). Sirajul Haque Memon for Appellant (in W.T.As. Nos.5/KB to 8/KB of 1998-99 and 311 KB to 320/KB of 1997-98). Imtiaz Ahmad Barakzai, D. R. for Respondents (in W.T.As. Nos.5/KB to 8/KB of 1998-99, 311/KB to 320/KB of 1997-98).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 199 = 1999 SLD 199 = 1999 PTD 1528 = (1999) 79 TAX 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Exemption of Income - Computation and Legal Obligation\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Exempt Income under Second Schedule\nCase Summary:\nUnder the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, certain incomes are enumerated as exempt under Part I of the Second Schedule. The Ordinance defines income in section 2(24), and total income in section 2(44), with the latter forming the basis for the computation of taxable income. While certain incomes may be subject to tax under sections 9 & 10, they may be exempted under the provisions outlined in section 14(1) and Part I of the Second Schedule. The Assessing Officer is required to compute these incomes, but they must be exempted from tax if they fall under the exempt income category.\nConclusion:\nThe income, as defined under section 2(24) and 2(44), falls within the purview of taxability under sections 9 & 10 of the Income Tax Ordinance. However, where an income is specifically exempted under the Second Schedule, it must escape taxation, and the Assessing Officer must give effect to this exemption while calculating the total income.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 2(24), 2(44), 9, 10, 14\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 21 of 1988\n(b) Clarification on Carry Forward of Business Losses - Tax Holiday Period\nTopic: Carry Forward of Losses and Tax Holiday Period - Clarification by Central Board of Revenue\nCase Summary:\nClarifications issued by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) regarding the carry forward of business losses during the tax holiday period were challenged. The CBR's circulars (No. 21 of 1988 and No. 23 of 1988) suggested that businesses could not carry forward losses accumulated during a tax holiday period and set them off against future profits. However, these clarifications were deemed ultra vires, as no provision of law imposed such a restriction on the carry forward of business losses.\nConclusion:\nThe circulars issued by the CBR regarding the carry forward of losses during the tax holiday period were found to be invalid as they lacked legal backing. Therefore, businesses could carry forward unabsorbed depreciation and other business losses as per the provisions of the law.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S. 35\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 21 of 1988 & Circular No. 23 of 1988\n(b) Clarification on Carry Forward of Business Losses - Tax Holiday Period\nTopic: Carry Forward of Losses and Tax Holiday Period - Clarification by Central Board of Revenue\nCase Summary:\nClarifications issued by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) regarding the carry forward of business losses during the tax holiday period were challenged. The CBR's circulars (No. 21 of 1988 and No. 23 of 1988) suggested that businesses could not carry forward losses accumulated during a tax holiday period and set them off against future profits. However, these clarifications were deemed ultra vires, as no provision of law imposed such a restriction on the carry forward of business losses.\nConclusion:\nThe circulars issued by the CBR regarding the carry forward of losses during the tax holiday period were found to be invalid as they lacked legal backing. Therefore, businesses could carry forward unabsorbed depreciation and other business losses as per the provisions of the law.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S. 35\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 21 of 1988 & Circular No. 23 of 1988\n(c) Income Tax - Exemption vs Non-Liability\nTopic: Exemption vs Non-Liability in Taxation\nCase Summary:\nThe concept of exemption differs from non-liability. Exemption refers to income that would normally be taxable but is allowed to escape tax due to specific provisions. On the other hand, non-liability refers to income that is never subject to tax. This distinction is critical in determining the tax treatment of various types of income, including exemptions for certain industrial or agricultural activities.\nConclusion:\nExemption and non-liability must be distinguished carefully. Non-liability means that the income was never subject to tax, while exemption means it was initially taxable but is allowed to escape tax under certain provisions.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Harprasad & Company (Pvt.) Limited (1975) 99 ITR 118\n•\nAl-Samrez Enterprise v. The Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917\n________________________________________\n(d) Industrial Undertaking Exemption - No Need for Income/Loss Finding\nTopic: Exempt Income of Industrial Undertaking - No Need for Income/Loss Finding\nCase Summary:\nIncome derived from an industrial undertaking may qualify for exemption under Part I of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. In such cases, a detailed examination of declared income or losses is unnecessary, as the exemption is automatic for qualifying income. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer should focus on verifying whether the income qualifies for the exemption rather than questioning declared income or loss.\nConclusion:\nWhere an industrial undertaking qualifies for exemption under the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order and direct an assessment of income/loss in accordance with the law was correct.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 14 & Second Schedule, Part I\n•\nCIT v. Anwar Textile Mills Ltd. 1988 PTD 1016\n________________________________________\n(e) Set-Off of Loss - Carry Forward of Business Losses\nTopic: Carry Forward of Business Losses from Industrial Undertaking - Validity of Refusal\nCase Summary:\nThe issue revolved around whether business losses arising during the exempt period of an industrial undertaking could be carried forward to offset against income in subsequent years. The Tribunal directed that such losses should be allowed to be set off against other income in the same assessment year, with any remaining loss carried forward in accordance with section 35 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal correctly allowed the carry forward of business losses incurred during the exempt period, as long as the provisions of section 35 of the Income Tax Ordinance were followed.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S. 35\n•\nCIT v. Anwar Textile Mills Ltd. 1988 PTD 1016\n________________________________________\n(f) Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Depreciation - Exemption Period\nTopic: Unabsorbed Depreciation - Carry Forward Post-Exemption Period\nCase Summary:\nThe Assessing Officer's refusal to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation from the tax-exempt period for setting it off against income in the following year was contested. The Tribunal ruled that unabsorbed depreciation from the exempt period should be carried forward and set off against income derived from the same industrial undertaking in the subsequent assessment year.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's decision to allow the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation was in line with the provisions of section 35 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S. 35\n•\nCIT v. Anwar Textile Mills Ltd. 1988 PTD 1016", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.PartI,Ss.2(24)(44),9,W & 14,34,35 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1975/KB, 320/KB, 869/KB, 866/KB, 2494/KB of 1991-92, 1427-A/HQ of 1990-91, 435/KB and 60/KB of 1988-89, decision dated: 30-11-1998, hearing DATE : 4-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Misri Ladhani, D. R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1975/KB of 1991-92). Sirajul Haque and Arshad Siraj for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1975/KB of 1991-92). Sirajul Haque and Arshad Siraj for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 320/KB of 1991-92). Misri Ladhani, D. R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 320/KB of 1991-92). A. H. Faridi for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1427-A/HQ of 1990-91 and 869/KB of 1991-92).\nMisri Ladhani, D. R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1427-A/HQ of 1990-91 and 869/KB of 1991-92).\nSalman Pasha for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 866/KB of 1991-92).\nMisri Ladhani, D. R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 866/KB of 1991-92).\nRehan Hassan Naqvi for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 435/KB of 1988-89).\nMisri Ladhani, D. R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 435/KB of 1988-89).\nIrfan Sadat for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 60/KB of 1988-89).\nMisri Ladhani, D. R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 60/KB of 1988-89).\nMisri Ladhani, D. R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2494/KB. of 1991-92).\nIrfan Sadat for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2494/KB of 1991-92).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 201 = 1999 SLD 201 = 1999 PTD 1550 = (1997) 226 ITR 929", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subsidy from Rubber Board - Capital vs Revenue Receipt\nTopic: Subsidy Received for Replantation - Capital vs Revenue Receipt\nCase Summary:\nThe Agricultural Income-tax Officer had treated a subsidy received by the assessee from the Rubber Board under the Replanting Subsidy Scheme, 1970, as a revenue receipt. The subsidy was intended to encourage replantation of rubber trees and was paid in installments over several years. The Tribunal found that the subsidy was primarily for replantation and not for maintenance, thus it was a capital receipt.\nConclusion:\nThe subsidy received for replantation purposes is a capital receipt and not subject to tax under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act.\nCitations/References:\n•\nKalpetta Estates Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 601 (SC)\n•\nVelimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Agricultural ITO (1991) 188 ITR 262 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1989) 178 ITR 181 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 424 and T. C. (R.) No. 804 of 1985, decision dated: 17-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Venkatachalam for King & Partridge for Applicant. Sudarasanam for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GREENHAM ESTATE (P.) LTD\nVs\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 202 = 1999 SLD 202 = 1999 PTD 1555 = (1997) 226 ITR 956", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Duty Drawback and Cash Incentive - Accounting System\nTopic: Duty Drawback and Cash Incentive - Accounting Methodology\nCase Summary:\nThe Assessing Officer added Rs.3,19,827 to the assessee’s income, arguing that duty draw-back and cash incentive were not offered for taxation on the accrual basis, despite the assessee claiming to follow the cash basis. The Tribunal, however, deleted the addition, finding no sufficient basis for this adjustment. The case also involved an application for a reference on whether the Tribunal was justified in its decision.\nConclusion:\nThe issue raised was a question of law as to whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law regarding the accounting method and its treatment of the duty draw-back and cash incentive.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 35-B & 256(2)\n•\nCIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 207 (P & H)\n(b) Weighted Deduction on Commission - Export Market Development Allowance\nTopic: Weighted Deduction on Commission Paid under Section 35-B\nCase Summary:\nThe Assessing Officer had denied the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee under section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for commission paid. The Tribunal allowed the deduction, and the issue was referred for judicial scrutiny on whether the Tribunal’s decision was in line with the law.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's decision on allowing the weighted deduction for commission paid was a valid legal issue, and the case raised a question of law regarding the proper application of section 35-B.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 35-B & 256(2)\n•\nCIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 207 (P & H)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.57 of 1990, decision dated: 18-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " G.S. SINGHVI AND B. RAAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Mahajan and Ms. Aparana Mahajan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHANDARI HOSIERY MILLS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 203 = 1999 SLD 203 = 1999 PTD 1558 = (1997) 226 ITR 959", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Delay in Filing Returns - No Tax Payable on Returned Income\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal ruled that no penalty could be imposed under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because no tax was payable on the returned income. Since there was no outstanding tax liability, the imposition of a penalty for the delay in filing returns was unjustified. The Court found no question of law arising from the Tribunal's decision.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Builders Engineers Co. (1989) 175 ITR 317 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. I.T. Reference Application No.131 of 1995, decision dated: 12-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND P.C., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANAKCHAND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 204 = 1999 SLD 204 = 1999 PTD 1560 = (1997) 226 ITR 927", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation for Revised Returns under Sections 139(4), (5), and 153(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nConclusion:\nThe Court held that a revised return cannot be filed under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act when the original return was filed under Section 139(4). Additionally, the benefit under Section 153(1)(c), which grants an extended period for completing assessments, does not apply to revised returns filed under Section 139(4).\nCitations/References:\n•\nKumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 67 (SC)\n•\nMalhotra (O.P.) v. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 379 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.292 of 1988, decision dated: 28-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.R. Manjani for the Assessee. B. Gupta and R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SURAM CHAND RAHLAN\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 205 = 1999 SLD 205 = 1999 PTD 1561 = (1997) 226 ITR 924", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment Allowance and Deductions for Construction Firms under Sections 32-A, 80-HHA, and 80-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nConclusion:\nThe Court ruled that the construction of buildings, roads, and dams does not qualify as manufacturing or production of articles, and therefore the assessee was not entitled to the investment allowance under Section 32-A nor the deductions under Sections 80-HHA and 80-J. The assessee's claim for these deductions was dismissed because the nature of the work (construction) did not meet the requirements of industrial activities as defined under the Income Tax Act.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Shankar Construction Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1980) 121 ITR 212 (Orissa)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 143 of 1993, decision dated: 4-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nazir Singh for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nP.D. AGRAWAL & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 206 = 1999 SLD 206 = 1999 PTD 1564 = (1997) 226 ITR 922", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Death of a Partner in a Firm and the Need for Separate Assessments under Section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nConclusion:\nThe Court held that the death of a partner results in the dissolution of the firm unless the partnership agreement specifies otherwise. As per the provisions of Section 185, two separate assessments must be made: one for the period before the death of the partner and one for the period after the death of the partner when the widow was taken as a partner. This separation is necessary for proper assessment of income for both periods.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Harjivandes Hathibhai (1977) 108 ITR 517 (Guj.)\n•\nWazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 761 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.400 of 1983, decision dated: 9-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore for Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. D.A. Mehta, R.K. Patel and B.D. Karia for K.C. Patel for Respondent No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG. DALABHAI & COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 207 = 1999 SLD 207 = 1999 PTD 1566 = (1997) 226 ITR 919", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment Based on Erroneous Audit Notes under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nConclusion:\nThe reassessment based on erroneous audit notes was held to be invalid. The audit party had pointed out issues related to depreciation and superannuation contributions, but the Tribunal found that the audit note was based on incorrect information. As such, the reassessment under Section 147(b) could not be justified, as it was based on an erroneous audit report, which did not constitute valid information under the provisions of the law.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 762 (AP)\n•\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC)\n•\nMalhotra (R.K.), ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai (1977) 109 ITR 537 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.880 of 1983 (Reference No.445 of 1983), decision dated: 30-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S.M. SIDDICK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBUSH BOAKE ALLEN (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 208 = 1999 SLD 208 = 1999 PTD 1569 = (1997) 226 ITR 914", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation on Motor Vehicles and Lorries Used for Transportation - Higher Rate of Depreciation\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that the assessee, a transport company, was entitled to claim depreciation at the higher rate of 40% on motor vehicles and lorries used for transportation. The company was engaged in the business of transporting goods and people and used both its own trucks and hired ones. Depreciation at the higher rate was applicable under Appendix I, Part I, Item III-E(1-A) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which allows 40% depreciation for vehicles used in a business of running them on hire. The lower rate of 30% was incorrect and thus rectified.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 32\n•\nIndian Income-tax Rules, 1962, Appendix I, Part I, Item III-E(1-A)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 19 of 1995, decision dated: 26-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwalla for the Assessee. G.K. Josht and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "A.B.C. INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 209 = 1999 SLD 209 = 1999 PTD 1573 = (1997) 226 ITR 911", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy under Income Tax Act for Tribunal Orders\nConclusion:\nThe Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of the Tribunal's order. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal had failed to follow a previous High Court ruling. However, the Tribunal had considered and distinguished the ruling. The Income Tax Act provides for an alternative remedy in the form of a reference to the High Court under Section 256(1) and (2). The Court ruled that a writ petition was not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists, especially when the Tribunal had considered the case thoroughly.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Kovur Textiles & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 61 (AP)\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 256(1), (2)\n•\nConstitution of India, Article 226", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6096 of 1996, decision dated: 26-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " DYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRA AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kodanda Ram for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Dr. K. SATYANARAYANA\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 729 = 1999 SLD 729 = 1999 PTD 1576 = (1997) 226 ITR 910", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Property or Business Income - Letting Property to Employees\nConclusion:\nThe Court ruled that income derived by a company from letting out property to its employees is considered income from business, not rental income. Since the letting of property was incidental to the company’s business operations, the income from it should be assessed as business income under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. New India Maritime Agencies (P.) Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 392 (Mad.)\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 22 & 28", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1366 and 1367 of 1982 (References Nos.846 and 847 of 1982), decision dated: 4-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " M.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. SIDDICK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM.A. SATHAR (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 211 = 1999 SLD 211 = 1999 PTD 1577 = (1997) 226 ITR 907", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Renewal of Registration for Partnership Firm - Belated Filing of Form No. 12\nConclusion:\nThe Court held that, in accordance with the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated June 26, 1965, if a partnership firm files Form No. 12 for renewal of registration along with the belated return, it will still constitute sufficient compliance with Section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the renewal of registration should be allowed even if the filing was delayed, provided no ex parte assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCentral Board of Direct Taxes Circular, dated June 26, 1965\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 184(7)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No.69 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd April, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S.K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.S. Jha for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MUKUNCHAND BAID\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 212 = 1999 SLD 212 = 1999 PTD 1580 = (1997) 226 ITR 498", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Search and Seizure - Responsibility for Seized Records and Protection under Section 293\nConclusion:\nThe Court emphasized the responsibility of the authorised officer during a search and seizure operation. The officer is personally responsible for the safe custody of the seized records. If the books are lost due to negligence or any misconduct, the officer is personally liable for the loss, and the protection under Section 293 does not apply. The assessee can claim damages for the loss of the books seized. The Court held that the loss of books cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the proper remedy is to file a suit.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 132 & 293\n•\nIndian Income-tax Rules, 1962, Rule 8.112\n•\nConstitution of India, Article 226", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5896 of 1991, decision dated: 9-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Agarwal for Petitioner. K.S. Gupta for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BANKE BIHARI LAL AGARWAL\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 213 = 1999 SLD 213 = 1999 PTD 1587 = (1997) 226 ITR 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Business expenditure - Deduction only on actual payment - Insertion of first proviso to S.43-B w.e.f. 1-4-1988\nThe first proviso to section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is deemed declaratory of pre-existing law and is procedural in nature. It clarifies the existing provisions without affecting vested rights. The amendment, effective from April 1, 1988, applies to the assessment year 1984-85, as the change is procedural.\nCase references: CIT v. Bhandari Capacitors (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 647 (MP); CIT v. Chandulal Venichand (1994) 209 ITR 7 (Guj.); CIT v. Polar Fan Industries Ltd. (1992) 197 ITR 718 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.655 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S. B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHIRAJ KUMAR & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 214 = 1999 SLD 214 = 1999 PTD 1589 = (1997) 226 ITR 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Appellate Tribunal - Orders conforming to High Court's directions on reference\nUnder section 260(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal must act in conformity with the High Court’s directions when it refers a case back for action. If the question has not been raised at earlier stages, it cannot be considered in proceedings under section 260(1) unless it arises for the first time.\nIn this case, the Tribunal did not consider issues about jurisdiction under section 147(b) or the applicability of section 40(c) since these should have been raised earlier. The Tribunal’s decision to follow the High Court's guidance was justified.\nCase references: CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC); CIT v. Travancore Chemical Mfg. Co. (1982) 133 ITR 818 (Ker.); East India Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 287 (Mad.); ITAT v. S.C. Cambatta & Co. Ltd. (1956) 29 ITR 118 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.2 of 1992, decision dated: 17-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TRAVANCORE CHEMICAL AND MANUFACTURINC COMPANY LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 215 = 1999 SLD 215 = 1999 PTD 1600 = (1997) 226 ITR 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Reference - Loss - Carry forward of loss\nA question regarding the entitlement to carry forward losses despite the belated filing of a return is a question of law. The courts have ruled that this issue is to be addressed as a legal question.\nCase references: Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 143 ITR 99 (MP); CIT v. Chandran (R.) (1988) 174 ITR 256 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.6 of 1993, decision dated: 27-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. K.N. Puntambekar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDEWAS DYE CASTING (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 216 = 1999 SLD 216 = 1999 PTD 1602 = (1997) 226 ITR 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Business expenditure - Loss\nIn this case, the assessee, a timber lessee, claimed a river loss of 7% but the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed a lower claim of 4% and 3%, respectively. The Tribunal later allowed the full 7% claim based on previous years' precedents. However, the Tribunal failed to justify this decision and relied on conjectures rather than concrete evidence or legal reasoning. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was well-reasoned, and the correct river loss was 3%.\nResult: The Tribunal’s decision was overturned, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner’s order was restored.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1981, decision dated: 10-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " G.S. SINGHVI AND B. RAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Mahajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHAZARI MAL KUTHIALA & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 217 = 1999 SLD 217 = 1999 PTD 1605 = (1997) 227 ITR 458", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Cooperative society—Special deduction—Profits and gains attributable to actual sales of specified commodities to its members entitled to special deduction—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 80-P.\nSection 80-P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that a cooperative society is entitled to exemption on its income from activities specified under section 80-P with respect to its members. The deduction applies only to profits derived from actual sales of specified commodities to members, regardless of the initial intent at the time of purchasing those commodities. The original intent of the cooperative society at the time of purchase is not a deciding factor in granting the deduction.\nThe case CIT v. Nagpur Zilla Krishi Audyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (1994) 209 ITR 481 (Bom.) was cited as a precedent.\nHeld: The Tribunal's order was unclear regarding the specific trading activities of the assessee. Therefore, the case was remitted to the Tribunal for further examination to determine the deduction eligibility based on the correct interpretation of section 80-P, considering the findings in the Nagpur case.\nReference: CIT v. Nagpur Zilla Krishi Audyogik Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (1994) 209 ITR 481 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.84 of 1988, decision dated: 4-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. P.D. UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.P. Deogirikar for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian with J.P. Deodhar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AHMEDNAGAR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS WHOLESALE AND RETAIL STORES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 218 = 1999 SLD 218 = 1999 PTD 1609 = (1997) 227 ITR 446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2276\nIncome-tax—Business expenditure—Deduction only on actual payment—Constitutional validity of provisions—Disallowance of contributions to provident fund or welfare funds not paid within due dates—Explanation to cl. (v-a) of S. 36(1) and provisos to S. 43-B valid—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 36(1)(v-a) & 43-B—Constitution of India, Art. 14.\nThe provisions under section 36(1)(v-a) and section 43-B make it clear that deductions for employee-related contributions to provident funds or welfare funds are allowed only when these contributions are made by the employer within the prescribed due dates. Section 43-B, in particular, mandates that such deductions are allowed only when payments are actually made, regardless of the accounting period in which the liability arose.\nThese provisions ensure strict compliance with laws designed for workers' welfare, such as the Employees Provident Funds Act and the Employees State Insurance Act. If the payment is not made within the due date, the employer loses the tax benefit, even though penalties for delayed payments may apply under the respective welfare legislations.\nThe classification between contributions by the employer (which includes both employee and employer contributions) and other sums is rational, as it aims to ensure timely payment for employees' benefits.\nHeld: The provisions are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality, as they create a valid distinction based on different objectives of ensuring compliance with welfare legislations.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Gotla (J.H.) (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC)\n•\nRam Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538\n•\nSrikakollu Subba Rao & Co. v. Union of India (1988) 173 ITR 708 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.7516 of 1992, 21142 of 1994, 11774 of 1995 and 3051 of 1996, decision dated: 27-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ravi and A. Sanjaya Kishore for Petitioners (in W.Ps. Nos.7516 of 1992 and 21142 of 1994).S.R. Ashok for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "HITECH (INDIA) (PVT.) LTD. and others\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 219 = 1999 SLD 219 = 1999 PTD 1620 = (1997) 227 ITR 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Appellate Tribunal—Scope of powers—No power to recall or review orders on reference application—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 254 & 256.\nSection 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows the Appellate Tribunal to rectify mistakes apparent from the record, but this power is limited to orders passed under section 254(1). The Tribunal does not have the authority to recall or review any order passed under section 256, which concerns reference applications.\nHeld: The Tribunal cannot exercise powers to review or recall orders made under section 256, as its power is limited to rectification of errors in orders passed under section 254(1). The ruling aligns with various precedents, including CIT v. Bhatia (K.L.) (1990) 182 ITR 361 (Delhi) and CIT v. Globe Transport Corporation (1992) 195 ITR 311 (Raj.).\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Bhatia (K.L.) (1990) 182 ITR 361 (Delhi)\n•\nCIT v. Globe Transport Corporation (1992) 195 ITR 311 (Raj.)\n•\nCIT v. Suresh Kumar (1990) 186 ITR 114 (P & H)\n•\nCWT v. R.S. Seth Ghisalal Modi Family Trust (1988) 169 ITR 530 (MP)\n•\nJose T. Mooken v. CIT (No.2) (1979) 117 ITR 921 (Ker.)\n•\nPatel Nareshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji AIR 1970 SC 1273", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.392 of 1994, decision dated: 12-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. M. LAL AND, J. S. SIDHU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharat Ji Agrawal for Petitioner. Shakeel Ahmad for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 220 = 1999 SLD 220 = 1999 PTD 1639 = (1997) 226 ITR 796", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Depreciation—Rate of depreciation—Assessee carrying on business of exploiting mines and taking out stones with the help of dumpers—Dumpers not used for public transport business but used only for assessee’s own business—Assessee entitled to depreciation only at 30 per cent. and not at 40 per cent.—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 32.\nThe assessee, engaged in the business of exploiting mines and extracting stones using dumpers, is entitled to depreciation at a rate of 30 per cent., as the vehicles are not used for public transport but exclusively for the assessee's own business. The higher depreciation rate of 40 per cent. would only apply if the vehicles were used in public transport.\nHeld: The Tribunal correctly concluded that the dumpers were not being used for public transport, thus justifying depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Manjeet Stone Co. (1991) 190 ITR 183 (Raj.)\n•\nCIT v. Champalal (1995) 211 ITR 201 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.83 of 1987, decision dated: 1st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND M.A. A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner. P.K. Kasliwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPEER KHAN CHAND KHAN MORAK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 221 = 1999 SLD 221 = 1999 PTD 1642 = (1997) 226 ITR 798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Penalty—Charitable trust—Delay in filing return—Tax payable nil on account of exemptions under Ss. 11 & 12—No reasonable cause shown for delay—Levy of penalty valid—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 11, 12, 139(4A) & 271(1)(a).\nA charitable trust that has income exceeding the exempt limit under sections 11 and 12 is required to file a return under section 139(4A) within the prescribed time. Even though the trust's income was ultimately exempt from tax, the failure to file the return on time, coupled with no reasonable cause for the delay, justifies the imposition of a penalty.\nHeld: The penalty was validly imposed for the delay in filing the return, as the exemption under sections 11 and 12 does not excuse the obligation to file a return within the stipulated time.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Shree Rajendra Trust (2000) 246 ITR 117 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Shri Digvijay Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 474 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.80 of 1984, decision dated: 20-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R.K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. A. Mehta, R.K. Patel and B.D. Karia for K.C. Patel for the Assessee. M. J. Thakore instructed by Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent No", + "Party Name:": "GODIJI PARSHWANATHJI JAIN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 222 = 1999 SLD 222 = 1999 PTD 1644 = (1997) 226 ITR 883", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Non-resident—Collaboration agreement between Indian company and foreign company—Employee of foreign company working in India as part of collaboration agreement—Remuneration payable to employee of foreign company remitted to foreign company—Amount remitted to foreign company not taxable in hands of employee of foreign company—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 16.\nThe assessee, a non-resident employee of a foreign company, worked in India under a collaboration agreement. The remuneration paid by the Indian company to the foreign company on behalf of the employee was not taxable in the hands of the employee, as it was remitted to the foreign company, and not directly paid to the employee.\nHeld: The amounts remitted to the foreign company were not taxable in the hands of the employee as they did not constitute income directly received by the employee in India.\n(b) Income-tax—Salary—Deduction—Exemption—Collaboration agreement between Indian company and foreign company—Employee of foreign company working in India—Pocket allowance paid to employee by Indian company—Assessee not an employee of Indian company but received pocket allowance as an employee of foreign company—Pocket allowance not entitled to exemption under S. 10(14)—Standard deduction could be claimed from pocket allowance—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 10(14) & 16.\nThe assessee, employed by a foreign company, was sent to India to work for an Indian company under a collaboration agreement. The pocket allowance paid by the Indian company was taxable in the hands of the employee, but not exempt under section 10(14), as the allowance was not linked to the employee’s work in India. However, the employee was entitled to a standard deduction from the pocket allowance.\nHeld:\n(i) The remuneration paid in dollars by the Indian company to the foreign company was not taxable in India.\n(ii) The pocket allowance paid by the Indian company was taxable under the head Salary, and the employee was entitled to a standard deduction from it.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. S.G. Pignatale (1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.249 and 285 of 1982, decision dated: 10-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": " RAJESH BALIA AND M.S. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.A. Puj for J.P. Singh for the Assessee (in Income-tax Reference No. 249 of 1982). B.J. Shelat instructed by M.R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ALESSANDRO CONSTANTINI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 223 = 1999 SLD 223 = 1999 PTD 1653 = (1997) 226 ITR 801", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Company - Liability for Payment of Surtax - Not Deductible\nThe liability for surtax is not deductible in computing a company’s total income for income-tax purposes. This has been affirmed by the Bombay High Court in Lubrizol India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 25 (Bom.).\nReference: Lubrizol India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 25 (Bom.).\n(b) Income-tax - Capital or Revenue Expenditure - Loss Arising from Foreign Remittances and Revaluation of Foreign Liabilities Relating to Acquisition of Capital Assets - Capital Expenditure\nA loss arising from foreign remittances and the revaluation of foreign liabilities related to the acquisition of capital assets is considered capital expenditure, as held by the Bombay High Court in Padamjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 97 (Bom.).\nReference: Padamjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 97 (Bom.).\n(c) Income-tax - Accounting - Reference - Method of Accounting for Pension Liability\nThe Tribunal was directed to determine the method of accounting for recording the liability for pension in the books of the assessee. Despite a long lapse of 30 years, the Tribunal was to decide the issue based on earlier assessment years, with proper hearing for both parties. The case involved a reference under Sections 145 and 256 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference: Lubrizol India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 25 (Bom.), Padamjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 97 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.34 of 1984, decision dated: 16-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND M.L. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Soli Dastur and J.D. Mistry for the Assessee. T.U. Khatri for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SIEMENS INDIA LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 224 = 1999 SLD 224 = 1999 PTD 1661 = (1999) 79 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance - Non-filing of Monthly Statements - Penalty for Delay - Validity\nThe Central Board of Revenue (CBR) could not specify the due dates for filing statements under Sections 139 to 143 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as no time limits were prescribed. Therefore, penalties for delay in filing such statements were not valid. A notice had to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner to inform the assessee of the due date.\nReference: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3507; 1996 PTD 292.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance - Meaning of Manner \nThe term manner is defined as method , mode , or style of doing something, and does not refer to the concept of time.\nReference: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3507.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance - Prescribed Manner and Prescribed Form \n Prescribed manner includes the prescribed form as per the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nReference: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3507.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance - Penalty for Failure to File Statements\nPenalties for failure to file statements under specific rules (53, 61, and 61-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1982) were not justified because these were not prescribed under the relevant sections of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nReference: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3507.\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance - Jurisdiction for Imposing Penalty\nThe Tax Recovery Officer had no jurisdiction to impose penalties under Section 108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The penalty order was consequently cancelled.\nReference: 1994 PTD (Trib.) 786.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108(b),139,140,141,142 & 143 Income Tax Rules, 1982=53,61,61A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 120/113 of 1998-99, decision dated: 24-12-1998, hearing DATE : 18-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MANSOOR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees, Advocate Habib Fakhar ud Din, F.C.A Zia Hyder Rizvi, Advocate and Rashid Ibrahim, F.C.A. for Appellant, Abdul Jalil, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 225 = 1999 SLD 225 = 1999 PTD 1672 = (1999) 79 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance - Deemed Income for Loan Transactions - Loan Not Done Through Cross-Cheque\nA transaction involving a loan not conducted through a cross-cheque, but rather through a bearer cheque, was deemed as income by the Assessing Officer. This was in accordance with Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. A circular from the CBR, which contradicted this provision, could not be applied as it went against the statute.\nReference: 1997 PTD (Trib.) 2141; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 276; 1993 PTD Note 133 at p.183; Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent Police, Narowal PLD 1992 Lah. 178; Papper (Inspector of Taxes) v. Hart 1993 SCMR 1019.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6453/LB of 1995, decision dated: 15-12-1998, hearing DATE : 27-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Sh. S. M. Babar, Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Farooq Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 226 = 1999 SLD 226 = 1999 PTD 1696 = (1998) 234 ITR 188 = (1999) 79 TAX 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Recovery of Tax - Attachment and Sale of Property - Transfer of Property During Pendency of Proceedings\nUnder Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer made during the pendency of proceedings with the intention to defraud the Revenue is void. However, a Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule does not have the power to declare a transfer void. The TRO is restricted to investigating possession and cannot adjudicate ownership unless there is a suit under Rule 11(6) of the Income Tax Act.\nThe Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court, which had set aside the TRO's order to declare a transfer void. The TRO had jurisdiction over possession but could not declare a transfer void. The Department could, however, file a suit under Section 281 to challenge the transaction.\nReference: Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade v. TRO (No.2) (1989) 177 ITR 176 (Bom.) affirmed; Abdul Shukoor Saheb (C.) v. Arji Papa Rao AIR 1963 SC 1150; Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (No. 1) v. ITO (1989) 177 ITR 163 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3339 (NT) of 1988, decision dated: 10-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Ms. Renu George, Advocate for B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Appellant. Manish Pitale. Advocate for A.K. Sanghi, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "TAX RECOVERY OFFICER\nVs\nGANGADHAR VISHWANATH RANADE (DECD.) (through Mrs. Shobha Ravindra Nemiwant)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 227 = 1999 SLD 227 = 1999 PTD 1728 = (1997) 227 ITR 429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Deduction Only on Actual Payment – Tax or Duty Payable by Assessee – Mandi Tax – Is a Fee and Not a Tax\nThe assessee, a dealer in kiryana, grains, and other items, claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,12,269 as a provision for liability towards payment of Mandi tax for the assessment year 1985-86. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim under Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim, stating that Mandi tax was a fee, not a tax, and thus did not fall under the purview of Section 43-B. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that Mandi tax, being a fee, did not come under the tax category in Section 43-B, which only applied to taxes and duties. The provisions for fee were not included under Section 43-B at the relevant time.\nHeld: The Tribunal correctly upheld the Commissioner’s order deleting the addition for Mandi tax liability since Mandi tax is a fee, not a tax, and thus outside the scope of Section 43-B.\nReferences:\nKewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1008,\nLakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO (1986) 162 ITR 240 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No.631 of 1992, decision dated: 18-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner. B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANSUKHLAL PRAHJIBHAI & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 228 = 1999 SLD 228 = 1999 PTD 1731 = (1997) 227 ITR 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Income from House Property or Income from Other Sources – Assessee Agreeing to Purchase Property – Part Consideration Paid to Vendor – Vendor to Hand Over Rent\nThe assessee company entered into an agreement to purchase a property for Rs. 30 lakhs. Of this, Rs. 25 lakhs was paid upfront, and Rs. 5 lakhs was to be paid on execution of the sale deed. Under the agreement, the vendor was required to pay the rents collected from the tenants of the property to the assessee. The issue was whether the sum of Rs. 1,02,000 received by the assessee could be treated as income from house property or income from other sources.\nHeld: The sum of Rs. 1,02,000 could not be treated as income from house property because the assessee was not yet the owner of the property, and no sale deed had been executed. The sums received from the vendor under the agreement were considered as income from other sources.\nReferences:\nCIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizams Miscellaneous Trust (1986) 160 ITR 253 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos.63, 64 and 86 of 1992, decision dated: 14-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Krishnan, P.R. Raman and K. Anand for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PENINSULAR PLANTATIONS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 229 = 1999 SLD 229 = 1999 PTD 1736 = (1997) 227 ITR 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Disallowance – Interest on Deposits – Meaning of Deposits \nUnder Section 40-A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a portion of the interest on deposits is disallowed. The term deposit includes any deposit of money with a company. The assessee-company had paid interest on amounts credited to the accounts of its directors, their relatives, and firms they were interested in. The interest was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, who found these amounts to be deposits. The Tribunal examined the accounts and found no evidence that the amounts were current accounts.\nHeld: The amounts were not current business accounts, and the interest paid was on deposits, which fell under Section 40-A(8). Therefore, 15% of the interest paid was disallowed.\nReferences:\nCIT v. Kalani Asbestos (P.) Ltd. (1989) 180 ITR 55 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 148 of 1985, decision dated: 14-02-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kalyan Roy and R.N. Datta for the Assessee. A.N. Bhattacharjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DAGA & CO. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 230 = 1999 SLD 230 = 1999 PTD 1745 = (1997) 227 ITR 473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Disallowance – Interest on Deposits – Definition of Deposit \nThe term deposit is defined in Explanation (b) to section 40-A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and it means any deposit of money, which includes any money borrowed by a company. Deposits made by directors in their current accounts with a company are not excluded from this definition, and no specific exemption is made in the provisions of section 40-A(8). The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, came into force after the enactment of section 40-A(8) and only specifically excluded deposits made by directors through clause (ix) from the term deposit after September 18, 1975. Therefore, interest paid by the company to directors on current accounts qualifies as deposits and must be disallowed to the extent of 15% under section 40-A(8).\nHeld: Interest paid by a company to directors on their current accounts is to be disallowed to the extent of 15% under section 40-A(8) of the Act.\nReferences:\nAgew Steel Manufacturers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 209 ITR 77 (Guj.);\nCIT v. Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 469 (SC);\nCIT v. Gandhi Metals Mills (P.) Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 252 (Raj.);\nCIT v. Jhaveri Bros. & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 374 (Bom.);\nCIT v. Kalani Asbestos (P.) Ltd. (1989) 180 ITR 55 (MP);\nDaga & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 480 (Cal.);\nLakshmanier (K.M.S.) & Sons v. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 202 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.957 to 959 of 1983 (References Nos.513 to 515 of 1983), decision dated: 19-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S.M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Mani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKHIVARAJ MOTORS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 231 = 1999 SLD 231 = 1999 PTD 1752 = (1997) 227 ITR 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Investment Allowance – Plant – Manufacture of Tiles – Drying Shed Constitutes Plant\nIn the process of manufacturing tiles, drying is an essential part, and the drying of tiles must be done in sheds. These sheds are thus integral to the manufacturing process and are considered part of plant and machinery. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim investment allowance in respect of these drying sheds under Section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld: Drying sheds used in the manufacturing process of tiles are considered plant, and the assessee is entitled to claim investment allowance in respect of these sheds.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No. 107 of 1994, decision dated: 25-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee. V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RAMDEO TILES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 232 = 1999 SLD 232 = 1999 PTD 1754 = (1997) 227 ITR 365", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Reference – Question of Law – Search of Business Premises of Assessee by Sales Tax Authorities and Income-tax Authorities\nThe income-tax authorities conducted a search of the assessee's business and residential premises, during which documents relating to the sale and purchase of gold and silver ornaments were seized. Based on these documents, the Assessing Officer adopted the sales figures as determined by the sales tax authorities and estimated the gross profit and unexplained investment. The Tribunal deleted these additions, stating that the assessment order from the sales tax authorities could not be used as the sole basis for the income-tax assessment. The Department filed an application under section 256(2) to refer the question of law.\nHeld: The Tribunal's refusal to refer the questions of law was not a speaking order. The Tribunal’s observations were general and lacked specific reasoning on the rejection of evidence and the appropriateness of adopting sales tax authority figures for the income tax assessment. Therefore, a question of law arose for reference regarding whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.630 of 1994, decision dated: 8-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner, G.M. Chaphekar and Smt. Meena Chaphekar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHASMUKHLAL BAGADIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 233 = 1999 SLD 233 = 1999 PTD 1758 = (1997) 227 ITR 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Liability to Sales Tax – Deductible\nThe assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 17,78,313 for sales tax/purchase tax in the assessment year 1981-82, but the Assessing Officer initially disallowed it. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal allowed the deduction. The High Court affirmed that the assessee was liable to pay the sales/purchase tax for the relevant years, making the liability deductible.\nHeld: The assessee is entitled to a deduction for the liability of sales tax/purchase tax amounting to Rs. 17,78,313.\nReferences:\nKedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC)\nChandmama Publications v. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 321 (Mad.)\nCIT v. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Co. Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 66 (SC)\nMica Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of A.P. (1996) 100 STC 142 (AP)\nNew Victoria Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 395 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.33 of 1990, decision dated: 4-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA C.J. AND S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. S.K. Katriar, R.K. Sinha, S. Ranjan, R. Prabhat and S.C. Mitra for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMICA TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 234 = 1999 SLD 234 = 1999 PTD 1761 = (1997) 227 ITR 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Appeal to Appellate Tribunal – Income from Undisclosed Sources – Inference by I.T.O. that Agreements were Sham\nThe assessee company was engaged in the business of exhibiting films in two theatres. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) found that the arrangements for running the theatres were sham, designed to divert profits to sister concerns. The Tribunal held that the department should prove the agreements were not genuine. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal’s approach.\nHeld: The Tribunal erred by requiring the Revenue to provide positive evidence. Based on the primary facts available, the Tribunal should have evaluated the genuineness of the transactions. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.\nReference:\nCIT v. Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 809 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax References Nos. 49 to 54 of 1984, decision dated: 6-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.S. Gupta for G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner. A. Kasliwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOLCHA PROPERTIES (PVT.) LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 235 = 1999 SLD 235 = 1999 PTD 1771 = (1997) 226 ITR 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Fines and Penalties – Fines for Municipal Traffic Offenses – Not Deductible\nFines and penalties paid for breaching the law are not deductible as business expenses, even if no personal liability is involved. In this case, fines for traffic offenses were not allowed as deductions.\nHeld: Fines for traffic offenses are not deductible.\nReference:\nHaji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC)\n(b) Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Entertainment Expenditure – Ordinary Meals Not Considered Entertainment Expenditure (1974-75)\nExpenditure on offering ordinary meals, deemed necessary for hospitality, is not categorized as entertainment expenditure for the assessment year 1974-75. The expenditure falls outside the scope of entertainment expenditure unless specified under Explanation 2 to section 37(2-A) of the Act, which came into effect on April 1, 1976.\nHeld: Expenditure on ordinary meals is not entertainment expenditure for the assessment year 1974-75.\nReferences:\nCIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC)\nDelhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 785 (Delhi)\nCIT v. Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd. (1995) 211 ITR 400 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 149 and 150 of 1983, decision dated: 27-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JOIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly and Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAIPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 236 = 1999 SLD 236 = 1999 PTD 1773 = (1997) 226 ITR 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Offences and Prosecution – Deduction of Tax at Source – Notification on Prosecution\nThe Government of India issued a notification that prosecution would not be initiated when the cumulative interest for tax deducted at source (TDS) under sections 192 to 195 is below Rs. 10,000 and tax has been paid to the Central Government. In this case, the interest was less than Rs. 200, so the prosecution was quashed.\nHeld: Prosecution is liable to be quashed due to the low interest amount and compliance with the TDS payment.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.3918 and 3919 of 1990, decision dated: 21st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " R. N. PRASAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "GANGA SOLVENT and others\nVs\nSTATE OF BIHAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 237 = 1999 SLD 237 = 1999 PTD 1774 = (1997) 226 ITR 403", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Penalty – Concealment of Income – Jurisdiction to Impose Penalty – Change of Law\nFor the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee filed a return on December 13, 1970, disclosing an income of Rs. 2,105. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) later assessed the total income to be Rs. 25,510 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The penalty of Rs. 24,400 was imposed in 1975. The assessee argued that since the penalty exceeded Rs. 1,000, the ITO should have referred the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC), in line with the law prior to the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect on April 1, 1971. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the amendment was procedural, and the ITO had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty.\nHeld: The Tribunal erred in holding that the ITO lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty. The amendment of section 274(2) was procedural and applied to pending cases, so the ITO had jurisdiction. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the merits.\nReferences:\nVarkey Chacko v. C. I. T. (1993) 203 ITR 885 (SC)\nC.I.T v. Dhadi Sahu (1976) 105 ITR 56 (Orissa)\nContinental Commercial Corporation v. I.T.O. (1975) 100 ITR 170 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1133 of 1982 (Reference No.688 of 1982), decision dated: 9-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Mani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nA. SUBRAMANIA PILLAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 238 = 1999 SLD 238 = 1999 PTD 1778 = (1997) 226 ITR 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Reference – Deductions – Payment of Interest to Children – Disallowed by I.T.O.\nThe assessee claimed a deduction for interest paid to her children. The Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) initially disallowed the deduction due to lack of evidence. At the appellate stage, the assessee submitted voluntary disclosure certificates from the children, which stated that they had deposited their money with her. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the certificates and allowed the deduction for two children, while the deduction for another child was denied due to lack of clarity regarding the conversion of gold into cash.\nHeld: The Tribunal found that no question of law arose, as the matter was based purely on the facts and evidence presented. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner’s decision to allow the deduction for two children was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No. 625 of 1992, decision dated: 19-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Tankha for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSmt. MARJINDER KAUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 239 = 1999 SLD 239 = 1999 PTD 1780 = (1997) 226 ITR 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Unexplained Investment – Purchase of Land – Valuation by Income-tax Department\nThe assessee purchased a plot of land in 1971 for Rs. 45,000, while the market value of the plot was higher. The Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) obtained a valuation report showing the market value to be Rs. 81,000. The I.T.O. issued a notice to the assessee, asking why the value of the land should not be adjusted accordingly. The assessee failed to provide an explanation, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the addition, reducing it to Rs. 23,400. The Tribunal also upheld the addition, concluding that the correct value was not shown in the books.\nHeld: The addition under section 69-B for unexplained investment was justified. The assessee did not provide any explanation for the discrepancy between the recorded price and the market value. The consistent findings by the I.T.O., Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal supported the conclusion that the assessee concealed the actual consideration paid.\nReferences:\nAbdul Qayyum v. C.I.T. (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All.)\nC.I.T. v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)\nC.I.T. v. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC)\nC.I.T. v. H. H. Maharao Bhim Singhji (1988) 173 ITR 79 (Raj.)\nC.I.T. v. Pradyuman Kumar Kachhawa (1985) 156 ITR 105 (Raj.)\nC.I.T. v. Pratapsingh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh and Deepak Kumar (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj.)\nC.I.T. v. Prem Kumari Surana (Smt.) (1994) 206 ITR 715 (Raj.)\nC.I.T. v. Raja Narendra (1994) 210 ITR 250 (Raj.)\nDinesh Kumar Mittal v. I.T.O. (1992) 193 ITR 770 (All.)\nM. D. Jewellers v. C.I.T. (1994) 208 ITR 196 (Raj.)\nNew Excelsior Theatre (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M.B. Naik, I.T.O. (1990) 185 ITR 158 (Bom.)\nVarghese (K.P.) v. I.T.O. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. I.T. Reference No. 46 of 1980, decision dated: 1st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " Y.K. MEENA AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. M. Ranka for the Assessee. K.S. Gupta for G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Sint. AMAR KUMARI SURANA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 240 = 1999 SLD 240 = 1999 PTD 1788 = (1997) 226 ITR 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – New Industrial Undertaking – Special Deduction – Condition Precedent\nThe assessee was leasing machinery but did not have control over the use of it. Consequently, the assessee could not be considered to be involved in the manufacture or production of articles, a requirement for claiming special deductions under section 80-J of the Income Tax Act.\nHeld: The assessee is not entitled to the special deduction under section 80-J because it did not meet the condition of manufacturing or producing articles.\n(b) Income-tax – Development Rebate – Lease of Machinery\nThe Income Tax Officer disallowed the development rebate on machinery leased by the assessee. Since the machinery was leased out and not directly used in manufacturing, the assessee was not entitled to claim the development rebate.\nHeld: The assessee is not entitled to the development rebate under section 33 of the Income Tax Act.\n(c) Income-tax – Business – Other Sources – Lease Income\nThe income derived from leasing machinery was questioned by the Income Tax Officer, and it was examined whether the income should be categorized as business income or income from other sources. The lease income was assessed as business income rather than income from other sources.\nHeld: The lease income was assessable as business income under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not under section 56.\nReference:\nCIT v Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (1995) 211 ITR 370 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 143 of 1980, decision dated: 21st November, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D. Jolly for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNORTHERN INDIA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 674 = 1999 SLD 674 = 1999 PTD 1790 = (1997) 226 ITR 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtmTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Purchase of Immovable Property by Central Government – Determination of Fair Market Value\nThe case dealt with the valuation of immovable property purchased by the Central Government under section 269-UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was found that the authorities had not followed the correct principles for determining the fair market value of the property. The authorities acted without considering relevant factors such as location, amenities, and proximity, leading to an incorrect decision on pre-emptive purchase.\nHeld: The order of pre-emptive purchase was quashed as the authorities had not properly considered the relevant facts and had acted contrary to the principles of law. The valuation of the property should be made objectively, taking into account various factors like location, shape, road access, and proximity to amenities.\nReferences:\nChimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1988 SC 1652\nCWT v. Mrs. Sara Varghese (1991) 187 ITR 450 (Ker.)\nDebi Prosad Poddar v. CWT (1977) 109 ITR 760 (Cal.)\nGold Coast Selection Trust Ltd. v. Humphrey (1949) 17 ITR (Supply 19 (HL)\nKrishna Kumar Rawat v. Union of India (1995) 214 ITR 610 (Raj.)\nRaghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Government AIR 1967 SC 465\nShrichand Raheja v. Prasad (SC), Appropriate Authority (1995) 213 ITR 33 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.961 of 1994, decision dated: 27-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND S.L. SARAF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. B. Upadhyaya and Ajay Sharma for Petitioners. Bhartji Agarwal and Shekhara Srivastava for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "AJEET SINGH and another\nVs\nAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 242 = 1999 SLD 242 = 1999 PTD 1801 = (1997) 227 ITR 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – Revision – Commissioner – Draft Assessment Order\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax exercised jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to reverse the direction issued under section 144-B. Following this reversal, a fresh assessment was made, which was found to be within the jurisdiction.\nHeld: The Commissioner had the jurisdiction to reverse the direction issued under section 144-B, and the subsequent fresh assessment made was valid.\nReference:\nTarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 45 (Gauhati)\n(b) Income-tax – Capital Gains – Lump Sum Consideration\nThe case involved the sale of land, where the lump sum consideration included the cost of trees standing on the land. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not act on mere surmises in concluding that the price paid for the land included the cost of the trees, which was subject to capital gains tax.\nHeld: The lump sum consideration received for the land, including the cost of trees, was subject to capital gains tax.\nReference:\nTarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 45 (Gauhati)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 15 of 1991, decision dated: 10-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwalla for the Assessee. G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TARAJAN TEA CO. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 243 = 1999 SLD 243 = 1999 PTD 1803 = (1997) 227 ITR 646", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Depreciation – Plant\nThe case involved the purchase of bottles for leasing as part of a business. The assessee claimed depreciation on the bottles, arguing that they constituted plant for business purposes. The court held that individual items purchased for business purposes could qualify as plant for depreciation under section 32, even if they were not bulk purchases.\nHeld: The bottles purchased for leasing out as part of the business constituted plant and were eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference:\nCIT v. Sri Krishna Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. (1989) 175 ITR 154 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 14 of 1997, decision dated: 13-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " LINGARAJA RATH AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMARGADARSI CHIT FUND (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 244 = 1999 SLD 244 = 1999 PTD 1806 = (1997) 227 ITR 635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – Assessment – Applicability of Section 144-B\nSection 144-B is procedural and applicable to assessments prior to January 1, 1976, as long as those assessments had not been completed. This section governs cases where the Assessing Officer proposes to vary the income returned by more than Rs. 1 lakh.\nHeld: The provisions of section 144-B apply to assessments prior to 1st January 1976 for incomplete assessments.\nReference:\nSmt. Mohinder Jaspal Singh v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 186 (Delhi)\n(b) Income-tax – Limitation – Draft Assessment Order\nThe period of limitation for making assessments, once section 144-B has been invoked, is computed under Explanation 1(iv) to section 153. The period of 180 days commences from the date the draft assessment order is forwarded by the Assessing Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.\nHeld: The period for completing the assessment starts from the date the draft assessment order is sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.\nReference:\nSmt. Mohinder Jaspal Singh v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 186 (Delhi)\n(c) Income-tax – Export Market Development Allowance – Weighted Deduction\nThe case clarified that the weighted deduction under section 35-B does not apply to expenditure on freight and insurance. These expenses are specifically excluded from the deduction.\nHeld: Freight and insurance expenses are not eligible for the weighted deduction under section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference:\nHandicrafts and Handloom Export Corporation of India v. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 532 (Delhi)\n(d) Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Surtax\nSurtax levied under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, cannot be deducted while computing the business income of a company for tax purposes under the Income Tax Act.\nHeld: Surtax is not deductible as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference:\nSmith Kline & French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 581 (SC)\nOrissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 636 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 195 of 1981, 111 and 112 of 1983, decision dated: 6-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. R.D. Jolly, Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal and Ajay Jha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 245 = 1999 SLD 245 = 1999 PTD 1810 = (1997) 227 ITR 633", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Surtax\nThe surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is not an allowable deduction while computing the total income of the assessee.\nHeld: The surtax paid under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is not deductible in computing the total income of the company.\nReference:\nSmith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 581 (SC)\nA. V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 431 (Ker.)\nMakum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 453 (Gau.)", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No of 1982, decision dated: 17-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN C.J. AND MS. KAMLESH SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.D. Sood for the Assessee. Inder Singh for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 246 = 1999 SLD 246 = 1999 PTD 1811 = (1997) 227 ITR 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Total Income – Inclusions in Total Income\nThe income of a minor child from admission to the benefits of a partnership, specifically interest on capital invested in the firm, is includible in the total income of the parent under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld: The interest on capital invested by the minor child in the partnership firms is includible in the parent’s total income.\nReference:\nCIT v. Sri Ram Ratan (1996) 217 ITR 692 (All.)\nKaladhar Prasad Chaturvedi v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 713 (All.)\nCIT v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (1987) 166 ITR 253 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.201 of 1981, decision dated: 2-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSmt. SAVITRI DEVI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 247 = 1999 SLD 247 = 1999 PTD 1814 = (1997) 227 ITR 590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Firm – Registration – Liquor Contract\nThe distinction between dissolution of a firm and change in its constitution is crucial. A firm, even after changes in its constitution, retains its eligibility for registration if the excise license issued for liquor sale remains valid and no transfer of license occurs, despite reconstitution.\nHeld: The firm is entitled to continue its registration under the Income Tax Act even after changes in its constitution, as the excise license remains with the firm and no objection was raised by the Collector under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act.\nReference:\nCabell v. Markhan (1945) 148 F 2d 737\nCIT v. A.W. Figgies & Co. (1953) 24 ITR 405 (SC)\nCIT v. Pigot Chapman & Co. (1982) 135 ITR 620 (SC)\nCIT v. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar (1982) 136 ITR 379 (Delhi)\nMeenakshi Achi v. P.S.M. Subramanian Chettiar AIR 1957 Mad. 8\nSohanlal Pachisia & Co. v. Billasray Khemani AIR 1954 Cal. 179\nVijay & Co. v. CIT (1981) 1 MPWN 87\nVishwanath Seth v. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 249 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 186 of 1988, decision dated: 23rd January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S. B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner. K.R. Mandovara for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nOMPRAKASH PREMCHAND & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 248 = 1999 SLD 248 = 1999 PTD 1820 = (1997) 227 ITR 586", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Deduction on Actual Payment\nSection 43-B, as amended by the Finance Act, 1989, requires that deductions for certain business expenditures (e.g., sales tax) are only allowed on actual payment, and this amendment is applicable from the assessment year 1984-85. Thus, if sales tax due for December 1983 is paid in January, it is not deductible in the previous year.\nHeld: Deduction of sales tax is not allowable under section 43-B if it is paid after the end of the assessment year.\nReference:\nExplanation 2 to Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n(b) Income-tax – Rectification – Mistake\nThe amendment to section 43-B introduced by the Finance Act, 1989, had created conflicting judicial decisions. However, the Tribunal was justified in rectifying the appellate order based on the interpretation of the amendment by the jurisdictional High Court, which resolved the conflicting decisions.\nHeld: The Tribunal was justified in rectifying the order based on the jurisdictional High Court’s interpretation of section 43-B.\nReference:\nCIT v. A. Kunjumytheen Kunju (1997) 227 ITR 582 (Ker.)\nCIT v. Govindaraja Reddiar (1991) 187 ITR 417 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.R. No.39 of 1993, decision dated: 19-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.C. Sen and Prakash Thomas for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MANARKATTU BROS. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 249 = 1999 SLD 249 = 1999 PTD 1823 = (1997) 227 ITR 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Business expenditure — Law applicable to assessment — Deduction only on actual payment — Amendment of S.43-B by Finance Act, 1989 — Effect of sums payable \n•\nThe amendments introduced to section 43-B of the Income Tax Act in the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Finance Act, 1988, and Finance Act, 1989, impacted the treatment of sums payable. Explanation 2 was introduced, which deems sums payable from April 1, 1984, even if they were not due within the accounting period. The provision applies where the liability is incurred within the accounting year, but the actual payment is made after the year ends.\n•\nHeld: The amendment applied from assessment year 1984-85. Even if amounts were not technically payable in the accounting year, they were still considered payable for purposes of section 43-B, provided the amounts were paid during the year.\nCIT v. Gonvindaraja Reddiar (1991) 187 ITR 417 (Ker.) was followed.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 141 and 142 of 1987, decision dated: 10-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA. KUNJUMYTHEEN KUNJU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 250 = 1999 SLD 250 = 1999 PTD 1827 = (1997) 227 ITR 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Reference — Scope of reference application — Findings by Tribunal — No question of law arises\n•\nIn this case, the assessee's return disclosed a loss for the assessment year 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer rejected the accounts and estimated profits. However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's accounts and explained why the gross profits were less in the disputed year. The appellate authorities found the sales and purchases were verifiable and that the gross profit was satisfactorily explained.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition to income. The reference application was dismissed, as the findings were factual, and no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. References to other cases that were not related to the present facts were of no consequence.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 102 of 1996, decision dated: 8-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs.\nRAM NARAIN HIRA LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 251 = 1999 SLD 251 = 1999 PTD 1831 = (1997) 227 ITR 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Reference — Scope of power of High Court — Exemption from surtax — Single-stage vs. multiple-stage grossing up\n•\nPart A: The Tribunal upheld the exemption from surtax granted to a foreign company under a notification issued by the Central Government for mineral oil prospecting. The CIT's revision to withdraw the exemption was found invalid.\n•\nPart B: The CIT had issued a notice under section 263 without referencing whether grossing up should be done in single or multiple stages. The Tribunal rightly concluded that only single-stage grossing up applied, as the CIT did not provide any finding on multiple-stage grossing up.\n•\nHeld: The High Court found that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The High Court ruled that the Tribunal had correctly handled both the surtax exemption and the grossing-up method.\nAlcock Ashdown & Co. v. Chief Revenue Authority AIR 1923 PC 136, Bansilal v. CIT (1958) 33 ITR 176 (Raj.), and other related cases were referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax References Applications Nos.15, 19 and 29 of 1995, decision dated: 11-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M.G. MUKHERJI, ACTG. C.J. AND BHAGWATI PRASAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.S. Shishodia and Sandeep Bhandawat for Petitioner. N.P. Gupta for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nO.N.G.C. AGENT OF CGG, FRANCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 252 = 1999 SLD 252 = 1999 PTD 1846 = (1997) 227 ITR 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Refund - Interest on Refund - Power to Withhold Refund\nThe power to withhold a refund under section 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be exercised merely because proceedings are pending. The Income-tax Officer must form an opinion that granting the refund will adversely affect the Revenue. This does not mean that the Revenue can withhold refunds solely because proceedings are ongoing. The determination of whether the refund could harm the Revenue depends on the facts of the case.\nIn the case, the assessment for the petitioner for the assessment year 1981-82 was annulled by the Tribunal, and a refund of Rs.10,30,171 was due. Despite this, no interest was paid on the refunded amount. The petitioner filed an appeal, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of granting interest on the refund. However, the Assistant Commissioner withheld the interest due to pending appeals concerning the annulled assessment and the grant of interest. The court ruled that the mere filing of an appeal did not justify withholding the interest and that the interests of the Revenue would not be adversely affected by paying interest on the refund. Therefore, the department was directed to pay the withheld interest.\nRelevant sections:\n•\nSection 241: Power to withhold refund if adverse to the Revenue.\n•\nSections 214 and 244(1-A): Provision for interest on refunds.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No.2313 of 1997, decision dated: 22-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND IQBAL SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Sud for Petitioner. B.S. Gupta and Sanjay Bansal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PIONEER SPORTS WORKS , \nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax anti another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 253 = 1999 SLD 253 = 1999 PTD 1853 = (1997) 227 ITR 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Limitation - Draft Assessment Order - Extended Limitation Period under Section 144-B\nFor Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to apply, there must be a variation in income or loss returned, prejudicial to the assessee, and the variation must exceed a prescribed threshold. In the present case, the assessee filed a return with nil income but the Income-tax Officer assessed income at Rs.2,08,400. As the variation exceeded the threshold, Section 144-B applied. A draft assessment order was issued, approved by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and the final assessment order was passed within the extended period under Section 153.\nThe assessee contended the assessment was barred by limitation, but the Tribunal held that the assessment order was within the time allowed by Clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to Section 153(1). The assessment was not barred by limitation.\nRelevant sections:\n•\nSection 144-B: Procedure for making a draft assessment order when the variation exceeds a threshold.\n•\nSection 153: Time limits for assessment completion.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.47 of 1987, decision dated: 18-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair, Dale P. Kurien and M.A. Firoz for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MUTHOOTTU CHARITABLE TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 254 = 1999 SLD 254 = 1999 PTD 1858 = (1997) 227 ITR 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Salary - Standard Deduction\nWhen an individual receives salary from multiple employers, the standard deduction must be calculated on the aggregate salary income. In this case, the assessee received salary from two companies and claimed standard deductions of Rs.1,000 and Rs.3,500 from the two sources. However, the Income-tax Officer allowed only Rs.1,000. The Tribunal ruled that the assessee could not claim two separate standard deductions. The total salary income was Rs.1,06,720, and the standard deduction should have been computed as Rs.3,500 based on the aggregate salary.\nRelevant section:\n•\nSection 16(i): Standard deduction on salary.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.265 of 1983 (Reference No-96 of 1983), decision dated: 18-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner. K. Ramagopal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nU. MOHAN RAO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 255 = 1999 SLD 255 = 1999 PTD 1861 = (1997) 227 ITR 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Depreciation - Ownership of Asset\nUnder Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, depreciation is allowed on assets used for business, provided the assessee is the owner of the asset. The ownership condition is deemed fulfilled if the assessee has control over the asset, even if the title deed is not executed. In the case, the assessee had paid full consideration for property and was in exclusive possession, despite not having the formal title deed. The Tribunal allowed depreciation based on the facts that the assessee had effectively exercised ownership rights over the property.\nRelevant section:\n•\nSection 32: Depreciation on assets used for business.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case referred No. 116 of 1988, decision dated: 8-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND B.S. RAIKOTE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nORIENT LONGMAN (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 256 = 1999 SLD 256 = 1999 PTD 1865 = (1997) 227 ITR 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2314\nTopic: Income-tax — Business Expenditure — Mercantile System of Accounting — Expenditure in Which Year Allowable\nCase Summary:\nThe case revolves around the question of whether the penalty and interest paid by the assessee due to a violation of the Customs Act can be deducted as business expenditure for the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee firm was engaged in importing crude palm oil, and during the accounting period, they incurred a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 and interest of Rs. 4,000 due to violations of the Customs Act. However, in 1982, the Government of India set aside the order of penalty, effectively eliminating the liability.\nThe assessee claimed the penalty and interest as business expenditure in the year it was paid (1979-80), arguing that the expenses were incurred in the course of their business activities. The Income-tax Officer, however, disallowed the deduction on the grounds that penalties for violating the law are not deductible as business expenditures.\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the penalty and interest were not deductible for the following reasons:\n1.\nThe penalty: The penalty had been imposed due to a violation of the law (Customs Act), and deductions for such penalties are not allowed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, as clarified in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC).\n2.\nRelating Back Doctrine: The Tribunal applied the relating back doctrine, which allows subsequent legal events (like the 1982 government order) to affect the financial position of earlier years. Since the penalty was set aside in 1982, the liability for the penalty was considered non-existent for the purpose of deductions in 1979-80.\n3.\nMercantile Accounting: Since the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, the liability did not accrue in 1979-80. Hence, the mere payment of the penalty and interest does not make it deductible.\nReferences:\n•\nHaji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Pannalal Narottamdas & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 667 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 350 (SC)\n•\nKedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 17 of 1986, decision dated: 22-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Bhojwani and Sunil Bhojwani for the Assessee. K.S. Gupta for G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 257 = 1999 SLD 257 = 1999 PTD 1873 = (1997) 227 ITR 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Salary — Incentive Bonus Paid to Development Officer of L.I.C.\nCase Summary:\nThe case addresses whether the incentive bonus paid to a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.) is taxable as part of the salary. The incentive bonus was linked to the business secured in excess of a prescribed premium income, and it was part of a formal scheme designed by L.I.C. to incentivize its employees.\nThe Development Officer’s incentive bonus was based on performance and was not a personal gift. The bonus was paid under the terms of the employment contract and was related to the officer’s duties as an employee of L.I.C. The assessee argued that the incentive was a personal gift and should not be taxed as part of the salary.\nConclusion: The Court ruled that the incentive bonus was, in fact, part of the salary and taxable as such:\n1.\nRelating to Employment: The incentive bonus was directly linked to the employee's performance in the context of their employment with L.I.C. It was not a personal gift.\n2.\nTaxable as Salary: Since the payment was made due to the employer-employee relationship and was part of the contractual terms, it was considered part of the salary and was subject to tax under Sections 16 and 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3.\nStandard Deduction: The assessee was entitled to the standard deduction permissible under Section 16, but the bonus itself was taxable.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia (1997) 227 ITR 7 (Raj.)\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 16 & 17", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No.83 of 1995, decision dated: 27-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND A.S. GODARA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 258 = 1996 SLD 258 = 1999 PTD 1877 = (1997) 227 ITR 7 = (1995) 74 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax — Reference — Question of Law — Conflicting Decisions of Tribunal on a Particular Point\nTopic: Interpretation of CBDT Circular and Applicability to Development Officers of LIC\nCase Summary: This case concerns the issue of whether the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular related to allowance of expenses for insurance agents applies to Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). The taxpayer, a LIC Development Officer, received an incentive bonus and claimed a deduction of 40%. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim, treating the bonus as part of the salary. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, but the Tribunal ruled against the Revenue’s appeal. Subsequently, the Revenue sought a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act.\nThe issues raised were:\n1.\nConflicting Tribunal Decisions: There was a conflict between Tribunal benches on whether the incentive bonus paid to LIC Development Officers is a deductible expense.\n2.\nCBDT Circular Applicability: The circular issued for insurance agents was questioned for its relevance to Development Officers.\n3.\nTax Effect Under Rs. 30,000: The Revenue's objection was the tax effect was below Rs. 30,000, thus, as per CBDT’s circular, no question of law should be raised.\nConclusion:\n•\nQuestion of Law: The High Court held that conflicting decisions on the issue of the incentive bonus deduction and the application of the CBDT circular require a decision on the legal question.\n•\nTax Effect: Although the tax effect in this case was less than Rs. 30,000, the court ruled that collectively, the tax effect in similar cases would exceed Rs. 30,000. Therefore, the reference could not be rejected on this ground.\n•\nIncentive Bonus as Salary: The incentive bonus was linked to the business procured by the officer and was considered part of the salary. It was taxable, and the standard deduction was applicable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nCBDT Circular: The court ruled that the CBDT circular on expense allowances applies to insurance agents and not to Development Officers, clarifying that these officers are employees of LIC and not agents.\nReferences:\n•\nChoudary (K.A.) v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 29 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Baniyan (A.A.) (1992) 197 ITR 717 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Chinnaiah (B.) (1995) 214 ITR 368 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Govind Chandra Pani (1995) 213 ITR 783 (Orissa)\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax — Reference — Maintainability of Reference — Tax Effect Below Rs.30,000\nTopic: Applicability of CBDT Circular and Maintainability of Tax Appeals\nCase Summary: The issue was whether a reference could be maintained by the Revenue if the tax effect in the case was less than Rs. 30,000. The Revenue had challenged the decision of the Tribunal that allowed the deduction of incentive bonus received by the LIC Development Officer. The contention was that the CBDT circular restricted such cases unless the tax effect was above the threshold.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax Effect: Although the tax effect in a single case was less than Rs. 30,000, when considering similar cases collectively, the tax effect exceeded the threshold, making the reference valid.\n•\nConflicting Tribunal Decisions: The Tribunal had conflicting opinions on the issue, necessitating a higher court’s intervention to resolve the matter.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income-tax — Reference — Remand of Matter to Tribunal for Fresh Statement of Case\nTopic: Business or Professional Income and Incentive Bonus\nCase Summary: The Tribunal had allowed the deduction of the incentive bonus as professional or business income. The question was whether the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal to clarify the findings. The Revenue sought a remand, arguing the Tribunal had not clarified whether the income derived from the incentive bonus was from business or profession.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal’s Finding: The High Court ruled that the Tribunal had not made contradictory findings, and it was unnecessary to remand the case since the deduction had been allowed based on the income from the incentive bonus.\n________________________________________\n(d) Income-tax — Salary — Incentive Bonus Paid to Development Officer of LIC\nTopic: Incentive Bonus as Salary and Its Taxability\nCase Summary: The issue revolved around the taxability of the incentive bonus received by the Development Officer of LIC. The incentive bonus was based on business procured by the officer, and the taxpayer claimed it as part of the salary but sought a 40% deduction. The Assessing Officer had already allowed the standard deduction but denied the additional claim for the bonus.\nConclusion:\n•\nIncentive Bonus as Salary: The High Court held that the incentive bonus was part of the salary as it was linked to business performance. It was paid due to the employer-employee relationship and not as a personal gift. Hence, the bonus was taxable under salary and only eligible for the standard deduction.\n•\nCBDT Circular: The CBDT circular related to insurance agents' allowances was not applicable to Development Officers, as these officers were employees of LIC. The Court found no basis for applying the circular to their case.\nReferences:\n•\nEllerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC)\n•\nGestetner Duplicators (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nKrishna Murthy (M.) v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 163 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No.8 of 1992, decision dated: 1st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.R. ARORA AND P.C., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner. Vineet Kothari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHIV RAJ BHATIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 259 = 1999 SLD 259 = 1999 PTD 1903 = (1999) 80 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Sections 65 & 107(5) — Additional Assessment and Re-Opening\nTopic: Re-opening of Assessment Based on Non-fulfillment of Tax Credit Conditions\nCase Summary: This case examines whether an assessment can be reopened based on non-compliance with the conditions for tax credit under Sections 65 and 107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The tax credit was initially allowed for balancing, modernizing, and replacement (BMR) of machinery. However, subsequent review found that the petitioner had not fulfilled the required conditions for the tax credit.\nConclusion:\n•\nRe-opening of Assessment: The Court held that the assessment could be reopened under Section 65, as failure to comply with the conditions of Section 107 regarding the BMR tax credit constitutes definite information allowing reopening, even without new material.\nReferences:\n•\nMessrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue Islamabad (1993 SCMR 1232)\n•\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner v. Pakistan Herald Ltd. (1997 PTD 1485)\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Sections 65, 62, 107(5) — Re-Opening of Assessment Due to Non-Production of Documentary Evidence\nTopic: Re-opening Assessment Due to Non-Compliance in BMR Tax Credit\nCase Summary: The case involved the re-opening of an assessment on the basis that the petitioner had failed to produce the necessary documentary evidence for the tax credit claim on BMR machinery. Despite the petitioner’s claim that the documents were submitted, the Assessing Officer rejected them as insufficient.\nConclusion:\n•\nNon-Compliance: The Court found that the factual controversy, including the production of documents, needed to be settled through proper evidence and was not an issue for the High Court. The petition was dismissed, as the matter required factual determination, which could be addressed by the lower forums.\nReferences:\n•\nSyed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi v. Province of Sindh (1996 SCMR 1165)\n•\nFateh Ali v. Province of Balochistan (1997 SCMR 1687)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 & 107(5),62,Art.199 Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.48(1)(a)(b),(c) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1353 of 1997, decision dated: 8-12-1998, hearing DATE : 4-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi and Lubna Pervez for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMIN TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nC. I. T." + }, + { + "Case No.": "2318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 260 = 1999 SLD 260 = 1999 PTD 1917 = (1997) 226 ITR 422", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Offences and Prosecution - Wilful Attempt to Evade Tax\nFacts:\n•\nThe petitioner filed a return showing total income of Rs. 14,770 for the assessment year 1979-80.\n•\nThe Income Tax Officer completed the assessment with a total income of Rs. 1,28,390, including Rs. 1,25,010 from a clinic.\n•\nThe petitioner was prosecuted under sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for willfully attempting to evade tax by concealing income.\n•\nOn appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reduced the clinic’s income to Rs. 55,000, a decision that was upheld by the Tribunal.\n•\nThe petitioner contended that the income from the clinic belonged to his wife and not him, but the Income Tax authorities initially included it in his income.\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the criminal prosecution under sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act could stand, given the later conclusion that the clinic's income did not belong to the petitioner.\nCourt's Ruling:\n•\nAt a later stage, the Income Tax authorities accepted the petitioner's position that the clinic belonged to his wife, not him. As a result, the inclusion of income from the clinic in the petitioner’s taxable income was incorrect.\n•\nThe Court held that prosecuting the petitioner for concealing income, based on the inclusion of income that belonged to his wife, was an abuse of the legal process.\n•\nSimilar prosecution for the assessment year 1980-81 was quashed by the Court, as the sanction for both years had been issued jointly.\n•\nThe criminal prosecution for the assessment year 1979-80 was found invalid and quashed.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe prosecution for evading tax, based on an error regarding the clinic's income, was quashed as an abuse of process.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Crl. W. J. C. No.265 of 1992, decision dated: 16-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " NARESH KUMR SINHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K N. Jai Dr. R. Usha, Vikash Jain and Nand Kishore Singh for Petitioner. N. Rastogi and S. K. Sharan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Dr. A. A. HAI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 261 = 1999 SLD 261 = 1999 PTD 1919 = (1997) 226 ITR 352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Reassessment - Reason to Believe Income Has Escaped Assessment\nFacts:\n•\nA partner of the petitioner-firm retired, and a new firm was formed. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, citing that certain amounts credited to the firm’s books in the name of P were bogus entries.\n•\nThe ITO claimed that P was a name-lender and did not have the capacity to provide such a loan.\n•\nThe firm contested the reassessment on the grounds that the notices under section 148 and section 176(5) were not valid and that the notice was barred by limitation.\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the reassessment proceedings were valid despite the firm’s objections regarding the notices and the limitation period.\nCourt's Ruling:\n•\nThe Court upheld the reassessment proceedings, noting that the ITO had valid reasons for forming the belief that income had escaped assessment.\n•\nThe Court found that once a case is within the purview of section 147(a), the period of limitation is extended to 16 years, thus the notice under section 148 was not barred.\n•\nIt was also determined that the retiring partner had failed to notify the ITO of the discontinuation of the business, and that the firm had not been registered as required under section 184.\n•\nThe Court concluded that there was no need for a notice to the legal representatives of the original firm since the firm was deemed to have continued under the law.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe reassessment proceedings were valid and not barred by limitation.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No.636 of 1989, decision dated: 24-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " J. N. SARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K. Goswami, S.C Tibrewal and J.P. Sarma for Petitioners. G.K. Joshi for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BORDUBI RICE FLOUR AND OIL MILLS and another\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 262 = 1999 SLD 262 = 1999 PTD 1923 = (1997) 226 ITR 357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Representative Assessee - Trustee\nFacts:\n•\nA trust, Dharampal Family Trust, was created in 1978 with three beneficiaries. In 1981, the trust was dissolved, and the entire corpus was transferred to a new trust, also named Dharampal Family Trust, which had seven beneficiaries, three of whom were also beneficiaries of the original trust.\n•\nThe new trust came into existence on July 1, 1981. The Income Tax Officer initially rejected claims that two separate assessments should be made for the periods before and after the creation of the second trust and insisted on taxing the beneficiaries directly under section 161.\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the trust should be assessed as a representative assessee under section 161 of the Income Tax Act and whether two separate assessments should be made for the respective periods.\nCourt's Ruling:\n•\nThe Court ruled that, even if the earlier trust still existed, the corpus was transferred to a new trust, which had seven beneficiaries. Three of these beneficiaries were common to both trusts.\n•\nSince the second trust had come into existence and the benefits of the beneficiaries were determined, the trust should be assessed in a representative capacity under section 161.\n•\nThe Court also agreed with the claim that two separate assessments should be made for the periods before and after the formation of the second trust: January 1, 1981, to June 30, 1981, and July 1, 1981, to December 31, 1981.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe second trust should be assessed in a representative capacity under section 161, and two separate assessments should be made for the respective periods.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 435 of 1992, decision dated: 20-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Tankha for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHARAMPAL FAMILY TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 263 = 1999 SLD 263 = 1999 PTD 1927 = (1997) 226 ITR 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Revision - Appeal\nFacts:\n•\nFor the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee filed a return showing income of Rs. 59,075, but the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment with an income of Rs. 70,980.\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer later rectified the assessment under section 154, increasing the income by over Rs. 1 lakh. The assessee filed two appeals, one against the original assessment and another against the rectified order.\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the rectification but partly allowed the quantum appeal. The assessee further appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which cancelled the rectification order.\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax then invoked section 263 to revise the rectified order, but the Tribunal had already cancelled the rectified order, which had become final since the Revenue did not seek a reference.\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) had jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the rectified order when the rectification order had already been cancelled by the Tribunal and no reference was made by the Revenue.\nCourt's Ruling:\n•\nThe Court held that the rectified order had no legal existence because it was cancelled by the Tribunal and the Revenue did not file any reference application.\n•\nThe original assessment order had merged with the appellate order, and therefore, the provisions of section 263 were inapplicable to revise the order passed by the CIT (Appeals).\n•\nThe Court concluded that the CIT had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment under section 263 because the rectified order was no longer in existence.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe rectified order had been cancelled by the Tribunal and ceased to exist. The CIT could not revise the assessment order under section 263.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Cases Nos. 153 and 154 of 1985, decision dated: 30-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. WADHWA, C.J. AND S., J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "L. N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. K. N. Jain, Senior Advocate, Vikash Jain and Miss Dr. R. Usha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHARAMPAL FAMILY TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 264 = 1999 SLD 264 = 1999 PTD 1931 = (1997) 226 ITR 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Reassessment-Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment-Notice-Reasons for notice-Assessee demanding reasons after submitting returns in response to notice-Reasons must be communicated to assessee-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 148.\nThe provisions under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, require two conditions to be satisfied before reassessment can be initiated. Firstly, the assessing officer must, on the basis of material facts already on record, form a prima facie belief that income, which is subject to tax, has escaped assessment. Secondly, the escape of income must be due to the omission or failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all necessary facts during the original assessment. These two conditions must be met before the reassessment process under Section 148 can be started.\nIt was held that even if the notice for reassessment did not explicitly reveal the satisfaction of these conditions, it can still be sustained if the record itself justifies the satisfaction. Furthermore, the authority is required to disclose and communicate the reasons for issuing the reassessment notice. Refusal to provide such reasons after the assessee complies with the notice is considered unjustifiable.\nHeld: The assessee is entitled to have the reasons communicated, and the Court rejected the writ petition, emphasizing that objections to the sufficiency of the reasons must be raised before the Income Tax Authority, not prematurely. The remedy lies within the provisions of the Income Tax Act itself. The notice could not be quashed merely on procedural grounds.\nCase references: Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120; Bansal (K.M.) v. C.I.T. (1992) 195 ITR 247 (All.); British Electrical and Pumps (P.) Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1978) 113 ITR 143 (Cal.) etc.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax-Reassessment-Writ-Alternate remedy-Writ will not normally issue-Sufficiency of reasons for notice under S.148 not raised before Income-tax Authority-Remedy available to assessee under Income-tax Act itself-Notice cannot be quashed-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 148-Constitution of India, Art.226.\nThe Court observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate avenue for challenging a reassessment notice. A writ will not be entertained unless the issue involves serious jurisdictional errors. The assessee should instead utilize the statutory remedy available under the Income Tax Act. Issues about the sufficiency of reasons for the reassessment notice should first be raised before the Income Tax Authority, and only after the statutory remedy is exhausted can a writ be pursued.\nHeld: The petition was dismissed, with the Court emphasizing that the remedy within the Income Tax Act must be pursued first, and objections to the reassessment notice cannot be entertained in a writ.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. P. No.2178 of 1993, decision dated: 22-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " A. RTIWARI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Bagadia for Petitioners. P.K. Saxena and Kanga for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "HOTEL ASHOKA and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 265 = 1999 SLD 265 = 1999 PTD 1935 = (1997) 226 ITR 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Charitable purposes-Charitable trust-Exemption-Denial of exemption-Loan by charitable trust-Effect of clauses (h) & (a) of S.13(2) and Circular No.45, dated 2-9-1970-Interest on fixed deposit in concern-Clause (a) of S.13(2) applies-Exemption cannot be denied-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 11 & 13.\nUnder Section 13(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a charitable trust is entitled to exemption under Section 11, provided the trust does not engage in certain activities, such as lending funds to concerns in which the trust has a substantial interest. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No.45, dated 2-9-1970, clarifies that clause (a) of Section 13(2) applies to loans and investments made by the charitable trust, not clause (h), which applies to investment in concerns where there is substantial interest.\nHeld: The Tribunal correctly ruled that the exemption under Section 11 was not affected by the interest income from fixed deposits. Since the loans and interest were covered by clause (a), the assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 11 should be allowed.\nCase reference: C.I.T. v. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust (1988) 172 ITR 698 (Guj.)\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax-Charitable purposes-Charitable trust-Contribution to another charitable trust from income-Entitled to exemption-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 11\nIn this case, a charitable trust contributed Rs.2,12,970 to another charitable trust (B. M. Institute) during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79. The assessing authorities initially rejected the exemption claim but the Tribunal held that the contribution was legitimate, and the exemption could not be denied. The Tribunal also observed that the contribution had been made through appropriate documentation, including resolutions and entries in the books of accounts, even though the payment was not made in cash.\nHeld: The contribution from one charitable trust to another was deemed legitimate, and the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 161 of i984 and 56 of 1985, decision dated: 26-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. C. PATEL AND R. R., JANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "\"\"B. J. Shelat for M. R. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner, D. A. Mehta, R. K. Patel and B. D. Karia for the Assessee\"\"", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNIRMALA BAKUBHAI FOUNDATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 266 = 1999 SLD 266 = 1999 PTD 1939 = (1997) 227 ITR 539", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Business-Adventure in the nature of trade-Assessee receiving grains on partial partition of HUF-Assessee himself a partner in firm carrying on business in grains-Grain received by assessee on partition kept in another firm which carried on business in grain-Assessee waiting for sufficiently long period in relation to perishable commodities with a view to make profit-Transaction of sale of grain received on partition was an adventure in the nature of trade-Profit derived there from assessable to tax-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.10.\nThe assessee was a partner in a firm dealing with grain, and he had received a quantity of grain on the partial partition of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The grain was kept in a separate firm, which also dealt in grain. After waiting a considerable period, the assessee sold the grain, and the proceeds were treated as business income by the Income-tax Officer. The issue was whether the sale of the grain received on partition was considered an adventure in the nature of trade. \nHeld: The Court held that the sale constituted an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee had waited a long period before selling the grain, and since the grain was kept in a business firm, the income was taxable as business income, not agricultural income under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCase reference: Bhagirath Prasad Bilgaiya v. CIT (1983) 139 ITR 916 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.342 of 1990, decision dated: 15-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "INDRAJIT SINGH\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 267 = 1999 SLD 267 = 1999 PTD 1943 = (1997) 227 ITR 536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reference-Depreciation-Ownership-Finding by Tribunal that transaction of sale was not genuine and that assessee was not owner of asset in question-Tribunal justified in refusing depreciation-No question of law arose-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 32 & 256.\nThe assessee claimed depreciation on computers that were purportedly bought under a leasing agreement. The Tribunal found that the sale transaction was not genuine and that the title to the computers never actually passed to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was not considered the owner of the computers and was not entitled to depreciation.\nHeld: The Tribunal’s finding was based on facts and was not open to challenge on a question of law. The transaction was deemed a mere paper transaction, and the Tribunal correctly refused to grant depreciation to the assessee.\nCase reference: Krishna Flour Mills v. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 501 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.67 of 1994, decision dated: 4-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.S Aggarwal, Salil Aggarwal and Pradeep Srivastava for Appellant. R.C. Pandey and Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GOYAL GASES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 268 = 1999 SLD 268 = 1999 PTD 1946 = (1997) 227 ITR 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Reassessment - Notice - Reason for initiating reassessment proceedings need not be stated in notice - Business or income which has escaped assessment need not be indicated - Defect in notice which is merely technical would not invalidate notice - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.148.\nUnder Section 148, the notice issued for reassessment does not have to explicitly state the reasons for initiating the reassessment proceedings or detail which income has escaped assessment. A technical defect in the notice does not render it invalid. The essential requirement is that the notice should be issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 148.\nHeld: The reassessment notice was valid despite technical shortcomings in its wording, and the proceedings could continue.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax-Reassessment-Reason for believing that income had escaped assessment-Claim by eight persons four of whom were in a different town that they had jointly purchased a lottery ticket for five rupees and won a prize of one crore rupees-Original assessment as individuals-Notice of reassessment as A.O.P. was valid-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 148.\nThe Court considered the issue of reassessment for a group of eight persons who claimed they jointly purchased a lottery ticket and won a prize. The reassessment notice was issued treating them as an Association of Persons (A.O.P.), but the petitioners contended that the reassessment was improper.\nHeld: The Court upheld the validity of the reassessment notice, ruling that the eight persons formed an A.O.P. for the purpose of the lottery win, and the notice could be issued to them as an A.O.P. The notice was valid and in line with the law.\nCase reference: CIT v. Giridhar (R.) (1984) 145 ITR 246 (Kar.)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rules Nos.3884 to 3887 of 1993, decision dated: 12-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " J. N. SARMAJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Bhattacharjee, M.L. Barjatya, G..K. Joshi and R.K. Joshi for Petitioners. Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwalla for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Sardar HARVINDER SINGH SEHGAL and others\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 269 = 1999 SLD 269 = 1999 PTD 1969 = (1997) 226 ITR 595", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Firm-Registration-Cancellation of registration-Partner A investing funds as his capital in firm -I.T.O. issuing notice under S.185 and holding that funds belonged to V, father of A, and A only benamidar of V-Father has social obligation to establish his son in business or profession and also to provide funds-By father merely providing funds, son did not automatically become benamidar of father-Notice issued by I.T.O. not valid-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.185.\nThe petitioner in this case was a partnership firm where one of the partners, A, invested certain funds as his capital. A explained that part of the funds came from his uncle, H. However, the Department did not accept this explanation and assumed that the funds actually belonged to A's father, V, and that A was merely a benamidar (nominee) for V. In response to this assumption, the Assessing Officer (I.T.O.) issued a notice under Section 185 of the Income Tax Act, stating that the funds belonged to V and called upon the firm to show cause why its registration for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1979-80 should not be canceled.\nA supplementary affidavit was filed to show that the Tribunal had previously deleted certain additions made to V's income related to A’s investments in the firm, supporting the claim that A received the funds from his uncle, H. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it was noted that only two of the three disputed additions had been deleted, with one amount still under contention.\nUpon a writ petition challenging the notice, the Court ruled that it was not correct to assume that A was a benamidar of his father simply because V had provided funds to A. It is socially common for a father to help his son establish a business or profession, and such financial assistance does not automatically make the son a benamidar for the father. The notice did not provide any evidence or circumstances to support the claim that A was merely acting as a benamidar for V.\nHeld: The notice issued by the I.T.O. under Section 185 was invalid. A’s capital contribution to the firm did not establish him as a benamidar of his father, and the notice did not provide sufficient basis for the cancellation of the firm's registration.\nCase Reference: No specific case was cited in this case.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 160 of 1982, decision dated: 3rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " P. K. MUKHERJEE AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for Petitioner, Ashok Kumar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ASHOKA MOTOR FINANCE CO\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 270 = 1999 SLD 270 = 1999 PTD 1972 = (1997) 226 ITR 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Deduction-Bad and doubtful debts-Requirement that debt should become bad or irrecoverable-Does not mean that Department should insist upon demonstrative and infallible proof that debt became bad-Legal proceedings against debtor not compulsory before writing off debt-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.36(1)(vii).\nSection 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act provides for the deduction of bad debts. However, the requirement that a debt must be bad or irrecoverable does not mean that the Department should demand definitive and infallible proof. The Court clarified that it is not compulsory for the taxpayer to initiate legal proceedings against the debtor before writing off a debt as bad. If the taxpayer reasonably believes that the debt cannot be recovered, even without legal action, the debt can be written off and claimed as a deduction.\nHeld: The assessee can claim a deduction for bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) even if legal proceedings against the debtor have not been initiated, as long as the debt has genuinely become irrecoverable.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax-Deduction-Bad and doubtful debts-Assessee, a dealer in cotton, supplying cotton to a spinning and weaving company-Cheques issued by company to assessee dishonoured and company closed down due to financial difficulties-Company taken over under Industries (Development and Regulation) Act for a period of five years-Notification declaring company as a relief undertaking under Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act-All rights and liabilities and all proceedings in relation to company pending before Court stayed-Liability of company far in excess of its assets and assessee’s chance of recovery of amount bleak-Amount written off as bad debt entitled to deduction-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.36(1)(vii).\nThe assessee, a dealer in cotton, had supplied cotton to a spinning and weaving company. The company issued cheques for payment, but these cheques were dishonored. The company then informed the assessee that it was facing severe financial difficulties and would be closed down. The company was subsequently taken over by the government under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act and declared a relief undertaking under the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act. During this time, all legal actions against the company were suspended.\nThe assessee wrote off the outstanding amount as a bad debt. The Income-tax Officer (I.T.O.) initially denied the deduction, arguing that it was unclear whether the debt had truly become irrecoverable. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled that the debt was genuinely bad, and the Tribunal agreed, confirming that the liability of the company far exceeded its assets, making recovery impossible.\nHeld: The assessee was entitled to a deduction for the bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The fact that the company had been taken over and declared a relief undertaking, with legal proceedings suspended, further solidified the debt's irrecoverability, justifying the write-off as bad debt.\nCase Reference: Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 143 ITR 166 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 167 of 1983, decision dated: 26-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for the Assessee\nM.J. Thakore for Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "KAMLA COTTON CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 271 = 1999 SLD 271 = 1999 PTD 1979 = (1997) 226 ITR 613", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reference-Penalty-Concealment of income-Finding that revised returns had been filed voluntarily and that there was no concealment of income-Tribunal justified in deleting penalty-No question of law arose-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.256 & 271(1)(c).\nIn this case, the assessee filed a revised return voluntarily, and the Income-tax Department had imposed a penalty for concealment of income. The Tribunal, after examining the facts, concluded that there was no conscious concealment of income, as the revised return was filed voluntarily and no intention to hide income was present. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.\nThe Income-tax Department applied for a reference to the High Court, claiming that there was a question of law involved regarding the deletion of the penalty.\nHeld: The Court dismissed the reference, stating that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and did not involve any question of law. Since the revised return was filed voluntarily and there was no evidence of deliberate concealment, the Tribunal’s decision to delete the penalty was justified.\nCase References: CIT v. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co. (1984) 146 ITR 145 (Bom.); CIT (Addl.) v. Jeewandas Gyanchand (1983) 144 ITR 881 (MP); Girdharilal Soni v. CIT (1989) 179 ITR 111 (Cal.); Sir Shadilai Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.221 of 1993, decision dated: 2-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner, Y.I. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSURESHCHANDRA GUPTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 272 = 1999 SLD 272 = 1999 PTD 1981 = (1997) 226 ITR 778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistakes-Delay in filing appeal-No explanation regarding delay-Tribunal justified in dismissing appeal-No mistake in order of Tribunal which could be rectified-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.254.\nIn this case, the appellant had delayed filing an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal by six days and did not provide any explanation or affidavit regarding the delay. The appeal was dismissed as being barred by time. Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition for rectification of the Tribunal's order, claiming there was an error in the order.\nHeld: The Court dismissed the writ appeal, noting that the appellant had failed to provide an explanation for the delay. The appeal was dismissed for being time-barred. The Tribunal correctly rejected the rectification petition, as there was no apparent error in the order that needed rectification.\nCase Reference: No specific case was cited in this case.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Appeal No.705 of 1995 and C.M.P. No.8450 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. SWAMI C.J. AND RAJU, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Appellant\nS.V. Subramanian for N.V. Balasubramaniam for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3", + "Party Name:": "PRASAD PRODUCTIONS (P.) LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 273 = 1999 SLD 273 = 1999 PTD 1983 = (1997) 226 ITR 764", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Reference - Valuation of stock - Change in method of valuation - Whether justified - Question of law - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256\n•\nHeld: In the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee switched from the absorption cost method to the direct cost method for valuing stock, claiming it was a more scientifically valid approach. The change involved excluding overhead costs that were previously included in the closing stock. The assessing authority permitted this change, considering it bona fide and consistent with future years. Whether this change was justified, considering the circumstances, was a question of law that required referral.\n(b) Income-tax - Reference - Export markets development allowance - Weighted deduction - Expenditure on travel, commission, advertisement, and marketing - Tribunal justified in allowing weighted deduction on part of travel expenses and full expenses on commission, advertisement, and marketing - No question of law arose - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.35-B(1)(b) & 256\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal allowed 50% of the travel expenditure for promoting export sales and the full expenditure on commission, advertisement, and marketing. The Tribunal’s decision was consistent with the provisions of section 35-B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No question of law arose from the decision.\n(c) Income-tax - Reference - Depreciation - Extra-shift allowance - Whether to be allowed based on the number of days machinery worked extra shifts - Question of law - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 32 & 256\n•\nHeld: The question of whether extra-shift allowance should be allowed based on the days the machinery worked extra shifts, rather than on the overall workings of the entire plant, was a question of law that required a referral.\n(d) Income-tax - Reference - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Similar question pending before Special Bench - Tribunal justified in directing the Assessing Officer to await decision - No question of law arose - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256\n•\nHeld: Since a similar case was pending before the Special Bench, the Tribunal rightly directed the Assessing Officer to follow the decision of the Special Bench. No question of law arose from this decision.\n(e) Income-tax - Reference - Income - Business income - Cessation of liability - Liability to pay excise duty - High Court ordering refund of excise duty - Special leave petition pending before Supreme Court - Tribunal justified in holding that S.41 was not applicable - No question of law arose - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.41(1) & 256\n•\nHeld: The assessee wrote back a provision for excise duty in the assessment year 1985-86. Since the matter regarding refund was still pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal correctly held that section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act did not apply. No question of law arose.\n(f) Income-tax - Reference - Bad debt - Resolution to write off debt passed after the end of accounting year - Amount whether allowable as bad debt - Question of law - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.36 & 256\n•\nHeld: The issue of whether a debt, written off after the end of the accounting year based on a board resolution, was rightly allowed as a bad debt is a question of law that required referral.\n(g) Income-tax - Reference - Business expenditure - Remuneration to employees - Tribunal justified in holding cash payments to directors could not be disallowed - No question of law arose - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.40(c), 40-A(5) & 256\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal correctly held that cash payments to directors could not be disallowed, as they did not fall under the disallowance provisions. No question of law arose from this ruling.\n(h) Income-tax - Reference - Expenditure on scientific research - Expenditure on purchase of air-conditioners, coolers, calculators, and fans in research wing - Entitled to deduction under section 35(1)(iv) - Question of law - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.35 & 256\n•\nHeld: Whether expenditures for purchasing air-conditioners, coolers, calculators, and fans in the research and development wing were entitled to deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act is a question of law that required referral.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.31 to 33 of 1995, decision dated: 7-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Goyal for Petitioner\nG.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (S.S. Mahajan and Ms. Aparna Mahajan, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER BRANDS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 274 = 1999 SLD 274 = 1999 PTD 1997 = (1997) 226 ITR 753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nThis case concerns the constitutional validity of Section 69-D of the Income Tax Act, which deems amounts borrowed or repaid through a hundi (a traditional financial instrument) as income from undisclosed sources if the transactions are not conducted through an account payee cheque drawn on a bank. The question is whether such provisions infringe upon fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, specifically Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 19 (freedom of speech and expression, among others).\nHeld:\nThe court upheld the validity of Section 69-D, reasoning that it promotes transparency in financial transactions. Borrowing or repaying amounts via a hundi does not provide the same level of transparency as transactions conducted through a bank, where records are accessible for verification. By requiring transactions to go through an account payee cheque, the government ensures that money flows through legitimate, traceable channels, helping combat black money and tax evasion.\nThus, the provision was not found to violate the Constitution's Articles 14 or 19, and was valid in its aim to regulate financial practices.\nCase References:\n•\nAttar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO (1982) 136 ITR 589 (P & H): The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of the provisions of Section 69-D.\n•\nAttar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of provisions in similar cases.\n•\nK.R.M.V. Ponnuswamy Nadar Sons v. Union of India (1992) 196 ITR 431 (Mad.): Madras High Court supported the provision's legitimacy.\n•\nSajowanlal Jaiswal v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 706 (Orissa) and U.P. Hardware Store v. CIT (1976) 104 ITR 664 (All.): Similar views on the application of provisions regarding loans and repayments.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petition No.619 of 1987, decision dated: 11-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.S. Shrivastava for Petitioner\nV.K. Tankha for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "DULICHAND GULSARI LAL JAIN and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 275 = 1999 SLD 275 = 1999 PTD 2004 = (1997) 226 ITR 750", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Cash Allowances for Employees and Disallowance under Section 40-A\nIssue:\nThe issue here is whether cash allowances for car or house rent provided by an employer to its employees are considered salary and should be included when calculating the disallowance under Section 40-A(5). Section 40-A(5) of the Income Tax Act places limits on the amounts that can be claimed as deductions for salaries paid to employees (among other payments).\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that while cash payments made to employees as car allowance or house rent allowance may not be treated as perquisites (non-cash benefits), they still fall under the category of salary as per Section 17 of the Income Tax Act. These payments, therefore, need to be taken into account when calculating any disallowance under Section 40-A(5), which restricts excessive deductions for salary and other employee benefits.\nThis interpretation ensures that employers do not sidestep the limits on deductions by treating certain salary payments as non-salary items.\nCase Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. (1992) 197 ITR 431 (Delhi): Delhi High Court considered such allowances to be salary and thus subject to the relevant disallowance provisions under the Act.\n________________________________________\n(b) Penalty for Delayed Sales Tax Payment and Deductibility under Section 37\nIssue:\nHere, the issue was whether a penalty for the delayed payment of sales tax could be deducted as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Section 37 allows for the deduction of expenses that are wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes, but it excludes penalties.\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that penalties, even if they relate to business activities, are not deductible. In this case, the penalty for delayed sales tax payment was a fine for breaching the law and did not qualify as an expense laid out exclusively for the purpose of business. As such, it cannot be deducted under Section 37. This ruling aligns with the principle that penalties for legal violations are not business expenses.\nCase Reference:\n•\nHaji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC): Supreme Court held that penalties for legal violations are not deductible.\n•\nCIT v. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 21 (Bom.): Bombay High Court followed the same reasoning, ruling that penalties related to legal violations are not deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.59 and 60 of 1978, decision dated: 15-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JAIN, J.J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta and R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner\nAnup Sharma for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHARAT STEEL TUBES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 276 = 1999 SLD 276 = 1999 PTD 2006 = (1997) 226 ITR 742", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\nThe case concerned whether a civil suit could be filed to challenge an income tax assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, even when the assessee had been given the opportunity to present their case during the assessment process.\nHeld:\nThe court upheld the provision in Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, which bars civil courts from entertaining suits related to proceedings or orders made under the Income Tax Act. The Act provides its own mechanisms, such as appeals and revisions, to challenge such orders. Thus, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is excluded when the Income Tax Act offers a comprehensive framework to contest tax assessments.\nThis ruling reinforces the principle that tax matters should be dealt with within the specialized framework of tax laws, and not through general civil suits.\nCase Reference:\n•\nState of Gujarat v. Mangal Traders (1987) 1 GLR 514 and AIR 1987 Guj. 234: Gujarat High Court upheld the bar on civil suits regarding tax assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision Application No.296 of 1994, decision dated: 23rd February, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " J. M. PANCHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nanavati for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "JAYANTKUMAR MOTICHAND DOSHI\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 277 = 1999 SLD 277 = 1999 PTD 2014 = (1997) 226 ITR 733", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Depreciation on Property Without Registered Conveyance\nIssue:\nThis case deals with whether an assessee can claim depreciation on property (e.g., flats or buildings) if they have paid the full consideration and are in exclusive possession but have not obtained a registered deed of conveyance in their favor.\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee must be the owner of the property, which requires a valid registered document to transfer title. In the absence of a registered deed of conveyance, even though the assessee may have paid the full consideration and has possession, they cannot be considered the legal owner of the property. Therefore, depreciation cannot be claimed in such a case.\nThis decision emphasizes that mere possession and payment are not sufficient to claim ownership for tax purposes, highlighting the importance of formal registration for the transfer of property ownership.\nCase Reference:\n•\nNawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT (1986) 162 ITR 888 (SC): The Supreme Court confirmed that property ownership requires proper legal documentation.\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Sahay Properties and Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 357 (Pat.): Patna High Court followed the same reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.2 of 1994, decision dated: 16-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner, J.P. Bhattacharjee, Dr A.K Saraf and K.K. Gupta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA.B.C. INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 278 = 1999 SLD 278 = 1999 PTD 2022 = (1997) 226 ITR 710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Business Expenditure – Contribution to Recognised Provident Fund\nIssue:\nThis case focuses on the ceiling on contributions to a recognized provident fund by an employer, specifically when the employee has substantial shareholding in the company. Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act allows for deductions related to the employer's contribution to a recognized provident fund, but the Income Tax Rules (specifically Rule 75(1)) impose a ceiling on the joint contribution of the employer and the employee. This ruling addresses whether Rule 75(1) exceeds its authority by setting a ceiling on the joint contributions, rather than just the employer's contributions.\nHeld:\nThe court affirmed that Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act specifically deals with the employer's contribution to the recognized provident fund, and it is only the employer's contribution that can be the subject of allowance or disallowance. The contribution by the employee does not figure in the employer's assessment, except for the limited purpose of the employee's assessment. The ceiling limit under Rule 75(1) for the combined employer-employee contribution was deemed beyond the rule-making authority, and it should only apply to the employer's contribution.\nThe court ruled that Rule 75(1) should be read down to apply only to the employer's contribution. When calculating the limit prescribed under Rule 75(1), the employer’s contribution should be considered first. Any excess contribution by the employer beyond the limit can be disallowed under Rule 75, and if the employer contributes more than 10% of the employee's salary, the excess is considered as the employee’s salary for tax purposes.\nIf an employer contributes in excess of 10% to the provident fund, the excess amount is treated as salary and taxed in the hands of the employee. The court also emphasized that the employer's contribution should match the employee's contribution. Excess contributions made by an employer, especially in cases where the employee holds substantial shares in the company, could be disallowed in the employer's hands or treated as taxable income for the employee.\nThe ruling underscored that Rule 75(1) does not undermine the intent to curb excessive employer contributions and that any excess can either be disallowed under Rule 75 or taxed in the employee's hands. The case further clarified that the tax treatment of provident fund contributions involving substantial shareholding by the employee adheres to these principles.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe employer’s contribution exceeding the prescribed limit in Rule 75(1) can be disallowed.\n•\nThe excess contribution can be considered taxable salary in the hands of the employee.\n•\nThe contribution from the employer should be taken into account first when calculating the ceiling prescribed by Rule 75(1).\nCase Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Western India Paper and Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 189 ITR 309 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. No.659 of 1983, decision dated: 1st April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner, K. Mani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAAB PIPE WORKS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 279 = 1999 SLD 279 = 1999 PTD 2030 = (1997) 226 ITR 822", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Reference - Reassessment\nIssue:\nThis case deals with the reassessment of income by the Income Tax Department based on a change of opinion. The primary question is whether reassessment can be initiated merely due to a change of opinion by the successor-assessing officer.\nHeld:\nThe court dismissed the application to direct a reference, emphasizing that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal correctly held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid, as it was based solely on a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The court noted that no question of law arose from the Tribunal’s decision.\nCase Reference:\n•\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference Application No.130 of 1995,-decided on 10-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.R. ARORA AND P. C., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nRAJ KUMAR BAFNA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 280 = 1999 SLD 280 = 1999 PTD 2034 = (1997) 226 ITR 818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Reference - Capital or Revenue Receipt - Film Production\nIssue:\nThe case concerns the treatment of a cash subsidy granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for film production. The question is whether the subsidy is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt for tax purposes, and whether the Tribunal was correct in its interpretation of the provisions under Rule 9-A of the Income Tax Rules.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal held that the cash subsidy granted to film producers was a revenue receipt, as it was an inducement for producing films in Andhra Pradesh. However, the court noted that the proviso to Rule 9-A of the Income Tax Rules was inserted after the relevant assessment years, and therefore, the effect of the proviso was not considered by the Tribunal.\nSince Rule 9-A was not applicable for the assessment years in question (1979-80, 1982-83, and 1983-84), the court ruled that the question of the effect of the proviso to Rule 9-A could not be raised in the reference. The court further held that the Revenue could not draw support from Rule 9-A, and the Tribunal’s order to treat the subsidy as a revenue receipt was correct.\nCase Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Chitra Kalpa (1989) 177 ITR 540 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (1985) 152 ITR 39 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 108 of 1991 and 56 of 1992, decision dated: 24-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for Petitioner, C. Kodandaram for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA. NAGESHWARA RAO (HUF) and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 281 = 1999 SLD 281 = 1999 PTD 2037 = (1997) 226 ITR 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Depreciation - Hotel and Cinema Building\nIssue:\nThe issue concerns whether a hotel or cinema building can be treated as plant for the purposes of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, or whether it should be classified as a building for depreciation purposes.\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that hotel and cinema buildings are considered buildings for depreciation purposes and are not entitled to depreciation at the rate applicable to plant. The decision emphasized several principles for distinguishing between plant and building :\n•\nFunctional test: An item’s function in the business is decisive. A building, even if specially fitted with equipment like air-conditioning or used for specific purposes, remains a building.\n•\nTool of trade: A building used for accommodation (such as a hotel or cinema) is not a tool of trade, unlike machinery or equipment.\n•\nDurability: While items like air-conditioning systems might be durable, this does not make the building itself plant. \nThe ruling was based on the principle that while special fittings and equipment may enhance the utility of a building, they do not change its classification as a building. As such, hotels and cinema buildings are entitled to depreciation at the rate applicable to buildings, not to plant.\nCase Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Alps Theatre (1967) 65 ITR 377 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 12 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Kanodia Cold Storage (1975) 100 ITR 155 (All.)\n________________________________________\nSummary of Key Legal Principles:\n1.\nProvident Fund Contributions (SLD #2336):\no\nEmployer's contribution to the provident fund is subject to a ceiling and can be disallowed if it exceeds prescribed limits.\no\nAny excess employer contribution above the ceiling is taxable in the hands of the employee.\n2.\nReassessment (SLD #2337):\no\nReassessment cannot be initiated solely on a change of opinion; it requires specific grounds for reopening an assessment.\n3.\nCapital or Revenue Receipt (SLD #2338):\no\nA subsidy received for film production is considered a revenue receipt if it is an inducement to carry out business in a specific region.\n4.\nDepreciation (SLD #2339):\no\nHotel and cinema buildings are considered buildings and not plant for depreciation purposes, and thus, they are entitled to depreciation at the rate applicable to buildings, not plant.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No.10 of 1992, decision dated: 14-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " Y.R. MEENA AND V.K. SINGHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.S. Shishodia, Senior Advocate, Govind Karan and S. Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLAKE PALACE HOTELS AND MOTELS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 282 = 1999 SLD 282 = 1999 PTD 2054 = (1995) 71 TAX 32 = (1997) 226 ITR 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision under Section 263 - Income Surrendered but not Fully Investigated\nBackground:\n•\nThe husband of the assessee constructed a house in the accounting years relevant for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. He claimed that he had taken advances of Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 15,000 from his wife (the assessee) during those years for the purpose of construction.\n•\nThe assessee surrendered these amounts during the assessment for the relevant years, agreeing to have them taxed in her hands.\n•\nThe assessing officer, however, did not make any inquiry into the source or legitimacy of these surrendered amounts.\nIssue:\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) found that no proper inquiry was conducted by the assessing officer regarding the source of the surrendered amounts. He believed the amounts were not taxable in the hands of the assessee and that the assessment orders were therefore erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.\nProceedings:\n•\nUnder section 263 of the Income Tax Act, the CIT initiated revision proceedings. Section 263 allows the CIT to revise any order passed by an Income-tax Officer if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.\n•\nThe CIT set aside the assessment orders for the relevant years and directed the assessing officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with the law.\nTribunal's Findings:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the CIT’s order. It found that there was no evidence to support the assessee's claim that the amounts came from legitimate sources like her relatives. The affidavits filed by the assessee were vague and lacked material particulars.\n•\nThe Tribunal concluded that the surrender of income by the assessee was done without providing adequate evidence, and as a result, the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal confirmed the CIT's order under section 263, highlighting that the assessing officer should have made inquiries before accepting the surrendered income. The revision proceedings were valid because the assessment was not made in the best interest of the Revenue.\nLegal Precedents:\n•\nJ. P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All.)\n•\nSmt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 109 of 1981, decision dated: 8-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharat Ji Agrawal for the Assesse", + "Party Name:": "Smt. LAJJA WATI SINGHAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 283 = 1999 SLD 283 = 1999 PTD 2059 = (1997) 226 ITR 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Interest and Entertainment Expenses\nIssue 1: Interest on Late Tax Payment\nBackground:\n•\nThe assessee paid interest on delayed payment of income tax. The question arose whether this interest could be treated as a deductible business expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.\nSection 37 Explanation:\n•\nSection 37 allows a deduction for any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. However, certain expenditures, such as penalties or interest on tax, are not deductible.\nRuling:\n•\nThe court held that the interest paid for late tax payment was not a legitimate business expense. It is a penalty for failure to comply with tax obligations and, therefore, cannot be considered wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.\nLegal Precedent:\n•\nSaurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 213 ITR 523 (Guj.)\n________________________________________\nIssue 2: Entertainment Expenditures\nBackground:\n•\nThe assessee incurred certain expenses for providing tea, coffee, and similar refreshments to its employees. These expenses were claimed as entertainment expenses.\nRuling:\n•\nUnder section 37(2-B), entertainment expenses are only deductible if they are incurred for the benefit of employees. However, any entertainment expenses for persons other than employees are not deductible under this provision.\nTribunal's Findings:\n•\nThe Tribunal initially held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for providing refreshments to employees did not qualify as entertainment expenditure. However, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC), which allowed deductions for entertainment expenses made to meet the basic needs of employees.\nLegal Precedents:\n•\nCIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC)\n•\nPadmavati Jaikrishna (Smt.) v. Addl. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 176 (SC)\n•\nPrakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 684 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.227 of 1983, decision dated: 4-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SONI AND Y. B. BHATT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for the Assessee, Mihir Thakore for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "SARASPUR MILLS LTD\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 285 = 1999 SLD 285 = 1999 PTD 2063 = (1997) 226 ITR 791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference - Donation of Immovable Property\nBackground:\n•\nThe assessee, in this case, donated immovable property, but the transfer of title was not executed through a registered conveyance, which led to questions regarding the eligibility of the donation under section 35(2-A).\nIssue:\n•\nThe issue raised was whether a donation of immovable property could be considered a valid donation under section 35(2-A) in the absence of a registered transfer of the title.\nProceedings:\n•\nA reference was sought from the Tribunal on whether the term sum paid under section 35(2-A) of the Income Tax Act could include donations in kind, and whether a donation of immovable property, absent a formal transfer deed, could be allowed for tax purposes.\nRuling:\n•\nThe court ruled that the second question did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The issue of whether the deduction could be allowed without a valid transfer deed was not considered by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) or raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, the question could not be referred under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act.\nLegal Precedent:\n•\nCIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.82 of 1990, decision dated: 10-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " P. VENKATARAMA REDDY AND P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for Petitioner, C. Kodandaram for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK.C.P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 286 = 1999 SLD 286 = 1999 PTD 2065 = (1997) 226 ITR 518", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Commission to Related Selling Agent\nBackground:\n•\nThe assessee company paid a commission of Rs. 1,08,598 at the rate of 9% to a selling agent, who was the son of a person with substantial interest in the company.\nIssue:\n•\nThe issue at hand was whether the commission paid to the selling agent was deductible under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, particularly since the agent was related to someone with substantial interest in the company.\nSection 40(c):\n•\nSection 40(c) imposes restrictions on expenses paid to related parties, specifically when the expenses exceed the statutory limit (Rs. 72,000).\nRuling:\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) found that the commission exceeded the statutory limit of Rs. 72,000, as the agent was related to someone with substantial interest in the company. As a result, the commission paid in excess of this limit was disallowed.\n•\nThe Tribunal initially allowed the deduction, but on appeal, the court ruled that section 40(c) was applicable and that the commission in excess of Rs. 72,000 was not deductible.\nLegal Precedents:\n•\nBharat Beedi Works P. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 1063 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Indian Engineering and Commercial Corporation P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 723 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Avon Cycles (P.) Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 448 (P & H)\n•\nGestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.27 of 1987, decision dated: 11-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner\nC. Kochunni Nair, M.A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee\"\"", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS AND MEDICAL SERVICES (P.) LT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 287 = 1999 SLD 287 = 1999 PTD 2073 = (1997) 226 ITR 554", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income-tax – Dissolution of Firm, Commission Received After Dissolution)\nCase Summary: This case involves a partnership firm that was dissolved on March 31, 1974. The firm had been dealing in electrical goods and also received commission as a distributing agent. After dissolution, the firm received a sum of Rs. 1,52,807. The issue arose when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) claimed the amount should be taxed in the assessment year 1974-75, arguing that the firm had been following the mercantile system of accounting.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe firm dissolved with effect from March 31, 1974, and public notice was given.\n•\nThe firm was following the cash system of accounting for commission receipts, meaning commissions were recorded only when received.\n•\nThe ITO initially believed the firm followed the mercantile system and taxed the receipt of commission.\n•\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) ruled that the commission was not assessable in the year of dissolution, supporting the cash basis system.\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the decision, determining that since the firm had been using a cash basis accounting for commission receipts, the sum should not be taxed in 1974-75.\nHeld: The Tribunal correctly concluded that the sum of Rs. 1,52,807 could not be taxed in the hands of the firm for 1974-75, as it followed the cash system of accounting. The Court cannot question the sufficiency of facts supporting the Tribunal's decision.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.644 of 1984, decision dated: 12-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner, S. Gurunatha Krishnan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nREVATHI AGENCIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 288 = 1999 SLD 288 = 1999 PTD 2079 = (1997) 226 ITR 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income-tax – Advance Tax and Interest Waiver)\nCase Summary: This case deals with an assessee who was a partner in several firms and had paid advance tax based on the income declared by the firms. However, it was found that the advance tax paid was insufficient, and interest was levied under section 215. The assessee applied for a waiver of interest, which was partially granted.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe petitioners were partners in multiple firms and paid advance tax based on the firms' accounts.\n•\nThe firms' incomes were found to be understated, and thus, the advance tax was deemed insufficient.\n•\nInterest under section 215 was levied, and the petitioners sought a waiver, stating they had relied on the accounts of the firms.\n•\nThe Deputy Commissioner reduced the interest by 50%.\n•\nThe petitioners challenged the decision in a writ petition.\nHeld: The Court held that the income-tax authorities should consider the waiver application objectively, taking into account the petitioners’ reliance on the firms' income accounts. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to reconsider whether the petitioners were entitled to a waiver of the entire interest.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 11187 of 1991-F and O. P. No. 11190 of 1991-F, decision dated: 14-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. SANKARASUBBAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for Petitioner, M. Lalitha Nair, Government Pleader, P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K Nair for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "P.M. MANUEL\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 289 = 1999 SLD 289 = 1999 PTD 2084 = (1997) 226 ITR 675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "2346 (Income-tax – Genuineness of Firm)\nCase Summary: The issue here revolves around the determination of the genuineness of a partnership. The assessee's claim to the existence and genuineness of the firm was questioned, but the Tribunal found the firm to be genuine based on facts presented.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe question was raised regarding whether the partnership was genuine, which is a factual question.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the partnership and its existence were genuine based on the available evidence and circumstances.\nHeld: The Court held that the genuineness of the firm was a factual determination, and no question of law arose from the Tribunal’s decision, thus no reference was needed.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference Application No.80 of 1995, decision dated: 22-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. G. MUKHERJI AND V. G. PALSHIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.S. Shishodia and Sandeep Bhandawat for Applicant, Dinesh Mehta for Respondent\"\"", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS.M. BHATIYA ASSOCIATES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 290 = 1999 SLD 290 = 1999 PTD 2088 = (1997) 226 ITR 680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income-tax – Depreciation on Land and Building)\nCase Summary: This case concerns a private limited company that purchased land and buildings but voluntarily paid an additional Rs. 1.75 lakhs in capital gains tax on behalf of the vendor. The company later sought to include this payment as part of the acquisition cost to claim depreciation, but the claim was disallowed.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe company purchased property but voluntarily paid Rs. 1.75 lakhs in capital gains tax on behalf of the vendor, which was not a liability of the company.\n•\nThe company claimed that this amount should be treated as part of the acquisition cost for the purpose of depreciation.\n•\nThe authorities rejected the claim, stating that the payment was a voluntary one and did not constitute part of the acquisition cost.\nHeld: The Court held that the Rs. 1.75 lakh paid was not part of the actual cost of the property and could not be included for depreciation purposes. The payment was considered a voluntary expense for the vendor’s benefit, not an acquisition cost.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.633 of 1983 (Reference No.334 of 1983), decided, on 21st June, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. SWAMI C.J. AND A.R. LAKSHMANAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Ayyar and Padmanabhan for the Assessee, S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KUMUDAM PRINTERS PVT. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 291 = 1999 SLD 291 = 1999 PTD 2099 = (1997) 226 ITR 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income-tax – Extra Payment to Cane Growers)\nCase Summary: The assessee, a cooperative society manufacturing sugar, decided to pay an extra price for sugarcane but only paid part of it to the growers and took the rest to their capital accounts. The Tribunal disallowed the capital account portion.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe society decided to pay Rs. 20 per quintal extra for sugarcane, of which Rs. 2 was paid to the growers, and Rs. 18 was credited to their capital accounts.\n•\nThe Tribunal disallowed the Rs. 18 credited to capital accounts, determining it as a method to artificially inflate capital without tax payment.\nHeld: The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the Rs. 18 per quintal was not a genuine business expense but a device to increase capital without taxation. Therefore, no question of law arose for reference.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "ncome-tax Case No-41 of 1995, decision dated: 19-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND NK. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rakesh Garg and M.L. Garg for Petitioner, R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Goel for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "SHAHABAD COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 292 = 1999 SLD 292 = 1999 PTD 2104 = (1997) 226 ITR 579", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income-tax – Loss Set-off)\nCase Summary: This case involved an assessee who suffered a loss due to the premature encashment of fixed deposits. The issue was whether the loss could be set off against income from other sources.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe firm had to encash fixed deposits prematurely, resulting in a loss.\n•\nThe assessee sought to set off the loss from the premature encashment against income from other sources.\n•\nThe claim was initially disallowed but upheld by the Tribunal.\nHeld: The Court ruled that the loss arising from premature encashment of fixed deposits could indeed be set off against other income under section 71 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.814 of 1993, decision dated: 4-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner, B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPURUSHOTTAMDAS DHORIBHAI AND CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 293 = 1999 SLD 293 = 1999 PTD 2107 = (1997) 226 ITR 543", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income-tax – Expenditure on Cars)\nCase Summary: The assessee claimed business expenditure on car maintenance, but part of the claim was disallowed under section 37(3-A) due to exceeding a certain limit.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe company claimed expenses on car maintenance exceeding Rs. 1 lakh.\n•\nUnder section 37(3-A), 20% of the excess over Rs. 1 lakh was disallowed.\nHeld: The Court held that the expenditure on car maintenance exceeding Rs. 1 lakh was subject to a disallowance of 20% under section 37(3-B), and thus the Tribunal's ruling was correct.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.249 of 1993, decision dated: 7-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Sapra for the Commissioner, B.L. Nema for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nBHARAT INDUSTRIAL WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 294 = 1999 SLD 294 = 1999 PTD 2111 = (1997) 226 ITR 551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income-tax – Interest Adjustments)\nCase Summary: The assessee, a government undertaking, adjusted received interest against interest payments, not declaring it as income. The issue was whether this treatment was correct.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe assessee did not declare interest received as income, instead adjusting it against interest paid.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer treated the interest as income from other sources and taxed it accordingly.\nHeld: The Court held that interest received by the assessee should be considered income from other sources and taxed, without being adjusted against interest payments. The Tribunal's order to adjust the interest payments was not justified.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.6 of 1994, decision dated: 28-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "U.Bhuyan for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANIPUR SPINNING MILLS CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 295 = 1999 SLD 295 = 1999 PTD 2114 = (1997) 226 ITR 824", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Appeal to Supreme Court – Certificate of fitness – Penalty – Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner\n•\nFacts:\no\nOn March 30, 1976, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) completed the assessment for the assessee and simultaneously issued an order initiating penalty proceedings.\no\nOn March 31, 1976, the reference was made by the ITO to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC), which was received on April 1, 1976.\no\nHowever, on April 1, 1976, a change in the law occurred, deleting the provision that required references to the IAC.\no\nA Full Bench of the High Court held that the IAC had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty after the change in law.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the IAC had jurisdiction to levy the penalty, given the change in the statutory provisions and the timing of the reference.\no\nWhether the matter was fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe Supreme Court allowed the application for a certificate of fitness for appeal. It determined that the question of whether the proceedings for penalty could be considered as pending before the IAC, and whether the IAC had jurisdiction to act, was a substantial question of public importance.\no\nThe issue was deemed fit for appeal to the Supreme Court.\n•\nReferences:\no\nCIT v. Late S.M. Syed Muhammad (1995) 216 ITR 331 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.M.P s. Nos.4337 and 4354 of 1995 in I.T.Rs. Nos. 106 and 167 of 1983, decision dated: 9-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT, P.A. MOHAMMED AND P. SHANMUGAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner, T.M. Sreedharan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLate S.M. SYED MUHAMMAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 296 = 1999 SLD 296 = 1999 PTD 2116 = (1997) 226 ITR 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Deduction for Mandi Fee under Section 43-B\n•\nFacts:\no\nSection 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows deductions for certain business expenses only when the payment is made.\no\nA balance of Rs. 5,978 was outstanding in the assessee's mandi tax account.\no\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) included the unpaid amount in the assessee's income for the assessment year, invoking section 43-B.\no\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) held that mandi tax did not qualify as a tax or duty under section 43-B in its earlier form, and deleted the addition.\no\nThe Tribunal also ruled that mandi tax could not be considered a tax or duty under section 43-B prior to its 1989 amendment.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether mandi tax qualifies as a tax or duty under section 43-B and whether the provisions of section 43-B apply to the unpaid mandi tax.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe Tribunal’s decision was affirmed, stating that mandi fee was neither a tax nor a duty under the earlier provisions of section 43-B, as it only became applicable with the 1989 amendment.\n•\nReferences:\no\nCIT v. Mohansingh and Sons (1995) 216 ITR 432 (MP)\no\nSrikakollu Subba Rao & Co. v. Union of India (1988) 173 ITR 708 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.381 of 1992, decision dated: 23rd March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner, Nazir Singh for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDINESHKUMAR GORDHANLAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 297 = 1999 SLD 297 = 1999 PTD 2118 = (1997) 226 ITR 836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Profits under Section 41(2) – Replacement of Damaged Boiler – Depreciation and Capital Gains\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee’s boiler was damaged and replaced with a new one by the insurer under an insurance contract.\no\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) sought to assess the difference in the value between the new boiler and the written down value (WDV) of the old one under Section 41(2).\no\nThe Tribunal held that the money received from the insurer was not moneys payable under Section 41(2) because no cash was paid directly to the assessee.\no\nAdditionally, the Tribunal denied capital gains tax since no transfer of capital asset occurred.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the replacement of the damaged boiler triggers a profit under Section 41(2) or capital gains tax.\no\nWhether depreciation can be allowed on the destroyed boiler.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe Supreme Court held that there was no transfer of the old boiler, hence no capital gains tax applied.\no\nThe replacement of the asset did not result in moneys payable, and therefore Section 41(2) did not apply.\no\nThe Tribunal was right in withdrawing the depreciation on the destroyed asset.\n•\nReferences:\no\nVania Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 647 (SC)\no\nKasturi and Sons Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 541 (Mad.)\no\nCIT v. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. (1969) 72 ITR 121 (Cal.)\no\nCIT v. Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. (1977) 107 ITR 300 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1144 and 1145 of 1982 (References Nos.699 and 700 of 1982), decision dated: 11-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee\nC.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "E.I.D. PARRY LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 298 = 1999 SLD 298 = 1999 PTD 2125 = (1997) 226 ITR 843", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Offences and Prosecution – False Verification – Wilful Attempt to Evade Tax\n•\nFacts:\no\nA return was filed by the managing partner of a firm, showing an income of Rs. 26,010, whereas the assessed income was Rs. 1,00,000, later reduced to Rs. 50,000 by the Commissioner.\no\nProsecution was initiated under Sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, alleging false verification and wilful attempt to evade tax.\no\nThe Trial Court acquitted the managing partner, finding no mens rea for filing the false return.\no\nThe ITO acknowledged that the managing partner had planned to have the books of the firm written by an accountant after his recovery and did not assert any fraudulent intent.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the managing partner had the necessary mens rea for a false return to warrant prosecution under Sections 276-C and 277.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe Trial Court’s acquittal of the managing partner was upheld. The court found no mens rea or intent to evade tax based on the ITO’s admissions regarding the firm's bookkeeping and the absence of fraudulent intention.\n•\nReferences:\no\nB.TX Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Suraj Bhan (1989) 177 ITR 425 (Guj.)\no\nGavit (R.R.) v. Sherbanoo Hasan Daya (Smt.) (1986) 161 ITR 793 (Bom.)\no\nSir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC)\no\nThakasi Satyanarayana v. State of A.P. (1985) 1 Crimes 60 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.475 of 1995, decision dated: 19-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B.S. RAIKOTE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.V. Rama Rao for Appellant, K.K. Viswanadham and M. Jagadish Kumar for Respondent\"\"", + "Party Name:": "ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nYERRA NAGABHUSHANAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 299 = 1999 SLD 299 = 1999 PTD 2131 = (1997) 226 ITR 860", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Reference – Question of Law – Search and Seizure of Jewellery\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe business premises of the assessee were searched, and jewellery and ornaments were seized.\no\nThe assessee claimed the seized jewellery belonged to his ancestral business and that an investment for the purchase of a scooter was already assessed in a previous year.\no\nThe Tribunal rejected the plea, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate his claims with evidence, and the investments were not recorded in the books of account.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for referring a question of law regarding the applicability of Section 69 (undisclosed investments) for the assessment year.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe Tribunal was correct in rejecting the application. There was no substantiating evidence for the claim of ancestral ownership of the jewellery, and the claim about the scooter investment had been adequately addressed by the authorities.\no\nNo question of law arose for reference under Section 256(2).\n•\nReferences:\no\nSection 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.81 of 1990, decision dated: 19-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND FAKHRUDDIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate for Applicant, R.D. Jain for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VIJAY KUMAR SARAF\nVs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 300 = 1999 SLD 300 = 1999 PTD 2135 = (1997) 226 ITR 867", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Assessment – Adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) – Illegal Additions to Income\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe Income-tax Officer made additions to the income of the assessee under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, purportedly based on a prima facie view.\no\nThe additions included various incomes without proper investigation or justification.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether additions could be made under Section 143(1)(a) without a detailed assessment process.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe additions made by the ITO were illegal and without jurisdiction. The additions under Section 143(1)(a) could only be made for prima facie adjustments, and not for substantial additions to income.\n•\nReferences:\no\nKhatau Junkar Ltd. v. K.S. Pathania (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom.)\no\nIndian Rayon and Industries Ltd. v. J.R. Kanekar, Asst. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 747 (Bom)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No.3014 of 1993, decision dated: 5-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N BARUAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "NAMDANG TEA CO. (INDIA) LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 301 = 1999 SLD 301 = 1999 PTD 2137 = (1997) 226 ITR 869", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Reference – Question of law – Illegality of notice under Section 148 – Amnesty Scheme returns\n•\nFacts:\no\nA search was conducted at the assessee’s premises, during which a diary containing entries related to substantial investments was seized.\no\nNotices were issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessee filed returns under the Amnesty Scheme after the search on January 22, 1986.\no\nThe Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148 were illegal, and the returns filed on March 31, 1986, were valid under the Amnesty Scheme.\no\nAn application was made to the High Court to direct the reference of questions of law.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the Tribunal’s ruling on the illegality of notices under Section 148 and the validity of the returns filed under the Amnesty Scheme raises referable questions of law.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe decision of the Tribunal gave rise to referable questions of law, including whether the notice under Section 148 was illegal and whether the returns filed were properly covered under the Amnesty Scheme.\n•\nReferences:\no\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 148 & 256(2)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.216 to 219 of 1993, decision dated: 2-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner\nNazir Singh for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTHAKURDAS AIDASANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 302 = 1999 SLD 302 = 1999 PTD 2144 = (1997) 226 ITR 876", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Sales Tax Liability – Mercantile System of Accounting\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of Maida and Suji, collected sales tax and kept it in a separate account but did not debit it in the profit and loss account.\no\nThe Board of Revenue had ruled that there was no sales tax liability on the sale of these items. The assessee claimed a deduction for sales tax liability in the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78.\no\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) held that no sales tax liability existed, and the Tribunal allowed the deduction based on the 1975-76 facts, but the Revenue argued that the liability had neither been admitted nor ascertained, and no demand had been created by the Sales Tax Department.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the sales tax liability, which had not been established, should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe Tribunal erred in allowing the sales tax liability as a deduction, as no actual liability had been created or admitted by the Sales Tax Department. The sales tax deduction was not permissible under Section 37 due to the absence of a firm liability.\n•\nReferences:\no\nCIT v. Assam Roller and Flour Mills (1994) 209 ITR 835 (Raj.)\no\nCIT v. Assam Roller Flour Mills (1987) 163 ITR 186 (Raj.)\no\nVishnu Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. C.T.O. (1978) 42 STC 31 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax References Nos. 14 and 15 of 1984, decision dated: 8-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND M.A. A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. S. Bapna for the Commissioner, V. Bhojwani and Sunil Bhojwani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 303 = 1999 SLD 303 = 1999 PTD 2140 = (1997) 226 ITR 873", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Penalty – Delay in Filing Return – Unregistered Firm Status\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee, a registered firm, was penalized under Section 271(1)(a) for delayed filing of the return. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) treated the firm as unregistered for penalty purposes.\no\nThe Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that penalties should apply in the same manner as for an unregistered firm, including the corresponding tax rates and advance tax provisions.\no\nThe Revenue sought a reference from the High Court to decide whether the term assessed tax in Section 271(1)(i)(b) should be construed independently of the Explanation, and whether advance tax payable by an unregistered firm should be deducted for calculating the penalty.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the penalty calculation should consider advance tax paid as a registered firm or as an unregistered firm for determining assessed tax. \n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe questions raised by the Revenue were valid for reference, specifically regarding how assessed tax should be interpreted and whether advance tax should be considered for penalty calculations.\n•\nReferences:\no\nCIT v. Om Trading Co. (1996) 220 ITR 149 (AP)\no\nCWT v. Executors of Late D.T. Udeshi (1991) 189 ITR 319 (Bom.)\no\nVenkata Krishnayya Naidu and Son v. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 545 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 19 of 1991, decision dated: 14-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " P. VENKATARAMA REDDY AND P, RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok and A. V. Krishna Kaundinya for Petitioner\nY. Ratnakar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLOHIYA TRADING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 304 = 1999 SLD 304 = 1999 PTD 2148 = (1997) 226 ITR 881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Reference – Assessment in Name of Deceased Person – Legal Heirs’ Representation\n•\nFacts:\no\nA search was carried out at the residence of P and a return was filed by him. After his death, a revised return was filed by his widow, and notices were issued to the legal heirs.\no\nHowever, the assessment order was passed in the name of the deceased person, which was annulled by the Tribunal.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the Tribunal was correct in annulling the assessment order passed in the name of the deceased person, considering the representation by the legal heirs.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe annulment of the assessment by the Tribunal raised a question of law regarding whether the Tribunal’s action was correct.\n•\nReferences:\no\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.26 of 1995, decision dated: 26-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Goyal for Petitioner, N. K. Sud for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSMt. ASHA RANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 305 = 1999 SLD 305 = 1999 PTD 2150 = (1997) 226 ITR 905", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Firm – Refusal of Registration – Appealability of Order\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe Income-tax Officer refused to register the firm under Section 185, based on an order passed under Section 184(4).\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether an order under Section 184(4) resulting in the refusal of registration under Section 185 is appealable.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe order refusing registration under Section 184(4) is appealable under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nReferences:\no\nCIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co. (1992) 194 ITR 645 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 223 of 1980, decision dated: 1st July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. M. LAL AND B. DIKSHIT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. K. Agarwal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLALJI SINGH GOVIND SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 306 = 1999 SLD 306 = 1999 PTD 2152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Deduction of Tax at Source – Issuance of Shares to Sponsor – Failure to Deduct Tax\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee issued shares to a sponsor at a 10% discount in settlement of project development costs. The tax under Section 50(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was not deducted when issuing the shares.\no\nThe Assessing Officer held the assessee in default under Section 52 for failing to deduct tax and also levied additional tax under Section 86.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the issuance of shares to the sponsor, in lieu of cash payment, constitutes a payment sum and whether the tax was due under Section 50(3).\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe issuance of shares in lieu of cash payment was considered a sum and thus subject to tax under Section 50(3). The Assessing Officer’s order was upheld.\n•\nReferences:\no\nCIT v. Amonbolu Rajiah (1974) 1 ITJ 185\no\nCIT v. Aloo Supply Company (1979) 121 ITR 680\no\nCIT v. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 478", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(3),52 & 86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.763/IB to 765/113 of 1998-99, decision dated: 18-01-1999, hearing DATE : 24-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MANSOOR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Appellant, Mansoor Ahmed, L.A. and Abdul Shakoor, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 307 = 1999 SLD 307 = 1999 PTD 2168 = (1999) 79 TAX 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Presumptive Tax Regime – Distinction in Total Income Assessment\n•\nFacts:\no\nA distinction was made between income covered under the presumptive tax regime and total income assessed under general provisions.\n•\nIssue:\no\nHow the total income should be worked out for the purpose of tax relief under Part III of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe total income should be calculated by excluding income covered under Section 80B for the purpose of applying tax relief provisions.\n•\nReferences:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 80B, 2(24), and Second Schedule, Part III", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80B,2(24) & SecondSched.,PartIII ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2302/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 23rd February, 1998, hearing DATE : 24-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AND AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Misri Ladhani, D. R. for Appellant, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 308 = 1999 SLD 308 = 1999 PTD 2172 = (1999) 79 TAX 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Deduction of Tax at Source – Rent Payments\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee failed to deduct tax at source from rent payments under Section 50(7-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nThe Assessing Officer disallowed the rent payment under Section 24(c) due to the lack of tax deduction.\no\nThe rental income was taxed in the hands of the recipient.\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the disallowance of rent payment under Section 24(c) was valid when the tax had already been paid in the hands of the recipient.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nIf it is proved that the rent paid had already been taxed in the hands of the recipient, no further disallowance should be made under Section 24(c) of the Ordinance.\n•\nReferences:\no\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 411", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(c) & 50(7B) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.568/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 27-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hassan Alain for Appellant, Mrs. Shaista Abbas, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 309 = 1999 SLD 309 = 1999 PTD 2179 = (1997) 227 ITR 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Reference - Penalty Under S.273(2)(aa)\nFacts: The assessee for the assessment year 1979-80 was penalized under section 273(2)(aa) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for submitting an incorrect estimate of advance tax. The penalty was challenged by the assessee, and the case went to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Department could not establish that the estimate of advance tax was made with a false belief or knowledge. The discrepancy between the estimated advance tax and the actual amount was attributed to a disputed claim under Section 80L for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1978-79. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the Tribunal's decision.\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty under section 273(2)(aa) of the Income-tax Act, based on the fact that the department failed to prove the false nature of the tax estimate.\nDecision: The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding was based on factual appreciation and there was no question of law arising from the Tribunal's conclusion. It emphasized that the case involved a factual determination, which could not be questioned as a matter of law. The Tribunal had rightly concluded that the penalty could not be imposed due to the lack of evidence showing a false estimate of advance tax. The case did not raise any referable legal question for the purpose of a reference.\nCase Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy & Sons (1971) 79 ITR 499 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.344 of 1993, decision dated: 8-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner, S.C. Goyal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHREE SYNTHETICS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 310 = 1999 SLD 310 = 1999 PTD 2181 = (1997) 227 ITR 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income-tax - Deduction of Tax at Source - Interest\nFacts: The issue arose from the excess tax deducted at source under Section 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee sought to claim interest under section 214 for the excess tax deducted.\nIssue: Whether interest is allowable under Section 214 on the excess amount deducted at source under Section 194-C of the Income-tax Act.\nDecision: The Court ruled that no interest is allowable on the excess amount deducted at source. The specific provisions of Section 214 did not provide for interest on excess tax deduction, making it clear that such claims were not permissible. The court referred to previous cases where interest on excess tax deducted was not allowed.\nCase Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Hindustan Engineering Co. (1995) 215 ITR 527 (Raj.)\n•\nLord Krishna Bank Ltd. v. ITO (1989) 176 ITR 508 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 60 of 1995, decision dated: 13-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND A. S. GODARA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner, B. C. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMOHTA CONSTRUCTIONS CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 311 = 1999 SLD 311 = 1999 PTD 2183 = (1997) 227 ITR 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income-tax - Capital or Revenue Expenditure\nFacts: The assessee was engaged in the poultry business, including hatcheries. During the course of the business, the assessee incurred expenditure on improving the roads within its factory premises. Additionally, the company entered into a collaboration agreement for acquiring process know-how. The assessee also claimed an investment allowance on plant and machinery used in the hatchery division.\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether the expenditure on road improvements within the factory premises should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure.\n2.\nWhether the expenditure incurred for acquiring process know-how was capital or revenue expenditure.\n3.\nWhether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance for plant and machinery used in its hatchery division.\n4.\nWhether the company was eligible for concessional tax rates as an industrial company.\nDecision:\n1.\nRoad Improvements: The expenditure on improving roads within the factory premises was considered revenue expenditure. The Court emphasized that improvements to existing infrastructure that facilitated day-to-day business operations without creating an enduring benefit in the capital field were revenue in nature.\n2.\nProcess Know-how: The expenditure incurred on acquiring process know-how was also treated as revenue expenditure. The collaboration agreement stipulated that part of the payment was for training and business services, while the other part was for know-how, which facilitated the business operations.\n3.\nInvestment Allowance: The assessee was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A on plant and machinery in the hatchery division. The Court concluded that the production of chicks by artificial means was a form of production of an article or thing, thus meeting the requirement for investment allowance.\n4.\nConcessional Tax Rates: The assessee’s business of rearing chicks by artificial means was treated as an industrial activity, qualifying for concessional tax rates under the Finance Acts of 1977 and 1979.\nCase References:\n•\nEmpire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nPraga Tools Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 773 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR 231 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 125 of 1987, decision dated: 3rd November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " P. VENKATA RAMA REDDI AND P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner, M. J. Swamy and Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVENKATESWARA HATCHERY (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 312 = 1999 SLD 312 = 1999 PTD 2190 = (1997) 227 ITR 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Special Deduction & Investment Deposit Account\nFacts: The assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of alloy steel and operated four divisions. The issue involved claims for deductions under sections 80-I and 32AB(2) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee sought special deduction under Section 80-I and also claimed benefits under Section 32AB(2), pertaining to their investment deposit account. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee and declined the Revenue’s request for a reference.\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction under Section 80-I, ignoring manipulation of inter-unit transfer values.\n2.\nWhether the expression “eligible business or profession” under Section 32AB(2) refers to the entire business or is restricted to a unit that was put into operation during the year.\nDecision: The Supreme Court held that both issues involved referable questions of law.\n1.\nThe issue regarding inter-unit transfers and the manipulation of values raised a legal question, particularly related to the interpretation of the provisions under Section 80-I.\n2.\nRegarding Section 32AB(2), the Court concluded that the expression “eligible business or profession” includes the entire business carried on by the assessee, not just the unit in operation in that particular year.\nCase References:\n•\nSection 80-I: Cases related to inter-unit transfer manipulation.\n•\nSection 32AB(2): Interpretation of eligible business was pivotal in determining the scope of deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No. 186 of 1994, decision dated: 1st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND T. H. B. CHALAPATHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Goel for Petitioner, A. K. Mittal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 313 = 1999 SLD 313 = 1999 PTD 2195 = (1997) 227 ITR 251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income-tax - Dissolution of Firm & Stock Valuation\nFacts: The case concerned a partnership firm in the final year before dissolution. The firm dealt with silver and valued its closing stock at Rs. 250 per kg, although market rates were substantially higher. The Commissioner found this valuation erroneous and set aside the assessment, ordering a fresh assessment with the correct market price.\nIssue: Whether the closing stock should be valued based on the prevailing market rate at the time of dissolution.\nDecision: The Court ruled that the closing stock should indeed be valued at market rates. Since the firm was dissolving, it was important to reflect the true market value to provide an accurate picture of the firm's financial standing at the time of its cessation. The Tribunal’s decision to value stock based on market rates was upheld.\nCase Reference:\n•\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 258 of 1993, decision dated: 25-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND N. K., JAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Goyal for the Assessee, D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNATHULAL JAWARCHAND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 314 = 1999 SLD 314 = 1999 PTD 2217 = (1999) 235 ITR 190 = (1999) 79 TAX 503", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Charitable Trust Exemption\nFacts: The assessee was a charitable trust seeking exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The issue arose when the trust set aside an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakh in its accounts, but the amount was not actually applied for charitable purposes.\nIssue: Whether the trust was entitled to an exemption under Section 11 for the amount set aside but not applied for charitable purposes.\nDecision: The Court upheld the finding of fact that the set-aside amount was not applied for charitable or religious purposes, and therefore, the trust was not entitled to the exemption under Section 11 for that amount. The fact that the money was not used as intended disqualified the trust from the benefit of the exemption.\nCase Reference:\n•\nNachimuthu Industrial Association v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 611 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Civil Appeal No.686 of 1981, decision dated: 17-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Verma, Advocate for JBD & Co., Advocates for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "NACHIMUTHU INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 315 = 1999 SLD 315 = 1999 PTD 2218 = (1999) 235 ITR 175 = (1999) 79 TAX 567", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Contempt of Court & Judicial Independence\nFacts: The case involved contempt proceedings initiated against a Law Secretary who allegedly interfered with the judicial functioning of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Law Secretary's actions involved questioning the Tribunal's decisions and issuing orders to the Tribunal to explain certain judicial decisions.\nIssue: Whether the actions of the Law Secretary amounted to contempt of court and interference with the administration of justice.\nDecision: The Supreme Court held that the actions of the Law Secretary amounted to contempt of court. The letter issued by the Law Secretary, which questioned the integrity of the Tribunal’s members, was deemed an obstruction to judicial independence. The Court imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 on the Law Secretary as punishment for contempt.\nCase References:\n•\nDaphtary (C.K.) v. Gupta (O.P.) AIR 1971 SC 1132\n•\nDelhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat AIR 1991 SC 2176\n•\nVinay Chandra Mishra, In re: AIR 1995 SC 2348", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Indian Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963=R-34,35 ", + "Case #": "Contempt Petition No.287 of 1998 in Transferred Case No.6 of 1997 decided on 17-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dinesh Vyas, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh and Ms. Bina Madhavan, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor-General and K. K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate (Uma Dutta. T.C. Sharma, Advocate for P. Parmeswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Vs\nV. K. AGARWAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 316 = 1999 SLD 316 = 1999 PTD 2031 = (1997) 226 ITR 691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Reference — Special deduction — Borrowed capital\nIssue: Capital borrowed by one unit of a company from another unit of the same company.\n•\nFacts: The assessee was a public limited company with multiple manufacturing units. One unit (rim manufacturing) borrowed capital from another unit (cycle manufacturing). The Income-tax Officer (ITO) deducted this borrowed capital while computing the capital employed and allowed a deduction under section 80-J of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contested this, arguing that both units were part of the same legal identity.\n•\nTribunal's View: The Tribunal upheld that since both units were part of the same company, the capital borrowed by one unit should be included in the capital employed when computing deductions under section 80-J.\n•\nHeld: The question whether capital borrowed by one unit of a company from another unit should be deducted from the capital of the borrowing unit while computing deductions under section 80-J is a question of law and thus needs to be referred to the High Court for decision.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 30 of 1988, decision dated: 31st July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND NK. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansal for Petitioner, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 317 = 1999 SLD 317 = 1999 PTD 2233 = (1997) 227 ITR 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Firm — Registration — Minor Partner\nIssue: Validity of partnership deed and entitlement for firm registration when a minor is made liable for losses and later attains majority.\n•\nFacts: A partnership firm had three minor partners, one of whom (partner P) was given a share in both profits and losses. The firm sought registration under sections 184 and 185 of the Income Tax Act. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the registration, pointing out that a minor partner cannot be liable for losses according to the Indian Partnership Act.\n•\nTribunal's View: The Tribunal ruled that since the minor partner attained majority during the accounting year and opted to continue as a full-fledged partner, the firm could be registered. However, the minor's liability for losses was problematic.\n•\nHeld: The partnership deed that made the minor liable for losses was invalid as per the Indian Partnership Act. Thus, the firm was not entitled to registration under sections 184 and 185, even though the minor had attained majority later in the accounting year. The decision also referred to the ruling in CIT v. Dwarkadas Khetan & Co. (1961).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. R. No. 104 of 1987, decision dated: 19-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND B. S. RAIKOTE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nORIENTAL T. MARITIME" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 318 = 1999 SLD 318 = 1999 PTD 2253 = (1997) 227 ITR 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Reference — Conflict of Opinion — Salary vs Incentive Bonus\nIssue: Whether an incentive bonus paid to Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) Development Officers is part of salary.\n•\nFacts: The question arose regarding whether an incentive bonus paid to Development Officers of LIC should be treated as part of their salary for tax purposes. The Tribunal held that the incentive bonus was not part of the salary, and the assessee was entitled to claim a deduction of 40% from it.\n•\nHeld: In cases of conflict of opinion, the issue needs to be referred to the High Court to resolve the legal ambiguity. The Tribunal's opinion that incentive bonuses are not part of salary is a question of law and should be referred to the Court.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 484 of 1991, decision dated: 13-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner\nS. C. Bagdiya for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG. S. JHAMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 319 = 1999 SLD 319 = 1999 PTD 2256 = (1997) 227 ITR 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Revision — Scope of Powers of Commissioner\nIssue: The validity of Commissioner’s order under section 263 directing withdrawal of certain deductions.\n•\nFacts: For the assessment year 1977-78, the ITO allowed certain deductions, which the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) later found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Under section 263, the CIT directed the ITO to withdraw the deductions and recompute depreciation. The Tribunal argued that the order of the ITO had merged with the appellate order of the CIT(A), making the Commissioner’s revision invalid.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's view was incorrect. The CIT under section 263 has authority to revise orders that were not subject to appeal, and the order under section 263 was valid. The fact that the appeal didn’t challenge certain aspects of the assessment didn’t prevent the CIT from revising those parts under section 263.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.8 of 1984, decision dated: 17-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir H Joshi instructed by Manish R Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPAUSHAK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 320 = 1999 SLD 320 = 1999 PTD 2259 = (1997) 227 ITR 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Business Expenditure — Bonus\nIssue: Deductibility of customary bonus as business expenditure.\n•\nFacts: The assessee paid a customary bonus that was higher than the usual salary and was part of an ongoing practice. The Income-tax authorities questioned the deductibility of the excess bonus.\n•\nHeld: Since the bonus was a customary practice, the payment was found to be reasonable and deductible under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal referred to decisions in Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal (1979) and others to support the finding that customary bonuses should be allowed as business expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.761 of 1984 (Reference No.676 of 1984), decision dated: 2-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM ANDN. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner, P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nD. MOHAMED ISMAIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 321 = 1999 SLD 321 = 1999 PTD 2264 = (1997) 227 ITR 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Penalty — Concealment of Income\nIssue: Penalty for concealment of income due to wrong claims under section 80J.\n•\nFacts: The assessee had made a wrong claim for a deduction under section 80J and had agreed to the addition of sales tax refunds. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied for concealment of income.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim was made in good faith, and thus, there was no concealment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelled the penalty, and the Tribunal upheld the decision. The court dismissed the reference application, holding that no question of law arose.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.277 of 1993, decision dated: 8-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner, R. C. Kochatta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAJIV UDYOG" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 322 = 1999 SLD 322 = 1999 PTD 2266 = (1997) 227 ITR 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Charitable Trust — Exemption\nIssue: Eligibility for tax exemption of a trust created by family members involved in chit fund business.\n•\nFacts: A trust was created by family members involved in a chit fund business, and the trust received income from the firm’s activities. The income was not used for charitable purposes during the relevant assessment years.\n•\nHeld: The income of the trust was found to be linked to the chit fund business, and since the income did not serve charitable purposes, the trust was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The close relationship between the founders of the trust and the chit fund business also disqualified the trust from receiving exemptions under section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(3).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 78 and 79 of 1991, decision dated: 1st July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner, C. Kochunni Nair, M. A. Firoze and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMUTHOOTTU CHARITABLE TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 323 = 1999 SLD 323 = 1999 PTD 2272 = (1997) 227 ITR 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Income — Business Income — Chit Fund Trust\nIssue: Whether the portion of discount given to the trust is includible in business income of the chit fund.\n•\nFacts: A chit fund agreement stipulated that a portion of the discount offered by successful bidders would be set apart for a trust. The question was whether this amount could be included in the business income of the firm.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal held that the amount given to the trust was not part of the business income because it was specifically set aside for the trust from the inception of the chit fund agreement. Therefore, the amount was not part of the firm's taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.75 and 76 of 1989, decision dated: 25-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner, P. C. Chacko, Senior Advocate, Roy Chacko, C. Kochunni Nair M.A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMUTHOOTU MINI CHITTY FUND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 324 = 1999 SLD 324 = 1999 PTD 2277 = (1997) 227 ITR 866", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Business Expenditure — Gratuity — Scope of Section 40A(7)\n•\nIssue: Whether an incremental liability for gratuity is deductible under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically under section 36(1)(v) or section 40A(7).\n•\nFacts: Section 40A(7), introduced on April 1, 1973, governs the deduction for gratuity payments. For gratuity to be deductible, it must meet the conditions specified in section 40A(7), overriding other provisions related to gratuity under section 36(1)(v). The question in this case was whether the incremental liability towards gratuity, which had not been shown in the books of account, could be deducted.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee had not created a provision for the incremental liability for gratuity in its books of accounts, it could not claim a deduction for the same. The provision under section 40A(7) specifically requires that such a liability must be reflected in the accounts to qualify for a deduction. The ruling followed precedents like Palam Andavar Mills Ltd. v. ITO and Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 103, 104 and 625 of 1994 (References Nos.56, 51 and 551 of 1984), decision dated: 13-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramanian, Senior Advocate for the Commissioner, P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAWAHAR MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 325 = 1999 SLD 325 = 1999 PTD 2289 = (1999) 80 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance — Late Filing of Return — Option to Go Out of Presumptive Tax Regime\n•\nIssue: Whether an assessee can opt out of the presumptive tax regime if the return is filed late, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nFacts: The Commissioner of Income-tax revised the assessment under section 66-A of the Ordinance, claiming that the assessee could not opt out of the presumptive tax regime since the return was filed late. The issue was whether the filing of the return after the deadline prohibited the assessee from opting out of this regime.\n•\nHeld: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that a return filed late under sections 56, 57, and 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance was still valid, despite the late filing. The declaration to opt out of the presumptive tax regime was deemed valid even though it was filed with the late return. The Tribunal referred to precedents such as Gopynath Bishwamal Roy and CIT v. Royal Textiles to support this view.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,56,57,65,62,66A & SecondSched.,PartIV,c1.9 Income Tax Rules, 1982=8,190 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos.3729/LB and 3730/LB of 1994, decision dated: 2-06-1996, hearing DATE ; 15-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MUMTAZ ALAM GILLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Khan, Saadat Ali Khan, Advocates and Masood Kazi, T.P. for Appellant, Haji Ahmad, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 326 = 1999 SLD 326 = 1999 PTD 2294 = (1999) 79 TAX 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance — Revision of Orders by Inspecting Additional Commissioner — Limitation and Accrued Interest\n•\n(a) Issue: Whether the Inspecting Additional Commissioner can revise a Deputy Commissioner's order if the issue raised was not part of the original appeal, and the time limit for revision.\n•\nFacts: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner revised the Deputy Commissioner's order under section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, although the issue raised was not part of the original appeal. The limitation period for revision was questioned.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal ruled that the limitation period for revision should be counted from the date of the original order and not from the date of the revised order. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner has the power to revise the original order under section 66-A, even if the issue raised was not part of the original appeal. The Tribunal referred to cases like 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1878 and 1996 PTD (Trib.) 492.\n•\n(b) Issue: Whether accrued interest shown in the suspense account of the balance sheet is liable to tax, even if not offered as income.\n•\nFacts: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner treated interest credited to a suspense account as escaped income and included it in the assessment, despite the assessee not offering it as income and the Assessing Officer not noticing it.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal upheld the decision, ruling that interest credited to the suspense account should be taxed on an accrual basis as per the established tax principles. The Tribunal affirmed the order after considering the nature of the income and the precedents like CIT v. Fazalur Rehman and PIA Corporation v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A(2),62 & 132,12(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 155/KB to 158/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 1st March, 1999, hearing DATE : 20-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ikramul Haq and Jawaid Farooqi for Appellant\nAnisul Hasnain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 327 = 1999 SLD 327 = 1999 PTD 2315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance — Exemption and Enquiry into Unexplained Investments\n•\n(a) Issue: Whether an assessee, exempt from tax under specific provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, can be exempt from an enquiry into investments made for the purchase of shares.\n•\nFacts: The contention was raised that a company exempt from income tax under clause (118(E)) of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, should not be subjected to an enquiry regarding investments made in shares.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the exemption under clause (118(E)) only applied to provisions in sections 13, Chapter XI, and Chapter XII of the Ordinance, and did not extend to exemptions from enquiry regarding investments in shares.\n•\n(b) Issue: Whether share deposit money, which was not received by cross cheque and exceeded the authorized capital, could be treated as a loan and taxed accordingly.\n•\nFacts: The Assessing Officer treated share deposit money, which exceeded the authorized capital and was not received via cross cheque, as a loan, and added it under section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal remanded the case to determine whether the share deposit money should be treated as a loan. The Assessing Officer was instructed to consider the usage of the amount, the manner of receipt, and whether interest was paid on it before concluding its classification.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,PartI,cl.(118-E) & SecondSched,PartIV,cl.(8),S.13,12(18),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1027/LB of 1998, decision dated: 10-03-1999, hearing DATE : 3rd December, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Boota Anjum, D. R. for Appellant, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 328 = 1999 SLD 328 = 1999 PTD 2319 = (1997) 227 ITR 873", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax — Revision and Limitation under Section 263\n•\n(a) Issue: Whether revision proceedings under section 263 were barred by limitation after an amendment made on October 1, 1984.\n•\nFacts: The Commissioner of Income-tax revised an assessment order under section 263, but the assessee argued that the revision was barred by the limitation period, as the assessment had been completed in June 1984 and the revision notice was issued in November 1986.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal held that revision proceedings under section 263 were barred by limitation, as the assessment was completed before the amendment of section 263 on October 1, 1984, and the revision should have been completed within two years of the original order. The Tribunal referred to cases such as Allied Export and Imports v. State of Andhra Pradesh and CIT v. Hargu Charan Srivastava.\n•\n(b) Issue: The effect of changes in procedural law regarding the period of limitation and whether a subsequent enlargement of time can be applied.\n•\nFacts: The case involved the issue of whether a subsequent change in procedural law regarding limitation could apply to an ongoing revision proceeding.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal ruled that while procedural laws may be amended to extend the period of limitation, the right to initiate a proceeding becomes substantive once it has become time-barred. If a right has already accrued, it cannot be affected by a subsequent amendment.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.49, 48 of 1990, 5 to 11, 14, 15, 17 to 19, 21 of 1991 and 13 to 15 of 1996, decision dated: 14th February 1997", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. BALI AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for Petitioner, G. S. Sandhwala for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMrs. MANJULA SOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 329 = 1999 SLD 329 = 1999 PTD 2324 = (1997) 227 ITR 878", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Business Expenditure and Capital Expenditure\n•\nTopic: Licence Fee Paid for Establishing a Distillery\no\nIssue: The assessee, in this case, paid a licence fee to the Government under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, for the construction and operation of a distillery. The issue was whether this fee could be treated as a business expense under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nConclusion: The licence fee paid was considered capital expenditure. The payment was required to establish the distillery, and without it, the assessee could not have carried out its business of manufacturing liquor. Therefore, it is not deductible as a revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.\no\nCitations:\n\nSmith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 581 (SC)\n\nCIT v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 521 (SC)\n\nCIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC)\n\nCIT v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengat & Sons (P.) Ltd. (1990) 186 ITR 276 (SC)\n\nCIT v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 751 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 2 of 1982, decision dated: 17-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN C.J. AND KAMLESH SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. D. Sood for the Assessee, Indar Singh for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 330 = 1999 SLD 330 = 1999 PTD 2329 = (1997) 227 ITR 888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Accrual of Income – Interest\n•\nTopic: Interest on Loans – Non-accrual\no\nIssue: A government corporation filed a return showing interest on debts, but later passed a resolution to stop charging interest due to ongoing litigation. The Assessing Officer initially did not add this interest, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) made an addition.\no\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that interest was not includible in the total income because the assessee did not charge interest on the debts. Therefore, no income had accrued, and the amount was not taxable.\no\nCitations:\n\nCIT v. Naskarpara Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (1983) 141 ITR 384 (Cal.)\n\nCIT v. Orissa State Financial Corporation (1993) 201 ITR 595 (Orissa)\n\nCIT v. U.P. Financial Corporation (1992) 194 ITR 282 (All.)\n\nCIT v. U.P. Financial Corporation (1996) 217 ITR 191 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 142 of 1993 and 596 of 1994, decision dated: 1st August, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND S. B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anand Mohan Mathur and A. K. Shrivastava for the Commissioner, G. M. Chaphekar and S. S. Samvatsar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 331 = 1999 SLD 331 = 1999 PTD 2334 = (1997) 227 ITR 893", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Computation of Capital Gains\n•\nTopic: Capital Gains Computation – Section 48(2) and 54E\no\nIssue: The issue revolved around whether the provisions of Section 48(2) regarding deductions should be applied before considering exemptions under Section 54E for capital gains tax computation.\no\nConclusion: The provisions of Section 48(2) for computing capital gains should be applied before considering the exemptions under Section 54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This ensures that all deductions are accounted for before exemptions are granted.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 13 of 1993, decision dated: 20-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner, K. N. Sivasankaran, V. V. Asokan and K. I. Mayankutty Mather for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nV. V. GEORGE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 332 = 1999 SLD 332 = 1999 PTD 2346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Self-Assessment and Prosecution\n•\nTopic (a): Deemed Assessment and Self-Assessment\no\nIssue: The issue involved whether the acknowledgment slip issued with respect to the return of income could be considered as a deemed assessment order under Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979).\no\nConclusion: The acknowledgment slip is deemed to become the assessment order after June 30 of the relevant assessment year, not at the time the slip was issued.\n•\nTopic (b): Self-Assessment Scheme and Concealment of Income\no\nIssue: The case questioned whether the Self-Assessment Scheme of 1995-96 allowed action under Section 65 without an assessment order in cases of definite information of concealment .\no\nConclusion: The Self-Assessment Scheme of 1995-96 allowed the Assessing Officer to directly assess cases involving concealment without needing an assessment order first, as specified under Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nCitations: 1997 PTD 183", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(l) & 65(1)(c),59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2360/LB and 2374/LB of 1998, decision dated: 16-04-1999, hearing DATE : 20-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakhir-ul-Islam, I.T.P. and Mian Mehmood Ahmad for Appellant (in I.T.A. 2360/LB of 1998). Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L. A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. 2360/LB of 1998). Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L. A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. 2374/LB of 1998), Fakhir-ul-Islam, I.T.P. and Mian Mehmood Ahmad for Respondent (in I.T.A. 2374/LB of 1998)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 333 = 1999 SLD 333 = 1999 PTD 2356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Capital Assets and Goodwill\n•\nTopic (a): Goodwill as a Capital Asset\no\nIssue: Whether goodwill qualifies as a capital asset under Sections 2(12) and 27 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979).\no\nConclusion: Goodwill is considered a capital asset for the purposes of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and is not excluded from its scope.\no\nCitations:\n\nV. R. Sonti v. C.I.T., West Bengal (117 ITR 836)\n\nDevidas Vithaldas & Co. v. C.I.T. (1972) 84 ITR 277\n•\nTopic (b): Capital Gains on Sale of Goodwill\no\nIssue: Whether expenses incurred in creating goodwill could be deducted as a capital cost when the goodwill is sold.\no\nConclusion: Expenses incurred in creating goodwill, such as marketing and promotional expenses, cannot be considered as part of its capital cost under Section 28 when it is sold.\n•\nTopic (c): Computation of Capital Gains on Sale of Goodwill\no\nIssue: The computation of capital gains when no cost for goodwill is recorded.\no\nConclusion: If no cost is associated with goodwill, the total sale proceeds are treated as capital gains under Section 28, as no deduction can be made for the absence of cost.\n•\nTopic (d): Date of Acquisition of Goodwill\no\nIssue: When the date of acquisition of goodwill is unknown, can capital gains still be taxed?\no\nConclusion: The date on which goodwill appears in the accounts or, if not previously recorded, the date of sale will be treated as the date of acquisition for the purpose of capital gains taxation.\n•\nTopic (e): Chargeability of Tax on Sale of Goodwill\no\nIssue: Whether the sale of goodwill is chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\no\nConclusion: The sale of goodwill is chargeable to capital gains tax under Section 27 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(12),27,28,FirstSched.,PartIV,para.4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4670/LB and 5200/LB of 1997, decision dated: 27-03-1999, hearing DATE : 13-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Hussain Mir, F.C.A. for Appellant (I.T.A. No. 4670/LB of 1997), Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad, D.R. and Shafqat Mahmood Chohan; L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 4670/LB of 1997), Shafqat Mahmood Chohan, L.A. and Muhammad lqbal Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 5200/LB of 1997). Manzoor Hussain Mir, F.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A No. 5200/LB of 1997)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 334 = 1999 SLD 334 = 1999 PTD 2366 = (1997) 227 ITR 799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Interest on Term Loans by Government Undertaking\n•\nTopic: Interest on Term Loans\no\nIssue: The assessee, a government undertaking, initially included interest in its income but reversed the entries when the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued notifications disallowing the interest.\no\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that the interest was not assessable in the hands of the assessee, as the government notifications were effective before the completion of the assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.208 of 1994, decision dated: 15-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Tankha for the Commissioner, Y. K. Munshi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. P. AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (RAIPUR) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 335 = 1999 SLD 335 = 1999 PTD 2374 = (1997) 227 ITR 823", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income-tax – Prosecution After Best Assessment\n•\nTopic: Prosecution Under Best Assessment\no\nIssue: The assessee faced prosecution based on a best assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was later set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tribunal.\no\nConclusion: Since the best assessment order was set aside and the prosecution was based on this order, the prosecution was quashed as it no longer had a legal basis.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.4404, 4991, 4823 and 4969 of 1991, decision dated: 19-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bipin Kumar Sinha for Petitioner, S.K. Sharan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BHOLA MATH KESHARI\nVs\nSTATE OF BIHAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 336 = 1999 SLD 336 = 1999 PTD 2376 = (1997) 227 ITR 802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Overriding Title and Capital Gains\n•\nTopic: Overriding Title on Mortgaged Property\no\nIssue: The assessee had mortgaged property to a financial institution and stood guarantee for a loan. The property was sold by the institution to discharge the loan, and the sale proceeds were appropriated directly by the financial institution. The issue was whether the sale led to capital gains.\no\nConclusion: Since the sale proceeds were appropriated by the financial institution to discharge the loan and no amount was received by the assessee, the Tribunal held that no capital gains or income accrued to the assessee, as the sale consideration was diverted by overriding title.\no\nCitations:\n\nAmbat Echukutty Menon v. C.I.T. (1978) 111 ITR 880 (Ker.)\n\nAttar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. I.T.O. (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC)\n\nC.I.T. v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC)\n\nIdiculla (K.V.) v. C.I.T. (1995) 214 ITR 386 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.87 of 1992, decision dated: 16-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon for the Commissioner, P. G. K. Warriar and K. K. Ravindranath for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. THRESSIAMMA ABRAHAM (NO. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 337 = 1999 SLD 337 = 1999 PTD 2385 = (1997) 227 ITR 900", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Cash Credits under Section 68\n•\nTopic: Cash Credits - Proper Inquiry\no\nIssue: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to make an inquiry regarding cash credits in the books of an assessee. If the AO is satisfied that the entries are not genuine, they can be treated as income from other sources. In this case, the assessee, a firm carrying out contract work, showed a cash credit of Rs. 1,70,000 received from seven creditors in the assessment year 1981-82. The AO doubted the genuineness of these credits and initiated inquiries.\no\nConclusion: The AO issued notices under Section 131 for further inquiry, but only four of the seven creditors appeared and provided satisfactory explanations. The remaining three creditors’ notices were returned un-served, and the AO did not conduct further investigations. The Inspector’s inquiry was superficial and failed to explore other avenues. The Tribunal upheld the AO's addition of Rs. 82,000 to the income, but upon reference, the Court found that the inquiry was inadequate. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 82,000 was not justified, and the amount could not be included in the income.\no\nCitations:\n\nCIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)\n\nJalan Timbers v. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.4 of 1995, decision dated: 4-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N. BARUAH AND S. BARMAN ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwalla for the Assessee, G.K. Joshi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 338 = 1999 SLD 338 = 1999 PTD 2391 = (1997) 227 ITR 906", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income-tax - Reassessment under Section 147 and 148\n•\nTopic: Reassessment - Validity of Formation of Belief\no\nIssue: A stock exchange challenged reassessment notices under Section 148 for assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94, contending that the reassessment was initiated based on erroneous beliefs about exemptions. The stock exchange claimed exemptions under various sections, including 10(23-A) and 10(23-C)(iv), but the Assessing Officer believed these exemptions were wrongly granted, leading to the issuance of reassessment notices.\no\nConclusion: The Court ruled that the reasons for initiating the reassessment were valid. The Assessing Officer had a rational connection between the claim for exemptions and the formation of belief that income had escaped assessment. It was found that exemptions under sections 10(23-A) and 10(23-C)(iv) were not admissible, and the AO could reopen assessments. The Court also dismissed the petitioner’s arguments regarding mechanical sanction under Section 151 and the correctness of the exemption claims.\no\nCitations:\n\nChhugamal Rajpal v. Chaliha (S.P.) (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)\n\nITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)\n\nStock Exchange v. CBDT (1997) 225 ITR 761 (Guj.)\n\nVXL India Ltd. v. CIT (Asst.) (1995) 215 ITR 295 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.2163 of 1996, decision dated: 3rd April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. A. MEHTA, ACTG. C.J. AND R.K. ABICHANDANI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.H. Kaji for Petitioner. M.J. Thakore, Senior Advocate instructed by Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "STOCK EXCHANGE\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 339 = 1999 SLD 339 = 1999 PTD 2398 = (1997) 227 ITR 914", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income-tax - Business Expenditure and Section 43-B\n•\nTopic: Disallowance of Sales Tax Under Section 43-B\no\nIssue: The Revenue Authorities disallowed a deduction of Rs. 1,59,360 under Section 43-B, which pertained to sales tax collected by the assessee in the last quarter of the year. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to verify if the payment was made before the return was filed, and if so, the payment should be allowed as a deduction.\no\nConclusion: The Court upheld the Tribunal’s order. The proviso inserted in Section 43-B with effect from April 1, 1988, was procedural in nature and applied to pending proceedings. Therefore, if the sales tax was paid before the return filing date, it should be allowed as a deduction under the amended Section 43-B.\no\nCitations:\n\nSection 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.593 of 1994, decision dated: 25-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner, P.B.S. Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNOSHIRWAN & CO. (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 340 = 1999 SLD 340 = 1999 PTD 2400 = (1997) 227 ITR 916", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Investment Allowance and Manufacture\n•\nTopic: Investment Allowance for Coffee Curing\no\nIssue: The assessee, engaged in curing and selling coffee, claimed investment allowance under Section 32-A for plant and machinery used in the curing process. The Tribunal allowed the claim, but the Revenue contended that the curing process did not involve manufacturing or production.\no\nConclusion: The Court held that the process of curing coffee, although involving multiple stages, did not result in a commercially different article. The Court clarified that the process did not constitute “manufacture” or “production” as per the provisions of Section 32-A. Consequently, the assessee was not entitled to the investment allowance.\no\nCitations:\n\nCIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC)\n\nDeputy CST v. Pio Food Packers (1980) 46 STC 63 (SC)\n\nDelhi Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 656 (SC)\n\nSterling Foods v. State of Karnataka (1986) 63 STC 239 (SC)\n\nChowgule & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1981) 47 STC 124 (SC)\n\nCIT v. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 353 (Ker.)\n\nLonghurst v. Guildford Godalming and District Water Board (1961) 3 All ER 545 (HL)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.43 and 44 of 1993, decision dated: 25-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner, C.N. Ramchandran Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 341 = 1999 SLD 341 = 1999 PTD 2413 = (1997) 227 ITR 724", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains Exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act for capital gains arising from the sale of a residential property.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee had been occupying a flat in Bombay on a leave and license basis since May 1968, paying a compensation of Rs. 525 per month. He purchased the flat on July 16, 1973, for Rs. 36,375 and had been occupying it as its owner since that date.\no\nThe flat was sold by the assessee on August 11, 1974, for Rs. 70,000.\no\nThe assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act on the capital gains arising from the sale, arguing that he had occupied the property for a period of two years as a residence.\n•\nIssue: Whether the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54, which provides relief on capital gains if the property sold was used for residence by the assessee (or his parents) for at least two years preceding the sale date.\n•\nLegal Provisions:\no\nSection 54 of the Income Tax Act provides for exemption from capital gains tax on the sale of a residential property if the property was used by the assessee (or their parents) primarily for residential purposes for a period of two years before the date of transfer. Additionally, the assessee must purchase or construct another residential property within a specified time after the transfer.\n•\nTribunal’s Finding:\no\nThe Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54 did not apply to the assessee. The Court found that the period of occupation of the property by the assessee before the purchase (i.e., from May 1968 to July 15, 1973) was as a licensee, not as an owner. Section 54 specifically requires the property to have been used by the assessee as an owner for at least two years.\no\nSince the property was only owned by the assessee after July 16, 1973, the occupation before that date as a licensee was irrelevant to the claim for exemption.\no\nThus, the Tribunal concluded that the two-year condition for exemption under Section 54 was not satisfied and ruled that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption on capital gains.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.l of 1985, decision dated: 27-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.J. Mehta with C.B. Mehta for the Assessee, Dr. V. Balasubramanian and J.P. Deodhar instructed by H.D. Rathod for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "HAMEED JAFFERY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 342 = 1999 SLD 342 = 1999 PTD 2417 = (1997) 227 ITR 638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtiTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Property Acquired Without Cost\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the assessee is liable for capital gains tax on the sale of an inherited property when the property was acquired without any cost.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee inherited property from the founder of the State, the late Shri Ratansinghji, who had acquired the property without any cost.\no\nThe property was sold by the assessee, but the assessee did not disclose any capital gains on the sale. The assessee argued that no capital gain arose from the sale because the property was acquired without any cost.\n•\nIssue: Whether capital gains tax can be charged when the asset is inherited and has no acquisition cost, and the property is sold without any profit.\n•\nLegal Provisions:\no\nSection 45 of the Income Tax Act deals with the taxation of capital gains. According to this section, the transfer of a capital asset or property is liable to capital gains tax, which is the difference between the sale price and the cost of acquisition.\no\nSection 48 defines the cost of acquisition and allows for adjustments in certain cases like inheritance. In this case, the assessee argued that since the property was inherited without cost, there was no taxable capital gain.\n•\nTribunal’s Finding:\no\nThe Tribunal agreed with the assessee’s contention that no capital gain arose from the sale of the property, as there was no element of profit in the transaction.\no\nThe Tribunal emphasized that if no profit or gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset, no capital gains tax is chargeable.\no\nThe Court concluded that since the property had no cost of acquisition and no gain resulted from the sale, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was correct in deleting the assessment of capital gains.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 125 of 1989, decision dated: 23rd January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S. B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nH.H. LOKENDRA SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 343 = 1999 SLD 343 = 1999 PTD 2469 = (1997) 227 ITR 695", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration and Evidence of Capital Investment\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the assessee-firm is entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act despite failing to provide evidence of capital contributions by new partners, including a minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee-firm applied for registration based on a partnership deed with five partners, including two minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership.\no\nThree partners claimed to represent their respective Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs). The Income-tax Officer found that one of the HUFs had been incorrectly claimed as a partner since it was originally assessed as an individual and had inherited the properties as individuals. The firm also failed to provide evidence of capital contributions by the new partners.\n•\nIssue: Whether the firm is entitled to registration despite not providing capital contribution evidence and the question of Hindu Undivided Family status for the partners.\n•\nLegal Provisions:\no\nSection 10 of the Income Tax Act deals with the registration of firms, which requires the submission of a valid partnership deed, along with proof of capital contribution by the partners.\n•\nTribunal’s Finding:\no\nThe Income-tax Officer initially refused registration, questioning the status of the Hindu Undivided Families and the capital contributions by the new partners.\no\nThe Tribunal disagreed with the Income-tax Officer’s decision, stating that the absence of evidence of capital contributions by the new partners did not necessarily invalidate the firm’s registration.\no\nThe Tribunal directed that the firm should be granted registration, as the source of capital contributions and the status of the Hindu Undivided Families could not invalidate the partnership itself.\no\nThe matter was referred to determine whether the assessee firm was entitled to registration, which the Court confirmed as a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 149 of 1992, decision dated: 15-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner\nV.K. Joshi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 344 = 1999 SLD 344 = 1999 PTD 2472 = (1997) 227 ITR 688", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure under Mercantile System of Accounting\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether a provision for purchase tax liability made by an assessee following the mercantile system of accounting is allowable as a business expenditure.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee was engaged in the processing and export of seafood (prawns). Under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, a purchase tax exemption was granted for prawns purchased for export.\no\nThe assessee made a provision for purchase tax liability during the assessment year 1978-79, based on a reasonable apprehension that the tax would become payable.\no\nThe Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction for purchase tax liability, arguing that the liability was not certain as of the assessment year.\n•\nIssue: Whether a provision for a disputed liability, made under the mercantile system of accounting, is allowable as a business expenditure.\n•\nLegal Provisions:\no\nSection 37(1) of the Income Tax Act allows deductions for business expenditures, including provisions for liabilities that are reasonably anticipated.\no\nSection 41(1) of the Income Tax Act allows for the assessment of amounts previously deducted if the liability ceases to exist in a subsequent year.\n•\nTribunal’s Finding:\no\nThe Tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s order allowing the deduction, noting that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and had made a provision for the purchase tax liability based on a bona fide, reasonable apprehension.\no\nThe Tribunal explained that while the exact liability was not yet settled, the assessee acted prudently in making the provision, as the tax could become payable in the future.\no\nThe Court also noted that if it was later found that the purchase tax was not payable, the amount could be assessed under Section 41(1) in a subsequent year.\no\nThe Tribunal’s ruling affirmed that the provision for purchase tax liability was a deductible business expense, and the Department could revisit the amount in future assessments if the liability ceased to exist.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 176 of 1991, decision dated: 23rd July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner\nC. Kochunni Nair and Dale P. Kurian for the Assess", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA. M. MOOSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 345 = 1999 SLD 345 = 1999 PTD 2478 = (1997) 227 ITR 727", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax\n•\nTax Deducted at Source:\nTax deducted at source outside India on foreign dividend and interest income is not included in the total income assessable in India, hence not taxable in the hands of the assessee. This implies that even if tax is deducted outside India, it does not form part of the income subject to tax in India.\n•\nDepreciation:\nStallions and mares are not considered plant under the Income-tax Act, 1961, following an amendment to section 43(3) in the Finance Act, 1995. The amendment clarified that livestock such as stallions and mares, as well as tea bushes, are not included in the definition of plant and thus are not eligible for depreciation.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Yawar Rashid (1996) 218 ITR 699 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.638 of 1993, decision dated: 10-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S.K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner, B. L. Nema for the Assessees", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNADIR RASHID and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 346 = 1999 SLD 346 = 1999 PTD 2480 = (1997) 227 ITR 733", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax\n•\nCapital Gains - Exemption:\nThe issue concerns the sale of a property comprising a house and the land appurtenant to it. The assessee claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act for capital gains arising from the sale. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) disputed the amount of land that was appurtenant to the house. The key point is whether the entire land, even if it has some parts used for other purposes like servant quarters, garden, etc., can still be considered appurtenant to the house for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 54.\n•\nTests for Determining Appurtenant Land:\nSeveral factors were used to determine the land's appurtenant nature:\n1.\nWhether the land and building were treated as one indivisible unit by the occupant.\n2.\nWhether any part of the land was used independently of the house.\n3.\nWhether income from land was taxable under house property or another section.\n4.\nThe purpose of the land's use, i.e., residential or otherwise.\n•\nTribunal's Decision:\nThe Tribunal found that the entire land adjoining the house was appurtenant because it was used for residential purposes and could not be separated from the building for tax purposes. The property was sold about 20 years ago, and the entire area was necessary for the enjoyment of the residence.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Zaibunnisa Begum (1985) 151 ITR 320 (AP); Kalipada Ghosh v. Tulsidas Dutt AIR 1960 Cal. 467.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax. Case No. 94 of 1984 (Reference No-880 of 1984), decision dated: 18th July 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N V. BALASUBRANWNIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner, A. C. Muthanna for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. ICALPAGAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 347 = 1999 SLD 347 = 1999 PTD 2487 = 2003 PTCL 661 = (1997) 227 ITR 759", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax\n•\nRectification - Mistake Apparent on the Face of the Record:\nIf an Income-tax Officer applies the wrong provision of law, it constitutes a mistake that is apparent on the face of the record. In this case, the ITO initially allowed the assessee to adopt the fair market value of an asset acquired before January 1, 1954, as the cost of acquisition for calculating capital gains. This was later rectified, as the application of the wrong provision was identified.\n•\nCapital Gains - Computation:\nThe original assessment allowed the assessee the option to adopt fair market value as on 1-1-1954 for depreciable assets. However, section 50 of the Income-tax Act did not allow this, and the rectification was made to apply the written down value instead. The rectification under section 154 was found valid, as it was a mistake apparent on the face of the record.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Commonwealth Trust Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 19 (Ker.), CIT v. Sundaram Textiles Ltd. (1984) 149 ITR 525 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.403, 404 and 405 of 1983 (References Nos. 185, 186 and 187 of 1983), decision dated: 16-03-1995", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND, JAYARAMA CHOUTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner, K. Vaitheeswaran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPEIRCE LESLIE & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 348 = 1999 SLD 348 = 1999 PTD 2492 = (1997) 227 ITR 774", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2405\nIncome-tax\n•\nCompany - Deemed Income:\nSection 115-J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides that companies must compute income by preparing the profit and loss account according to section 205(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. When computing book profit, the unabsorbed business loss or unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years, whichever is less, is deducted from profits.\n•\nIssue:\nIn the case of the assessee-company, the question arose whether unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years should be considered together or separately. The Income-tax Officer deducted the unabsorbed business loss, but the Tribunal later interpreted that the company could consider unabsorbed depreciation as part of the deduction, resulting in a reduction of the book profit.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Sundaram Textiles Ltd. (1984) 149 ITR 525 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 138 of 1995, decision dated: 10-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S.B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.M. Mathur and Ashok Kumar Shrivastava for the Commissioner, P.M. Choudhary for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS.T.I. BIPLUS TUBING (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 349 = 1999 SLD 349 = 1999 PTD 2496 = (1997) 227 ITR 779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax\n•\nAppeal to Appellate Tribunal - Powers:\nSection 253(4) and 254(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, recognize the right of a respondent before the Appellate Tribunal to support the order appealed against, even if they have not filed an appeal. The respondent can agitate points that were decided against them in the first appellate authority. The powers are enhanced under Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.\n•\nCapital vs Revenue Expenditure:\nThe assessee, a manufacturer of electronic equipment, claimed deduction for expenditure incurred to acquire designs and drawings for manufacturing power line carrying communication equipment. The expenditure was disallowed initially by the Income-tax Officer as capital expenditure because it was seen as securing a long-term advantage.\n•\nTribunal’s Decision:\nThe Tribunal disagreed with the Income-tax Officer's stance, holding that due to rapid technological changes in the electronics industry, the advantage gained from the designs and drawings was not of permanent nature and was instead short-lived. Therefore, the expense was treated as revenue expenditure.\n•\nReference: Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC), Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 429 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.29 of 1993, decision dated: 17th September 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner, C.N. Ramachandran Nair and A.K.J. Nambiar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBPL SYSTEMS AND PROJECTS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 350 = 1999 SLD 350 = 1999 PTD 2503 = (1997) 227 ITR 786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Depreciation, Initial Depreciation, Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure\nConclusion:\n1.\nInitial Depreciation: The assessee, engaged in converting grey cloth into finished calendered cloth, claimed entitlement to initial depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing it was a textile manufacturing activity listed in Schedule IX, Item No.21. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the finished product was commercially distinct from grey cloth. However, the Court held that the process of converting grey cloth into calendered cloth did not result in a new, different article. The grey cloth was already a manufactured item before calendering, and the transformation did not constitute manufacturing under Schedule IX. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to initial depreciation under section 32(1)(vi).\n2.\nEntertainment Expenditure: The assessee provided tea and coffee to workers in the factory. The Income-tax Officer initially classified this as entertainment expenditure, but the Tribunal found it was merely a routine provision of refreshments, not entertainment. The Court upheld this conclusion, referencing the case Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1986) and clarifying that refreshments provided to workers are not considered entertainment under section 37(2-A), Explanation 2 of the Income Tax Act.\nReferences:\nEmpire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1986) 162 ITR 846 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 81 of 1983, decision dated: 6-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.S. Gupta for G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nANJANI KUMAR & CO. (PVT) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 351 = 1999 SLD 351 = 1999 PTD 2507 = (1997) 227 ITR 790", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure, Firm, Interest, Gifts to Family Members\nConclusion:\nThe assessee-firm, consisting of seven brothers as partners, made book entries recording gifts to the family of one brother. There was no evidence that there were sufficient credit balances to substantiate the transactions. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the interest claimed on these amounts, and the Supreme Court upheld the disallowance, ruling that the transactions were not genuine. The Court referred to the case CIT v. Gupta (R.S.) (1987), emphasizing that interest deductions are not permissible without proof of actual, legitimate credit balances in the firm’s accounts.\nReferences:\nCIT v. Gupta (R.S.) (Dr.) (1987) 165 ITR 36 (SC)\nCIT v. Veeriah Reddiar (1969) 73 ITR 162 (Ker.)\nGulab Rai Govind Prasad v. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 163 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.341 of 1980, decision dated: 22-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.M. LAL AND ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharatji Agarwal for the Assessee, M. Khatju for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "AUTO SALES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 352 = 1999 SLD 352 = 1999 PTD 2510 = (1997) 227 ITR 793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Assessment, Writ, Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer, Depreciation Claim\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner, who purchased and leased 11 lakh meters to the State Electricity Board, claimed 100% depreciation. The Income-tax Officer questioned the legitimacy of the sale and leaseback arrangement and issued a notice asking for further information. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the ITO, arguing that the ITO had already made up her mind about disallowing depreciation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the ITO had made only tentative remarks and not a final determination. It was concluded that the matter should be decided in the normal course of assessment, subject to appeal to higher authorities, rather than through writ jurisdiction.\nReferences:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32 & 143(2)\nConstitution of India, Art.226", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4960 (W) of 1997, decision dated: 21st March, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. GUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debi Prosad Pal, A.K. Roy Chowdhury and Miss Manisha Seal for Petitioner, Prodosh Kumar Mullick and J.C. Saha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (COAL SALES) LTD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 353 = 1999 SLD 353 = 1999 PTD 2515 = (1999) 80 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Deemed Income, Permanent Establishment, Taxability of Income, Deemed Income in Italy\nConclusion:\n1.\nDeemed Income: A non-resident company, with a permanent establishment in Pakistan, entered into a contract with the Electricity Supply Corporation for the supply, erection, testing, and commissioning of turbine-generators and accessories. Payments were made in Italy, and the assessee argued that the income should not be taxable in Pakistan. The Court ruled that the income from procurement and supply was not attributable to operations in Pakistan. Therefore, it was not taxable under the Pakistani Income Tax Ordinance, and the payment made in Italy was deemed income under section 12(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n2.\nPresumptive Tax Regime: The case also discussed whether the non-resident contractor could opt out of the presumptive tax regime under section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Court ruled that the contractor could not opt out of the presumptive tax regime, and the income attributable to operations in Pakistan was assessed under the gross profit rate specified in the C.B.R. Circular No.2 of 1975.\nReferences:\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.12(2)\nC.B.R. Circular No.2 of 1975", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(2),80C(2) & 50(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1008/KB to 1014/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 30th December 1998, hearing DATE : 16-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amjad Jamshed, D. R. and Mumtaz Shaikh, Commissioner for Appellant, Khalil Wagan, F.C.A. and Irfan Saadat Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 354 = 1999 SLD 354 = 1999 PTD 2538 = (1997) 227 ITR 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Capital or Revenue Expenditure – Bank Guarantee Commission for Machinery Purchase on Instalments\nConclusion:\nThe issue was whether the payment made by the assessee for a bank guarantee commission to secure regular instalment payments for machinery acquisition should be treated as a capital or revenue expenditure. The Court clarified that not every expenditure that results in an enduring advantage should be treated as capital expenditure. The essential question is whether the expenditure is related to the carrying on of business and is an integral part of the profit-earning process, rather than for acquiring a permanent asset. In this case, since the payment was made to facilitate machinery purchase on instalments during the subsistence of the business, it was treated as a revenue expenditure and allowed as a deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReferences:\n•\nSivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 211 (Mad.)\n•\nAbdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 689 (SC)\n•\nBallarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 613 (Bom.)\n•\nBombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Jacobs (P.) Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 197 (Ker.)\n•\nCIT v. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 389 (Gui.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 145 of 1992, decision dated: 13-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT ARID K. NARAYANA KURUP., Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner, C.N. Ramachandran Nair for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG.T.N. TEXTILES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 355 = 1999 SLD 355 = 1999 PTD 2548 = (1997) 228 ITR 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Reference – Charitable Trust – Date of Registration and Donations\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal concluded that the registration of the trust was effective from its inception, December 4, 1977, and that the voluntary contributions made to the trust were specifically directed to form part of its corpus. Thus, these contributions were not considered income. The income of the trust fell below Rs.25,000 for the assessment years in question, meaning the trust was not required to furnish audited accounts under section 12-A(b) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court ruled that these findings of fact did not give rise to any question of law and dismissed the application for a reference.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 11, 12, 12-A, and 256(2)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No.32 of 1995, decision dated: 9-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND, J. C. VERMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner, Vineet Kothari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVASU PUZIYA JAIN DERASHAR PEDI UNDRI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 356 = 1999 SLD 356 = 1999 PTD 2554 = (1999) 80 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance – Fee for Technical Service – Tax on Non-Resident's Income\nConclusion:\nThe case involved a non-resident who provided technical services using sophisticated equipment to collect scientific data and give expert advice. The Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 12(5), defined the receipts as fees for technical service, subjecting them to tax under Section 62 read with Section 80-AA. The Court upheld the classification of these receipts as fees for technical services and taxed them at a 15% rate, confirming the applicability of the tax provisions.\nReferences:\n•\nGlaxo Group Limited v. CIT, Karachi 1992 PTD 636\n•\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 291 and 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1264\n•\n1993 PTD 739; I.T.As. Nos. 914/111 of 1991-92, 226/IB of 1993-94", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.245/IB of 1997-98, decision dated: 1st October, 1998, hearing DATE : 16-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANSOOR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez Khokhar for Appellant, Waqar Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 357 = 1999 SLD 357 = 1999 PTD 2562 = (1997) 227 ITR 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Assessment – Section 143(1-A) Applicability for Loss\nConclusion:\nSection 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act does not apply when a loss is declared by the assessee. It can only be invoked when there is a positive income, and the adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) does not result in income. In this case, the Income-tax Officer wrongly applied Section 143(1-A) when only a loss had been declared. The Court ruled that the provisions were not applicable in such circumstances.\nReferences:\n•\nModi Cement Ltd. v. Union of India (1992) 193 ITR 91 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.65 of 1993, decision dated: 20-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S. B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vivek Saran for the Commissioner, Shri Saboo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPREMIER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 358 = 1999 SLD 358 = 1999 PTD 2565 = (1997) 227 ITR 302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Reassessment – Fresh Notices when Original Assessment Pending\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that fresh notices issued for reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act while original assessments were pending were invalid. The original assessments were barred by time, and the reassessment notices were issued after the limitation period. The Tribunal annulled the reassessment, emphasizing that no question of law arose from its order, as the facts were correctly applied.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147, 148 & 256", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Case No. 132 of 1995, decision dated: 10-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.R. ARORA AND P. C., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAIDEO JAIN & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 359 = 1999 SLD 359 = 1999 PTD 2567 = (1997) 227 ITR 304 = (1989) 59 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Firm – Dissolution of Firm – Change in Constitution\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that, upon the death of a partner, the firm was considered dissolved, and two separate assessments needed to be made for the predecessor and successor firms. The income-tax officer had initially treated the firm as one entity for the entire year, which was incorrect. After the death of the partner, a new deed was executed, and a new partnership was formed. Therefore, two separate assessments were necessary, one for the period before the death and one for the period after.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Vinayaka Cinema (1977) 110 ITR 468 (AP)\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 187 & 188", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred NoA1 of 1987, decision dated: 28-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " DYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R. BAYAPU REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner, Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSURYA BHAGAVAN VASTRALAYAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 360 = 1999 SLD 360 = 1999 PTD 2571 = (1997) 227 ITR 322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Bonus Payment and Deduction Claim\nConclusion:\n(a) Bonus Deduction: The assessee claimed a deduction for bonus paid in 1974-75, for the assessment year 1970-71. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim, but the Tribunal allowed it based on the fact that the assessee maintained the bonus liability account on an actual payment basis. The Court confirmed that a hybrid system of accounting was acceptable, and the deduction was allowed in the year the bonus was paid.\n(b) Temple Maintenance and Employee Welfare: The assessee incurred expenses on maintaining a temple and organizing festivals like Navaratri for the welfare of employees. The Tribunal found these expenditures were incurred at the employees' instance and for their welfare, making them deductible business expenses. The Court upheld this finding, emphasizing that it was a factual determination and no question of law arose.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 256", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.21 of 1984, decision dated: 27-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R.K. ABICHANDANI AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir H Joshi instructed by Manish R Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNAVJIVAN MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 361 = 1999 SLD 361 = 1999 PTD 2574 = (1997) 227 ITR 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Business Income or Income from Other Sources:\nIn this case, the assessee, a private limited company that had previously been publishing newspapers, discontinued this business and began letting its machinery and vehicles to a sister concern. The income generated from the hire of these assets was initially shown under Other Sources, a classification accepted by the Income-tax Department. However, for the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee sought to change the classification to Business Income. This change was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and upheld by the Tribunal.\nRuling: The court concluded that the assessee was not engaged in the business of publishing newspapers after 1969. Consequently, the income derived from leasing the machinery and vehicles was not related to any active business but was merely income from the ownership of those assets. As such, the income was rightly classified under Income from Other Sources and not business income.\n(b) Profits Chargeable to Tax – Remission of Trading Liability:\nIn this case, the assessee had borrowed money from share brokers and claimed interest payments as deductions in prior years. When the amount due for interest was settled at a lesser sum than what had been provided in the books, the difference was written back as income.\nRuling: The court ruled that the remission of the liability, even when not in cash but through book adjustments, qualifies as income under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. Since the liability had been deducted in previous years and was subsequently reduced, it was taxable as a remission of the liability.\n(c) Business Income or Income from Other Sources – Air Conditioning Charges:\nThe assessee, a property owner, let out portions of its property to various tenants, providing air-conditioning as part of the amenities. The air-conditioning charges were treated as business income, but the Department argued that the income should be treated as rental income.\nRuling: The court held that the assessee was not in the business of letting out property, and the provision of air-conditioning was merely an amenity along with other services like electricity and water. Therefore, the charges for air-conditioning were considered as part of the rental income and assessed under Income from Other Sources, rather than as business income.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case References Nos. 1824 of 1984 and 940 of 1985, decision dated: 7-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. S. Jayakumar for the Assessee, S. V. Subramanian for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 362 = 1999 SLD 362 = 1999 PTD 2592 = (1997) 227 ITR 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appellate Tribunal Powers – Production of Additional Evidence:\nThe Tribunal has the power to direct the Income-tax Officer (ITO) to take fresh evidence if the assessee was prevented from producing it earlier due to sufficient cause. However, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the merits of the case while ordering further evidence.\nRuling: The court ruled that since the matter had been decided on merits without a claim that the assessee was denied the opportunity to produce evidence before the ITO, the Tribunal was not justified in permitting the assessee to produce further evidence and remanding the case back to the ITO for further examination.\n(b) Depreciation – Extra Shift Allowance:\nExtra shift allowance is a benefit for the additional usage of assets for more than 180 days. If assets are used for more than 30 days but less than 180 days, the extra shift depreciation allowance should not be allowed for the full year.\nRuling: The court upheld the decision that extra shift depreciation should not be given for the full year for assets used for 30 to 180 days, following the provisions of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Reference No.83 of 1983, decision dated: 8-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner, N. M. Ranka for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAIPUR UDYOG LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 363 = 1999 SLD 363 = 1999 PTD 2597 = (1997) 228 ITR 418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Reference and Questions of Law:\nA question based on the appreciation of facts does not raise a legal issue and thus cannot be the subject of a reference.\nRuling: The court held that questions of fact, such as the interpretation of business expenditure or the genuineness of sales, do not give rise to questions of law for the purposes of reference under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act.\n(b) Business Expenditure – Repair of Cars:\nThe issue was whether expenditure on the repair of cars could be deducted. The Tribunal allowed the deduction, citing that the expenditure was related to business operations.\nRuling: The court ruled that the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction was based on an appreciation of facts, and no question of law arose from this ruling.\n(c) Income from Undisclosed Sources – Bogus Transactions:\nThe Tribunal found that sales to sister concerns were genuine, rejecting the department’s claim that they were sham transactions.\nRuling: The court ruled that the finding of fact by the Tribunal—that the sales were genuine—did not give rise to a question of law for a reference.\n(d) Special Deduction for New Industrial Undertakings:\nThe Tribunal granted a special deduction for a new industrial undertaking in a backward area, following the High Court’s decision.\nRuling: The court ruled that no question of law arose from this matter as the Tribunal followed established precedent.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 185 of 1995, decoded pm 9th July 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S.B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. M. Mathur and A. K. Shrivastava for the Commissioner, P. M. Chaudhary for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSTEEL TUBES OF INDIA LTD (No.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 364 = 1999 SLD 364 = 1999 PTD 2600 = (1997) 228 ITR 363", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Interest Relating to Broken Period and Bank Securities\nTopic: Taxability of Interest for Broken Period on Securities Purchased by a Bank\nFacts: The assessee-bank purchased securities to maintain the required cash-to-security ratio as mandated by law. The Assessing Officer added back a sum of Rs. 1,25,858, which represented the interest receivable for the broken period, i.e., the period between the last date of interest accrual and the date of purchase of the securities. The Tribunal, however, deleted this addition, and the matter was referred for further decision.\nConclusion: The court held that the amount of Rs. 1,25,858 was interest income for the broken period, which had been received by the assessee-bank. It could not be deducted under the accounting process simply because it was shown as expenditure. The interest received was income and should be taxed accordingly. The fact that the bank was required to maintain a certain ratio of cash, gold, or securities did not alter the nature of the interest received. The amount was income from securities and had to be taxed.\nCitations:\n•\nUnited Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC) referred to.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.50 of 1993 decided on 31-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V.V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYAN KURPUR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner, P.G.K. Wariyar and M. K. Kesavan for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCATHOLIC SYRIUAN BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 365 = 1999 SLD 365 = 1999 PTD 2609 = (1997) 228 ITR 407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Machinery in a Contract Business\nTopic: Depreciation Allowance on Machinery for New Contract\nFacts: The assessee-firm, which was involved in various contract works, received a new contract from Bhilai Steel Plant for the reclamation and screening of iron ore in January 1988. For executing the contract, the firm purchased poclain machinery. The Assessing Officer allowed depreciation for 14 months, while the assessee claimed depreciation for 23 months. The Tribunal granted depreciation for 23 months. The matter was referred for a decision.\nConclusion: The court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, which allowed depreciation on the poclain machinery for 23 months. The court emphasized that the award of the new contract was part of the existing business and did not constitute a new source of income. Therefore, depreciation on the machinery should be granted based on the period of actual use, i.e., 23 months.\nCitations:\n•\nBansidhar Private Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 65 (Guj.) applied", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.247 of 1994, decision dated: 10-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner, B. L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAHAVIR CONSTRUCTION CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 674 = 1999 SLD 674 = 1999 PTD 2611 = (1997) 228 ITR 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "- Interest on Bank Deposits as Business Income\nTopic: Taxability of Interest on Surplus Money Deposited in Banks\nFacts: The assessee, engaged in refining petroleum products, deposited surplus money not immediately needed for business operations into term deposits with banks. The interest earned on these deposits was treated as income from other sources by the Income-tax Officer. However, the assessee argued that this interest should be treated as business income as the deposits were interlinked with the carrying on of business. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, and the case was referred for further decision.\nConclusion: The court held that the interest income earned on the term deposits was directly related to the business of the assessee. Since the deposits were made from surplus funds of the business, they should be treated as business income, not income from other sources. The Tribunal’s ruling was upheld, and the court also noted that the interest from these deposits could be linked to the company’s cash management, reducing borrowing costs.\nCitations:\n•\nAndhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 533 (AP)\n•\nBokaro Steel Ltd. v. CIT (No.2) (1988) 170 ITR 545 (Pat.)\n•\nCIT v. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (1989) 175 ITR 361 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Calcutta National Bank Ltd. (1959) 37 ITR 171 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation (1995) 211 ITR 597 (Raj.)\n•\nCIT v. Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 535 (Mad.)\n•\nCollis Line (Pvt.) Ltd. v. ITO (1982) 135 ITR 390 (Ker.)\n•\nMurli Investment Co. v. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 368 (Raj.)\n•\nSnam Progetti S.P.A. v. CIT (Addl.) (1981) 132 ITR 70 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 786 of 1982 (Reference No.523 of 1982), decision dated: 8-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Raj an for the Commissioner, P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMADRAS REFINERIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 367 = 1999 SLD 367 = 1999 PTD 2619 = (1997) 228 ITR 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference of a Case Pending Special Leave Petition\nTopic: Referring a Question of Law Already Decided by High Court\nFacts: The question of whether capital gains accrued in a particular case was decided by the High Court. A special leave petition was filed against this decision and was pending before the Supreme Court. Despite the petition being pending, the matter was referred for further decision.\nConclusion: The court held that a question of law that had already been decided by the High Court could not be referred again, even if a special leave petition was pending. The mere pendency of the special leave petition did not give rise to a new legal question for referral.\nCitations:\n•\nC.W.T. v. Usha Devi (Smt.) (1990) 183 ITR 75 (MP)\n•\nGanga Cut Piece Centre v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 839 (MP)\n•\nCIT v. H. H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji (1986) 162 ITR 93 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 223 of 1991, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nH. H. MAHARANI PRABHA RAJYALAXMI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 368 = 1999 SLD 368 = 1999 PTD 2621 = (1997) 228 ITR 587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Rectified Assessment Order\nTopic: Jurisdiction to Revise a Rectified Order\nFacts: The assessee’s original assessment order dated December 12, 1986, was rectified on February 20, 1987. However, the revision of this rectified order was carried out in March 1989. The issue was whether such revision was valid given that the rectified order had already superseded the original order.\nConclusion: The court ruled that the original assessment order ceased to exist after it was rectified. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax lacked the jurisdiction to revise an order that was no longer in existence. The rectified order was the only valid one, and it could not be revised again.\nCitations:\n•\nJeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT (Addl.) (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal.)\n•\nSmt. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 49", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case r~o.202 of 1995, decision dated: 11-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND SB. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. M. Mathur with Vivek Sharan, for the Commissioner, S. S. Samvatsar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISIONFRR OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVIPPY SOLVEX PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 369 = 1999 SLD 369 = 1999 PTD 2624 = (1997) 228 ITR 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Capital or Revenue Expenditure - Mines and Quarries\nKey Facts:\nThe assessee, engaged in the business of screening and selling iron ore, entered into agreements for acquiring mining leases in 1975 with two parties, B and Z. However, the assessee did not operate the mines during the relevant assessment years (1977-78 and 1978-79). The assessee incurred liquidated damages of Rs.92,000 for non-operation of the mines and claimed it as a deductible expense. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim, treating it as capital expenditure, and this was confirmed by the Commissioner and Tribunal.\nConclusion:\nThe expenditure was related to acquiring mining leases rather than their operation. Since the assessee’s business did not involve mining and the expenditure was incurred to acquire a lease for mining rights, it was treated as capital expenditure.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 113 of 1988, decision dated: 26-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. P.D. UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "F. B. Andhyarujina for the Assessee, Dr. V. Balasubramanian with J. P. Deodhar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SALGAONKAR MINING INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 370 = 1999 SLD 370 = 1999 PTD 2627 = (1997) 228 ITR 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Representative Assessee - Trust\nKey Facts:\nA trust was formed for the benefit of seven beneficiaries (two majors and five minors), carrying on business in silver and potatoes. The trust deed specified that the beneficiaries would not receive income for 20 years. The assessee claimed the income should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries, but the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim. The Commissioner and Tribunal held that the trust should be assessed under Section 161(1) of the Income Tax Act as the beneficiaries had no immediate entitlement to income.\nConclusion:\nThe beneficiaries were considered merely a body of individuals, not an association of persons, as they had no role in the business and no right to income until after 20 years. Therefore, the income was assessable in the hands of the trust, not the beneficiaries.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 161(1), CIT v. Marsons Beneficiary Trust (1991) 188 ITR 224 (Bom.), Saraswathi Ammal (N.P.) v. CIT (1982) 138 ITR 19 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 151 of 1990, decision dated: 18-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA,", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee, A. Adhikari for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "OSWAL TRADERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 371 = 1999 SLD 371 = 1999 PTD 2632 = (1997) 228 ITR 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Penalty - Representative Assessee - Minor\nKey Facts:\nThe guardian of a minor failed to file tax returns for the minor on time for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer issued a penalty under Section 271(1)(a), which was contested by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no reasonable cause for the delay but canceled the penalty, citing errors in the order levying the penalty and lack of reasonable opportunity to the guardian.\nConclusion:\nThe court concluded that the penalties were properly levied on the guardian, not the minor, and the Tribunal’s finding that no reasonable opportunity was given to the guardian was incorrect. The penalty was deemed correctly imposed, and the Tribunal’s order of cancellation was wrong.\nReferences: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 162, 271, Section 256.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.626 to 628 of 1983 (References Nos.327 to 329 of 1983), decision dated: 21st January, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner, V. Ramakrishnan for S. Jayaraman and N. V. Balasubramanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nR. SRINIVASAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 372 = 1999 SLD 372 = 1999 PTD 2638 = (1997) 228 ITR 535", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Capital Gains, Reassessment\nKey Facts:\nThe issue involved whether the transactions entered into by the assessee involved a transfer under Section 2(47) to attract capital gains tax. The assessee claimed that the transactions did not result in capital gains, but the Revenue contended they did. The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal was correct in referring the matter related to capital gains taxation for further legal interpretation. However, the question of whether the transaction was business profits, which had not been raised before the Tribunal, could not be referred. The quashing of reassessment proceedings was upheld.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 45, 147, 148, 256.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case NO. 11 of 1995, decision dated: 7-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney with Mahavir Ahlawat for Petitioner, C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Ajar Mittal for Respondent\"\"", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs.\nPURE DRINKS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 373 = 1999 SLD 373 = 1999 PTD 2642 = (1997) 228 ITR 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Income from Property or Income from Business\nKey Facts:\nThe assessee, a limited company, took land on lease and constructed godowns for letting out to the Food Corporation of India (FCI). The assessee claimed that income from leasing out godowns was business income. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, assessing the rental income as Income from property. The Tribunal, on appeal, held that the rental income should be classified as business income.\nConclusion:\nThe court reversed the Tribunal’s decision, stating that there was no clear indication that the assessee’s business was to develop and lease properties. Therefore, the income derived from letting out the godowns to the FCI was classified as income from property, not business income.\nReferences: East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC), Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC), S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC), Sultan Brothers (Private) Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.36 of 1987, decision dated: 4-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA. C.J. AND S., J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner, Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMITHILA PROPERTIES PUBLICATION AND CONTRACTOR ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 374 = 1999 SLD 374 = 1999 PTD 2645 = (1997) 228 ITR 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Appellate Tribunal - Power to Recall Order and Direct Fresh Hearing\nKey Facts:\nThe assessee, located in Kanpur, applied for an adjournment of a hearing before the Appellate Tribunal in Allahabad, which was rejected. The appeal was heard ex parte, and the assessee’s request for recalling the order due to the chairman’s inability to fully instruct the counsel was accepted by the Tribunal.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal had the power to recall its ex parte order and direct a fresh hearing because the adjournment application had been filed well in advance, and the rejection was handled improperly. The order recalling the appeal was deemed just. The writ petition against the Tribunal’s decision was dismissed.\nReferences: Bhagwan Radha Kishen v. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 104 (All.), CIT v. ITAT (1996) 227 ITR 443 (All.), Ramji Das v. Mohan Singh (1978) All RC 496, Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal AIR 1955 SC 425.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.378 of 1987, decision dated: 15-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. C. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharat Ji Agarwal for Petitioners, S.P. Mehrotra for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAIand another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 375 = 1999 SLD 375 = 1999 PTD 2650 = (1997) 228 ITR 626", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from House Property - Annual Value Calculation\nKey Facts:\nFor the assessment year 1977-78, the Income-tax Officer computed the property income of the assessee using the municipal valuation of Rs. 68,578 instead of the actual rent receipt of Rs. 51,150, which the assessee had adopted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) accepted the assessee’s argument that the actual rent received of Rs. 51,150 should be used to determine the annual value. The Tribunal, in the absence of evidence from the department that the rent charged was abnormally low, upheld the AAC's order.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal concluded that the annual letting value should be based on the actual rent received by the assessee, as the municipal valuation did not consider the Rent Control Act. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence that the rent charged was low due to special circumstances (like landlord-tenant relationships), the actual rent was considered a fair rent. The ruling emphasized that the fair rent should be determined based on actual rent received and not merely municipal assessments.\nReferences:\n•\nDewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 (SC)\n•\nSheila Kaushish (Mrs.) v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 435 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Sharma (H.P.) (1980) 122 ITR 675 (Delhi)\n•\nCIT (Addl) v. Leela Govindan (Mrs.) (1978) 113 ITR 136 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1120 of 1984, decision dated: 22-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. RATANCHAND CHORDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 376 = 1999 SLD 376 = 1999 PTD 2654 = (1997) 228 ITR 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recall of Final Order by Tribunal - Question of Law\nKey Facts:\nThe issue involved whether the Tribunal had erred in recalling its final order to rectify it under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contested the Tribunal’s recall of its order, arguing it was done to correct a mistake.\nConclusion:\nThe court held that the question of whether the Tribunal had erred in recalling its final order under Section 254(2) for rectification was indeed a referable question of law. The matter was thus referred for further consideration.\nReferences:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 254(2) and 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No.5 (M) of 1996, decision dated: 10-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. BARMAN ROY AND D. N. BARUAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for Applicant\nDr. A. Saraf for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBEKELIA DRUGS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 377 = 1999 SLD 377 = 1999 PTD 2655 = (1997) 228 ITR 564", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Non-Resident Income - Fees for Technical Services\nKey Facts:\nThe case involved a non-resident company providing financial consultancy services to an Indian power generation company for raising funds. The non-resident company advised on financial structuring, lending alternatives, and loan negotiations. In exchange, the non-resident company received a success fee of $17,15,476.16. The Indian company sought a no objection certificate to remit the payment abroad, arguing that the services were rendered entirely outside India, and no income arose in India. The Income-tax Officer refused to issue the certificate, and the case was contested.\nConclusion:\nThe court concluded that the success fee paid to the non-resident company constituted fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Despite the non-resident company's services being provided from outside India, the success fee was deemed to accrue in India because it was linked to the business operations (loan procurement) of the Indian company, which were conducted in India. Therefore, the Indian company was required to withhold tax on the payment to the non-resident company.\nReferences:\n•\nBarendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC)\n•\nBritish Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. v. King (1946) AC 527\n•\nCarborandum Co. v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 335 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (1977) 109 ITR 158 (AP)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. New Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd. (London) (1983) 143 ITR 599 (Pat.)\n•\nCIT v. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. (1965) 56 ITR 20 (SC)\n•\nElectronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 44 (AP)\n•\nElectronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 43 (SC)\n•\nQueen v. Melford Developments 82 DTC 6281 (Supreme Court of Canada)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6866 of 1995, decision dated: 2-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND B. S. RAIKOTE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.R. Dhanuka far, C.V. Rajiv Reddy and C. Kodandaram for Petitioners, J.V. Prasad for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "G.V.K. INDUSTRIES LIMITED and another\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 378 = 1999 SLD 378 = 1999 PTD 2676 = (1997) 228 ITR 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Depreciation Claim and Furnishing of Particulars\nTopic: Depreciation Claim under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 32 & 34\nIssue: Whether depreciation can be claimed when the prescribed particulars have not been furnished by the assessee.\nFacts: The assessee did not claim depreciation for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and also failed to furnish the required particulars for depreciation under Section 34(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) was unable to grant depreciation due to the non-submission of the prescribed details.\nLegal Provisions:\n•\nSection 34(1): Depreciation shall be allowed only if the prescribed particulars have been furnished.\n•\nCBR Circular (31st August 1965): If no claim for depreciation has been made in the return and the necessary particulars are not provided, the ITO should estimate the income without allowing depreciation.\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the withdrawal of depreciation that had been allowed by the Income-tax Officer. The non-submission of required particulars for depreciation led to the decision of not allowing the depreciation deduction.\nCitations/References:\n•\nAscharajlal Ram Parkash v. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 477 (All.)\n•\nBeco Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 478 (P & H)\n•\nChokshi Metal Refinery v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 63 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 404 (AP)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Andhra Printers Ltd. (1979) 117 ITR 555 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Arun Textile (1991) 192 ITR 700 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Friends Corporation (1989) 180 ITR 334 (P & H)\n•\nCIT (Chief) (Adorn.) v. Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 101 (Kar.)\n•\nCIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 443 (Boor.)\n•\nDasaprakash Bottling Co. v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 9 (Mad.)\n•\nMuthukaruppan Chettiar (Pr.Al.M.) v. CIT (1939) 7 ITR 76 (Mad.)\n•\nRamanatha Reddiar (S.) (Rao Bahudur) v. CIT (1928) 3 ITC 10 (Rang.)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.22 of 1987, decision dated: 9-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S. PARVATHA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Habeeb Ansari for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nANDHRA COTTON MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 379 = 1999 SLD 379 = 1999 PTD 2684 = (1997) 228 ITR 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital or Revenue Receipt in Film Distribution Business\nTopic: Capital or Revenue Receipt – Film Distribution Business\nIssue: Whether the amount received for the relinquishment of film distribution rights is a capital or revenue receipt.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee, engaged in the business of cinema film exhibition, entered into partnership agreements for the distribution, exhibition, and exploitation of films.\n•\nThe assessee entered into partnerships (FF and FE) with other investors to raise finance for film exploitation. The assessee held 25% share in both partnerships and was responsible for the distribution of films in its name.\n•\nThe assessee received compensation of Rs.62,500 from selling its interest in the partnerships for the unexpired period of film distribution contracts, ceasing to be a partner.\nLegal Provisions:\n•\nSection 47(ii) (prior to its omission in 1985): Exemption from capital gains tax when an individual sells their interest in a partnership firm.\n•\nGeneral principles for determining capital vs. revenue receipt: A receipt is considered capital if it disrupts the profit-earning structure; otherwise, it is a revenue receipt if it merely facilitates carrying on an existing business.\nConclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the compensation received by the assessee for relinquishing its interest in the partnership and the film distribution rights was a revenue receipt, as the arrangement was meant to raise finance for carrying on the existing business of film distribution. The compensation was not linked to a permanent cessation of business or capital asset.\nCitations/References:\n•\nSharfuddin (A.K.) v. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 333 (Mad.) – Distinguished\n•\nAddanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300\n•\nCIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1959) 35 ITR 148 (SC)\n•\nCIT/CEPT v. South India Pictures Ltd. (1956) 29 ITR 910 (SC)\n•\nRangaswami Naidu (V.) v. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 711 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.71 of 1978, decision dated: 10-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajendra and D.C. Taneja for the Commissioner, Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMANORANJAN PICTURES CORPORATION (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 380 = 1999 SLD 380 = 1999 PTD 2692 = (1997) 228 ITR 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Income—Business—Remission of liability—Refund of excise duty is not income—Not assessable as income under S.28(iv) or S.41(1)—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 28 & 41.\nThe assessee carried on the business of exploiting calcite and wollastonite mines and sold the minerals extracted after converting them into powder. In the two years under review, the assessee had credited its profit and loss account on account of excise duty refund of Rs. 35,696.66 and Rs. 1,61,836. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the refund of excise duty was not liable to be taxed as income. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted it, and the Tribunal confirmed this. On a reference:\nHeld: The refund of excise duty received by the assessee was not the income of the assessee. Since it was not income, it was neither covered by Section 28(iv) nor Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As such, it was not a revenue receipt, and no income-tax liability arose. It amounted to a financial transaction, not income.\nCitations: CIT v. Alchemic (Pvt.) Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 168 (Guj.); CIT v. Nathuabhai Desabhai (1981) 130 ITR 238 (MP); CIT v. Thirumalaiswamy Naidu & Sons (1984) 147 ITR 657 (Mad.) et al.\nHeld further: The entries in the books of account and the transfer of sums to the profit and loss account for the assessment year 1980-81 were unilateral actions with no tax consequences.\nCitations: Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC); J.K. Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 34 (Bom.) et al.\nHeld also: On the High Court's power to call for a supplementary statement of the case under Sections 256 and 258, the High Court cannot reframe the question or widen the controversy without the facts justifying such power.\nCitations: Agha Abdul Jabbar Khan v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 872 (SC); CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) et al.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Civil Income-tax References Nos.36 and 37 of 1989, decision dated: 9-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. G. MUKHERJI, ACTG. C.J. AND, V. G. PALSHIKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.S. Shishodia, Senior Advocate and Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner\nN.M. Ranka, Senior Advocate and R.K. Yadav, Vineet Kothari and Anjay Kothari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nWOLKEM (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 381 = 1999 SLD 381 = 1999 PTD 2702 = (1997) 228 ITR 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Reassessment—Reason to believe that income had escaped assessment—Sales Tax Authorities finding that there had been suppression of stocks—Reassessment proceedings initiated on this basis—Final order in sales tax proceedings found no suppression—Reassessment proceedings were not valid—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & 148.\n(b) Income-tax—Penalty—Concealment of income—Penalty proceedings based on reassessment—Reassessment proceedings found invalid—Penalty cannot be imposed—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 271(1)(c).\n(c) Income-tax—Reference—Procedure—Assessee requesting further facts to be stated—Assessee should apply by way of notice of motion—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 256.\nIn the case for the assessment year 1979-80, the assessment was completed with a total income of Rs. 18,82,700. However, an addition of Rs. 20,99,440 was made under Section 69-A of the Income Tax Act for unaccounted investment in raw nuts. The Sales Tax Department later conducted a raid, but in the final order, it found no suppression of stocks. This rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid, and consequently, penalty proceedings were also invalid.\nHeld: (i) The sales tax order concluding no suppression of stocks invalidated the reassessment. (ii) No sustained and valid assessment means no penalty could be imposed.\nCitations: Charles DSouza v. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 694 (Kar.); CIT v. Mcleod & Co. Ltd. (1970) 78 ITR 22 (SC) et al.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=147,148 ", + "Case #": "O. P. Nos.723 of 1993, 8721 and 13027 of 1991 and C.M.P. No.3667 of 1996 in I.T.R. No.55 of 1991, decision dated: 18-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner\nT.M. Sreedharan and N. Urinikrishnan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA. YONUS KUNJU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 382 = 1999 SLD 382 = 1999 PTD 2717 = (1997) 228 ITR 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Penalty—Concealment of income—Burden of proof—Tribunal's finding that mistakes in accounts were inadvertent and cancelling penalty—Order of Tribunal justified—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 271(1)(c).\nFor the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee initially declared an income of Rs. 80,780. During scrutiny, the Income-tax Officer found an omission in the sales ledger. The assessee explained this as a mistake due to the accountant's sudden absence. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, held the omissions to be inadvertent and cancelled the penalty. On a reference:\nHeld: The Tribunal correctly held that the omissions were bona fide mistakes, and as no concealment of income occurred, the penalty was cancelled.\nCitations: CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC); CIT v. Haji P. Mohammed (1981) 132 ITR 623 (Ker.) et al.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.230 of 1988, decision dated: 24-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. Y. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner, C. Kochunni Nair, M A. Firoze and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSANTHOSH TEXTILES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 383 = 1999 SLD 383 = 1999 PTD 2725 = (1997) 228 ITR 548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Appellate Tribunal—Ultimate fact-finding authority—Not entitled to decide case on part of facts and evidence—Sale of personal effects (silver utensils)—Assessee producing full details including challans—Tribunal considering only sale bills—Miscarriage of justice.\n(b) Income-tax—Capital asset—Exemption—Silver utensils—Personal effects—Some connection between the person and items necessary—Exemption allowed—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 2(14).\nIn the case for the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed exemption for the sale of silver utensils, which were considered personal effects. The assessee produced detailed records, including challans, but the Tribunal only considered sale bills, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.\nHeld: The Tribunal's failure to consider full evidence, including challans, led to a miscarriage of justice. Had the Tribunal considered the complete record, it would have held that the silver utensils sold were indeed personal effects, not capital assets. The decision was reversed.\nCitations: Chandra Kumar Singh Kasliwal v. CWT (Addl.) (1980) 122 ITR 151 (MP); CIT v. Benarashilal Kataiuka (1990) 185 ITR 493 (Cal.) et al.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 173 of 1992, decision dated: 16-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " AJOY NATH RAY AND BARIN GHOSH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. N. Bajoria, Senior Advocate with J. P. Khaitan and Dilip Roy Chowdhury for the Assessee, R.C. Prasad for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Smt. SHREE KUMARI MUNDRA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 384 = 1999 SLD 384 = 1999 PTD 2732 = (1997) 228 ITR 780", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Reference: Cash Credits\nIssue:\n•\nThe assessee was questioned regarding the cash credits found in its books under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 68 requires the taxpayer to explain the nature and source of any sum credited in its books. The assessee was unable to satisfactorily explain the cash credits or provide sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors.\nBackground:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the credits in the assessee’s books, adding the amount to the total income. The assessee challenged this decision, seeking a reference to the High Court. The matter was brought before the Tribunal, which upheld the decision of the AO, stating that the assessee failed to discharge its burden of proving that the cash credits were genuine.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nUnder Section 68, the taxpayer is required to offer a satisfactory explanation for any unexplained cash credits, including the identity of the creditors, their capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence on these points.\n•\nThe Tribunal also emphasized that it was not merely about whether the credits could be explained, but whether the explanation was credible and backed by sufficient evidence.\n•\nThe Court pointed out that when a case involves the appreciation of facts, it is not for the courts to reassess the weight of the evidence but to ensure that there was a rational basis for the Tribunal’s conclusion.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal was justified in treating the sum of Rs. 14,12,081 as undisclosed income, affirming that the assessee’s explanation regarding the cash credits was unsatisfactory. No question of law arose from this decision, as it was a factual determination based on the evidence presented.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 68: Deals with unexplained cash credits in the books of an assessee.\n•\nSection 256(2): Addresses the procedure for making references to the High Court in Income Tax matters.\nRelevant Case Law Referenced:\n•\nCIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC): A landmark case discussing the onus on the taxpayer to explain cash credits.\n•\nSarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.): Dealt with the necessity of proving the genuineness of transactions.\n•\nTolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam): Another case involving unexplained credits and the need for reliable evidence.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.51 of 1996, decision dated: 7-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " P. S. MISHRA, C.J. AND V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ravi for the Assessee, S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DHANALAXMI STEEL REROLLING MILLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 385 = 1999 SLD 385 = 1999 PTD 2741 = (1997) 228 ITR 608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Business Expenditure and Penalties\nIssue:\n•\nThe assessee was engaged in cutting blazes in trees for resin collection, as part of a contractual agreement. The issue at hand was the deductibility of penalties paid by the assessee for:\n1.\nCutting blazes larger than allowed.\n2.\nCutting blazes on trees not allocated to the assessee.\nThe AO disallowed the claims for business expenditure related to these penalties, and the assessee challenged this decision.\nBackground:\n•\nThe assessee had a contract to cut blazes for resin collection, which was a part of its business activities. Penalties were imposed because the assessee violated the terms of the contract in two ways:\no\nCutting blazes that exceeded the size allowed by regulations.\no\nCutting blazes on trees that were not part of the contracted allocation.\n•\nThe AO had rejected the claim that the penalties were legitimate business expenses, arguing that penalties imposed for violating laws could not be considered a deductible business expense under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSection 37 allows a deduction for business expenses that are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. However, it does not allow deductions for fines or penalties paid for violating laws or public policy. The AO's disallowance was based on this principle.\n•\nHowever, the Tribunal made a distinction between the two types of penalties:\no\nThe penalty for cutting larger blazes than permitted was considered a business expense, as it was an incidental cost to the business activity (the cutting of blazes for resin collection). Despite being a penalty, it was seen as an unavoidable business cost due to the nature of the work.\no\nOn the other hand, the penalty for cutting unauthorized blazes on non-allotted trees was not deductible, as it was a clear violation of the law and not directly related to the business operation.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal’s decision to distinguish between the two types of penalties was correct. The payment for cutting larger blazes could be treated as business expenditure, while the penalty for unauthorized blazes could not. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to separate the two types of penalties and reassess the claim accordingly.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 37: Allows deduction for business expenses but excludes fines or penalties for breaking laws.\nRelevant Case Law Referenced:\n•\nCIT v. Ahmedabad Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 163 (SC): Discusses the difference between legitimate business expenses and fines.\n•\nHaji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC): Distinguished between penalties and business expenses.", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=37 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No, of 1988, decision dated: 1st April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. AND A. L. VAIDYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramakant Sharma for the Assessee, Inder Singh, A.G. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KHUSHAL SINGH SUBHASH CHANDER\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 386 = 1999 SLD 386 = 1999 PTD 2746 = (1997) 228 ITR 599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Fees for Technical Services\nIssue:\n•\nThe issue was whether fees received by a Canadian company (the assessee) for providing technical services to an Indian company could be subject to deductions under Section 44D(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The fees were paid for technical services provided in relation to a newsprint plant commissioned by another foreign company from the UK.\nBackground:\n•\nThe assessee had a contract with the Indian company to provide technical assistance in improving the production quality and efficiency of a newsprint plant that had already been set up by a UK company. The services were purely technical, involving advice and assistance without any physical construction or assembly of machinery.\n•\nThe assessee claimed expenses from the fees received, but the AO held that since the payments were for technical services, no deductions could be claimed under Section 44D(b) and Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii), as the fees were deemed to accrue in India and were subject to tax.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSection 44D(b) provides that no deductions will be allowed from income deemed to accrue or arise in India from technical services under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii).\n•\nThe Tribunal concluded that since the services provided were purely technical and not related to construction, assembly, or setting up of the plant, the fees received by the assessee were considered income from technical services.\n•\nThe assessee was not entitled to any deductions from the gross amount received under the agreement, as the expenses claimed did not relate to construction or physical operations that would justify a deduction.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the decision that the fees were purely for technical services and were subject to taxation without any entitlement to deductions under the Income Tax Act.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 9(1)(vii): Defines fees for technical services. \n•\nSection 44D(b): Addresses the taxation of income from technical services.\nRelevant Case Law Referenced:\n•\nCIT v. C. Balajee & Sons (1991) 191 ITR 165 (HP): Relates to the taxation of technical services and the non-eligibility for deductions.\n•\nCIT v. Himalaya Rosin-Turpentine Manufacturing Co. (1953) 24 ITR 132 (Punj.): Related to the interpretation of technical services in income tax cases.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Referred Case No.44 of 1991, decision dated: 9-06-1997", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. BHARUKA AND CHIDANANDA MAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. V. A. Rao for the Assessee, M. V. Seshachala for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "INTERNATIONAL OPERATING SERVICES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 387 = 1999 SLD 387 = 1999 PTD 2751 = (1997) 228 ITR 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Recovery of Tax - Attachment and Sale of Property\nIssue:\n•\nThe case dealt with the scope of the powers of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) under the Income Tax Act concerning the sale of attached property to recover outstanding tax liabilities. The question arose as to whether the entire property attached should be sold or only a sufficient portion to satisfy the tax recovery.\nBackground:\n•\nThe TRO had attached both a factory and a residential house to recover a tax debt. The TRO proposed to sell the entire property, including both the factory and the residential house, to recover the tax amount. The assessee contested this, arguing that only a sufficient portion of the property should be sold to satisfy the recovery.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe legal provision that guides this process is Order 21, Rule 64 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), which allows a Court (or an authority like the Tax Recovery Officer) to sell only a sufficient portion of attached property to satisfy the recovery. The rule permits the sale of property in parts, only to the extent necessary to recover the debt. It is not required that the entire property be sold if a smaller portion is sufficient to meet the recovery amount.\n•\nThe intention of the legislation is not to sell off an entire property worth crores of rupees for a recovery amount that is much smaller, but instead to only sell the necessary part.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Court held that the Tax Recovery Officer should first sell the factory, which was under attachment. If the sale proceeds from the factory were insufficient to meet the entire recovery, only then could the residential house be sold.\n•\nThe decision was based on the principle that the sale of the entire attached property is not required unless the proceeds from a portion of the property are insufficient to satisfy the recovery.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nOrder 21, Rule 64, Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Allows for the sale of only a portion of the attached property to satisfy a decree or recovery.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nAmbati Narasayya v. Subba Rao (M.) AIR 1990 SC 119: A case that clarified the scope of the Tax Recovery Officer's jurisdiction to sell attached property under CPC provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.718 of 1996, decision dated: 17-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. M. LAL AND B. K. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shashi Kant Gupa for Petitioner. Ashok Kumar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Smt. MOHINDER KAUR\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 388 = 1999 SLD 388 = 1999 PTD 2754 = (1997) 228 ITR 590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Writ - Existence of Alternative Remedy\nIssue:\n•\nThe issue here was whether a writ petition could be filed challenging the report of the Valuation Officer, especially when an alternative remedy of appeal against the assessment order was available under the law.\nBackground:\n•\nThe petitioner filed a writ petition against the report of the Valuation Officer, arguing that the report was binding on the Income Tax Officer (ITO), and sought a writ of certiorari against it. However, the Revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available through an appeal against the assessment order, which had been finalized in accordance with the valuation report.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India allows a writ petition to be filed for judicial review, but the existence of an alternative remedy is a critical factor in determining whether a writ petition can be entertained.\n•\nThe Revenue argued that the petitioner could challenge the valuation report during the appeal process, which is an alternative and effective remedy. Since the assessment order had already been communicated to the petitioner, and the appeal process was available, the writ petition was not maintainable.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Court ruled that since the assessment had been finalized and the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the valuation report through an appeal, the writ petition was not maintainable.\n•\nThe Court emphasized that a writ petition should not be entertained if an alternative remedy exists, particularly when the statutory process provides an effective forum for redress.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 55-A, Income Tax Act, 1961: Deals with the reference to the Valuation Officer for determining the value of property for income tax purposes.\n•\nArticle 226, Constitution of India: Relates to the power of High Courts to issue writs.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nCWT v. Dr. H. Rahman (1991) 189 ITR 307 (All.): A case affirming the principle that an alternative remedy precludes the filing of a writ petition.\n•\nWenger & Co. v. District Valuation Officer (1978) 115 ITR 648 (Delhi): Reinforces the availability of an alternative remedy through the appeals process.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 1698 of 1997, decision dated: 17-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ajay Kumar for Petitioner, R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Bansal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MOHAL CHAND BHARDWAJ\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 389 = 1999 SLD 389 = 1999 PTD 2756 = (1997) 228 ITR 682", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Reassessment - Reason to Believe that Income Had Escaped Assessment\nIssue:\n•\nThe issue was whether the issuance of a notice under Section 148 for reassessment was valid when based on a report from the Departmental Valuer, and whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to contest the valuation report.\nBackground:\n•\nThe reassessment notices were issued based on a report from the Departmental Valuation Officer regarding the investment in a house constructed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that she was not given an opportunity to be heard before the valuation report was finalized and that the reassessment was based solely on that report.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nSection 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act empower the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings if there is a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.\n•\nThe Court found that there was a reasonable basis for the reassessment proceedings, as the Departmental Valuer's report provided grounds for believing that income had escaped assessment, particularly with regard to the investment in the house.\n•\nThe petitioner’s right to contest the correctness of the valuation would arise during the assessment proceedings following the issue of the reassessment notice. The Court held that the reassessment proceedings were valid, as the petitioner would have an opportunity to challenge the valuation during the subsequent proceedings.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the validity of the reassessment proceedings. It pointed out that the petitioner would have an opportunity to challenge the valuation report during the reassessment proceedings.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 147 and 148, Income Tax Act, 1961: Relate to the issuance of reassessment notices when income has escaped assessment.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nNo specific case law was referenced, but the reasoning follows the established principles of reassessment under the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.100 of 1997, decision dated: 18-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. DAYAL AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Smt. SHASHI JAIN\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 390 = 1999 SLD 390 = 1999 PTD 2757 = (1997) 228 ITR 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income-tax: Reference - Business Expenditure - Interest on Borrowed Capital\nIssue:\n•\nThe issue revolves around the disallowance of part of the interest on borrowed capital used for the purchase of agricultural land. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) disallowed part of the interest for assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79, as part of the borrowed funds was allegedly used to purchase agricultural lands. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the previous assessment year (1975-76) had recorded a finding that there was no nexus between the borrowed capital and the purchase of agricultural lands, but the Tribunal rejected the request for a reference on this matter.\nBackground:\n•\nThe ITO disallowed a portion of the interest payments for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79, claiming that borrowed funds were used for purchasing agricultural lands, which was not an allowable business expense. The assessee argued that the investments in agricultural lands were made in previous assessment years, and these were properly accounted for. Additionally, in 1975-76, the Commissioner had concluded that there was no connection between the borrowings and agricultural land purchases, a finding that had been accepted by the department.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe Tribunal's decision to reject the request for a reference was challenged. The key issue was whether the Tribunal was right to disallow part of the interest when the Commissioner’s finding in the previous year had conclusively established that there was no nexus between the borrowed funds and the agricultural land purchase.\n•\nSection 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows the deduction of interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes, but not when the borrowed funds are used for personal or non-business purposes, like purchasing agricultural land.\n•\nThe Court found that since the issue had already been conclusively decided in the earlier assessment year (1975-76), the Tribunal should have referred the question to the High Court for clarification.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Court directed that the question regarding the Tribunal’s disallowance of interest, given the earlier finding of no nexus between the borrowings and the purchase of agricultural land, should be referred to the High Court.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 36(1)(iii), Income Tax Act, 1961: Deals with the deduction of interest on borrowed capital.\n•\nSection 256(2), Income Tax Act, 1961: Provides for the reference of questions of law to the High Court.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nCIT v. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 835 (MP): Case relating to the disallowance of interest based on the use of borrowed funds.\n•\nUnion of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (1991) 55 ELT 433 (SC): Relevant for understanding the judicial process in references of questions of law.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 141 of 1990, decision dated: 9-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Singh for the Assessee, D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "LACHHIRAM PURANMAL MOMAN BARODIYA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 391 = 1999 SLD 391 = 1999 PTD 2762 = (1999) 79 TAX 603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979): Constitutional Petition - Right of Cross-examination\nIssue:\n•\nThe issue was whether the report of officials used during assessment proceedings could be used against the assessee without granting the right to cross-examine those officials.\nBackground:\n•\nDuring the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) used reports from officials or a Commission, but did not provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine these officials. The question arose as to whether such reports could be used against the assessee without allowing cross-examination.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nUnder Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) and principles of natural justice, the right to cross-examine a witness or official is a fundamental right. Reports or statements made by officials or commissions should not be used against a party unless that party has had the opportunity to challenge or cross-examine the source of the report.\n•\nThe Court held that the assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the officials who prepared the report before such evidence could be used in the assessment proceedings.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Court ruled that the Assessing Officer had erred by using the report without allowing the assessee to cross-examine the officials. Therefore, the report could not be used against the assessee until the right to cross-examine was granted.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nArticle 199, Constitution of Pakistan (1973): Guarantees the right to natural justice, including the right to cross-examine.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=148 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.22812 of 1998, decision dated: 24-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Zia Ullah for Petitioner, Kh. Muhammad Saeed for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ENEM STORES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 392 = 1999 SLD 392 = 1999 PTD 2764", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979): Penalty for Non-compliance\nIssue:\n•\nThe issue was whether a penalty could be imposed for non-compliance with sections 50(1), 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and Rules 53 and 61 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982.\nBackground:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for non-compliance with certain provisions regarding statements under Sections 50(1) and 50(4) of the Ordinance, and Rules 53 and 61 of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal, however, found that the penalty under Section 108(b) did not cover defaults under these specific provisions and rules.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nThe provisions under Section 108(b) of the Ordinance did not cover defaults under Section 50(1), 50(4), and the related rules. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was not legally sustainable.\n•\nThe Tribunal correctly deleted the penalty, as it was not justified by the legal provisions.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was illegal and unsustainable under law, as it did not align with the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance and Rules.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 108(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Relates to the imposition of penalties for non-compliance.\n•\nSections 50(1), 50(4), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Relates to the filing of returns and statements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108(b),50(1),50(4) Income Tax Rules, 1982=53,61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3246/LB of 1998, decision dated: 13-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. H. Qamer, I.T.P. for Appellant, Farooq Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 393 = 1999 SLD 393 = 1999 PTD 2765", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979): Penalty for Non-filing of Statements\nIssue:\n•\nThe issue was whether a penalty could be imposed for failure to file monthly statements required under Sections 50(1) and 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nBackground:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer imposed a penalty for failing to file monthly statements as required under Sections 50(1) and 50(4). The assessee contended that penalty could not be levied for such defaults, as these provisions did not apply to the services they were involved with.\nLegal Reasoning:\n•\nPenalty under Section 108 of the Income Tax Ordinance can only be imposed for non-compliance with express legal provisions. The penalty was incorrectly imposed for failure to file statements under provisions that were not applicable to the assessee’s situation.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that no penalty could be levied for failing to file statements under Sections 50(1) and 50(4) because these provisions were not applicable to the case. The penalty order was therefore canceled.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 108, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Relates to penalties for non-compliance.\n•\nSections 50(1) and 50(4), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Relates to the furnishing of returns and statements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108(b),50(1),50(4) Income Tax Rules, 1982=61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3245/LB of 1998, decision dated: 29-04-1999, hearing DATE : 13-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. H. Qamer, I.T.P. for Appellant, Khalid Aziz Bhanth, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 394 = 1999 SLD 394 = 1999 PTD 2768 = (1998) 229 ITR 496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income-tax: Association of Persons (AOP) and Reassessment\nIssue:\n•\nThe case covers multiple issues: the validity of an Association of Persons (AOP), reassessment procedures, jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and findings regarding cash credits.\nBackground:\n•\nThe Tribunal examined whether an AOP could be formed with a minor as a member, whether the sanction for reassessment was valid, the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (I.T.O.) in Shimla, and the findings regarding cash credits.\nLegal Reasoning:\n1.\nAOP Validity: The Tribunal ruled that there was no valid AOP as there was no evidence that the guardian of the minor had consented to the minor’s membership.\n2.\nSanction for Reassessment: The reassessment sanction was based on the assumption that an AOP existed, but since it did not, the sanction was invalid.\n3.\nJurisdiction of I.T.O., Shimla: The Court ruled that since the jurisdictional objection was raised late, the I.T.O. Shimla had jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings.\n4.\nCash Credits: The Tribunal found that the cash credits existed before the business was set up, implying they were not related to the current assessment.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal correctly held that there was no valid AOP and the reassessment sanction was illegal. The Tribunal also upheld the jurisdiction of the I.T.O., Shimla, and affirmed the findings on cash credits.\nKey Legal Provisions:\n•\nSection 68 and Section 151, Income Tax Act, 1961: Relate to reassessment and jurisdiction.\n•\nAssociation of Persons (AOP): Defined under the Income Tax Act, requires voluntary agreement between individuals to form an AOP.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nG. Murugesan & Bros. v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 432 (SC): Related to the formation of AOP.\n•\nParamjit Singh (Lt.-Col.) v. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 446 (P & H): Clarifies issues on AOP and reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No-3 of 1987, decision dated: 1st May, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. AND A. L. VAIDYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.D. Sood for the Assessee, Inder Singh with M.M. Khanna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BHUPINDRA FOOD AND MALT INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 395 = 1999 SLD 395 = 1999 PTD 2772 = (1998) 229 ITR 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nThe assessee received a refund of excess sales tax charged on purchases of raw materials in prior years. The Assessing Officer treated the refund as income under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contested the treatment, arguing that the refund was not taxable as income because it was payable to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (M.P.E.B.) under the terms of a contract.\no\nThe Assessing Officer's order was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal also confirmed the order. Subsequently, the assessee filed a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to rectify the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal dismissed this application. The assessee then filed a reference application under Section 256(1), which was also rejected by the Tribunal on the grounds that no question of law arose from the order.\no\nThe assessee then filed an application under Section 256(2) for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the issue to the High Court.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe High Court held that an order rejecting a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not give rise to a referable question of law. Therefore, no reference could be made under Section 256(1) or (2) of the Act. The case cited includes Popular Engineering Co. v. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 398 (MP) and Jai Bharat Enterprises v. CIT (1988) 173 ITR 132 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.45 of 1990, decision dated: 16-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. M. Chaphekar and Smt. Meena Chaphekar for the Assessee, D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner\"\"", + "Party Name:": "SKYLINE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 396 = 1999 SLD 396 = 1999 PTD 2775 = (1998) 229 ITR 475", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nThe issue here concerned the carry-forward and set-off of business losses and depreciation. The assessee was engaged in a composite business, which included a hotel business. The hotel business was sold during the assessment year. The assessee contended that the unabsorbed losses and depreciation of the hotel business should still be allowed to be carried forward and set off against other income.\no\nThe Tribunal found that the business was composite, and the mere discontinuation of the hotel business did not disentitle the assessee to carry forward and set off the losses and depreciation.\no\nThe question was whether the Tribunal’s finding was correct and whether it gave rise to any question of law for reference.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Tribunal’s decision was upheld, and it was concluded that the sale of the hotel business did not affect the right of the assessee to carry forward and set off unabsorbed losses and depreciation. Since the business was composite, the losses and depreciation from the hotel business could be set off against the other income. No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal’s order, and therefore no reference was made. This aligns with general legal principles related to the carry-forward of losses in a composite business.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 12693 of 1993, decision dated: 2-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V KAMAT AND P. A MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner, M. Ajay and K. Praveen Kumar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 397 = 1990 SLD 397 = 1990 PTD 1010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nThe issue in this case centered around the disallowance of an interest payment made by the assessee-firm to its partner. The firm claimed that the interest was paid to the bank via its partner, who had previously been conducting the business individually and had the bank account in his name. The firm argued that the transactions were carried out through the partner’s bank account, and that the interest was effectively paid to the bank, not the partner.\no\nHowever, the Tribunal found that no evidence was provided to support this claim. The books of the firm showed that the amounts were received from the partner, and the interest payment was made directly to him, not the bank. The assessee’s claim that the interest payments made by the firm were handed over to the partner, acting as an intermediary, lacked proper evidence.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Tribunal held that the interest payment was made to the partner, not to the bank. The partnership’s accounts did not reflect any borrowing from the bank, nor was there any documentation to show that the bank received the interest payments. In the absence of evidence to substantiate the claim that the interest paid by the firm was effectively paid to the bank through the partner, the Tribunal correctly applied Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, disallowing the interest payment as a deduction.\no\nThe case cites CIT v. Abdul Rehman & Sons (1993) 199 ITR 709 (Guj.) and CIT v. Agra Tannery (1989) 179 ITR 44 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=40(b) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 48 of 1962 (Reference No. 27 of 1962), decision dated: 8-07-1964", + "Judge Name:": " S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J. AND SRINIVASAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Padmanabhan for Applicant. V. Balasubramaniam for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "KASTURI & SONS LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 398 = 1999 SLD 398 = 1999 PTD 2782 = (1998) 229 ITR 406", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income-tax Assessment - Status of Association of Persons (AOP)\nCase Summary:\nFactual Background:\n•\nTen employees of a company organized a joint venture to purchase lottery tickets with their pooled contributions. They entered into a written agreement where the winnings would be equally divided among them.\n•\nThey purchased tickets for the Tamil Nadu Government lottery and won a prize of Rs. 1,00,000. The prize money was collected through the Punjab National Bank and distributed equally among the ten members.\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) assessed the group as an Association of Persons (AOP), treating their joint venture as a taxable entity. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled that the joint purchase of the lottery tickets did not constitute an investment for expected gains, nor was it a business activity. Therefore, the prize money should be taxed individually, not as an AOP.\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld this decision.\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the group of ten individuals should be taxed as an Association of Persons (AOP) or individually.\nJudicial Analysis:\n•\nThe Court held that the joint venture constituted a joint venture for the purpose of purchasing lottery tickets with the intent to earn income. The two necessary conditions for taxing under the status of AOP were:\n1.\nA joint venture.\n2.\nThe intent to earn income.\n•\nIt was concluded that the purchase of the lottery tickets was aimed at earning income through the prize money, which made it an organized effort to earn a collective income.\n•\nThus, the group was correctly taxed as an Association of Persons (AOP).\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nCIT v. Friends Enterprises (1988) 171 ITR 269 (AP).\n•\nCIT v. O. K. Arumugham Chettiar (1997) 224 ITR 391 (Mad.), distinguished.\n•\nCIT v. Indira Balkrishna (1960) 39 ITR 546 (SC); Deccan Wine and General Stores v. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 111 (SC); G. Murugesan & Bros. v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 432 (SC); Rama Devi Agarwalla v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 256 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 177 of 1982 (Reference No.91 of 1982), decision dated: 23rd September. 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramanian for the Commissioner, Miss Maya, J. Nichani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA. U. CHANDRASEKHARAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 399 = 1999 SLD 399 = 1999 PTD 2791 = (1998) 229 ITR 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Reference\nCase Summary:\nIssue 1: Depreciation on Tubewell\n•\nThe Tribunal decided that the tubewell supplied water to a factory and was an integral part of the manufacturing process, qualifying it as plant eligible for depreciation at 10%.\n•\nThe reference regarding the eligibility of depreciation on the tubewell was declined because it was a finding of fact.\nIssue 2: Precedent\n•\nThe Tribunal declined a reference on sea freight and marine insurance, as the issue had already been settled by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India (Pvt.) Ltd. (1993) 102 ITR 968 (P & H).\nIssue 3: No Question Arising Out of Tribunal’s Order\n•\nThe Tribunal rightly declined to refer issues not arising from its order, especially those related to bank interest and forwarding charges, as agreed by the parties.\nOutcome:\n•\nThe reference was rightly declined by the Tribunal as the matters in question were either findings of fact or covered by precedent.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.84 of 1995, decision dated: 3rd May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND T. H. B. CHALAPATHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Goel for Petitioner, A.K. Mittal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nROADMASTER INDUSTRIES OF INDIA (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 400 = 1999 SLD 400 = 1999 PTD 2795 = (1998) 229 ITR 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Assessment & Reassessment\nCase Summary:\nIssue 1: Adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)\n•\nThe ITO made adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) but could not make adjustments for controversial or debatable items.\n•\nThe adjustment of the taxable income applying Section 44-AC for a liquor business was deemed invalid, as it was a debatable issue.\nIssue 2: Jurisdiction for Reassessment\n•\nReassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 on the grounds that income from the liquor business had escaped assessment.\n•\nThe failure to follow Section 143(2) did not invalidate the reassessment process, as Section 147 provided adequate grounds to reassess.\nIssue 3: Doctrine of Merger\n•\nThere was no appeal against the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a), so it did not merge into the appellate order.\n•\nThe intimation remained valid, and the reassessment proceeded on valid grounds.\nOutcome:\n•\nReassessment proceedings were valid, and the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) did not merge into the appellate order.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nJorawar Singh Baid v. CIT (Asst.) (1992) 198 ITR 47 (Cal.).\n•\nSanyasi Rao (A.) v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1989) 178 ITR 31 (AP).\n•\nSri Venkateswara Timber Depot v. Union of India (1991) 189 ITR 741 (Orissa).\n•\nUnion of India v. A. Sanyasi Rao (1996) 219 ITR 330 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.414 of 1996, decision dated: 21st March, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND B.K. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "PRADEEP KUMAR HAR SARAN LAL\nVs\nASSESSING OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 401 = 1999 SLD 401 = 1999 PTD 2807 = (1998) 229 ITR 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nLegal Issue: The primary issue was the applicability of the law concerning the quantum of penalty for the concealment of income, specifically, which law applies when penalties are imposed.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee filed the income tax return on September 13, 1974, declaring an income that later was found to be concealed.\no\nThe amendment to the law concerning the penalty for concealment (under Section 271(1)(c)) came into force on April 1, 1976.\no\nThe Assessing Officer imposed penalties under the amended provisions.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe issue revolved around whether the law as it stood before or after the amendment applied to the assessment. According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brij Mohan v. CIT (1979), the law applicable is that which was in force on the date the return was filed.\no\nThe Patna High Court's decision in CIT v. M.N. Chatterjee (1988) was found to be per incuriam (meaning it was based on an incorrect understanding of the law) and was not binding.\n•\nHeld: The penalty should be calculated according to the law applicable on September 13, 1974, the date of filing the return. The amended law, which came into force after April 1, 1976, is not applicable in this case for penalty calculation.\n•\nKey Legal Reference:\no\nBrij Mohan v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 1 (SC) — clarifying that the law in force when the return is filed governs penalties.\no\nCIT v. M.N. Chatterjee (1988) 170 ITR 87 (Patna) — ruled per incuriam.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.43 of 1989, decision dated: 26-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. AGRAWAL AND A. K. GANGULY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner, Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPOPULAR MEDICAL HALL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 402 = 1999 SLD 402 = 1999 PTD 2810 = (1997) 228 ITR 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtISFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Deduction for Gratuity Provision\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether a provision made for gratuity to retiring employees during the previous year, without actual payment, can be allowed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.\n•\nFacts:\no\nA provision was made by the assessee during the previous year for the payment of gratuity to employees retiring in future.\no\nNo actual payments were made during the year.\no\nThe question was whether this provision could be deducted as an expense for tax purposes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 40-A(7) and Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act were relevant in this case. Section 40-A(7) deals with deductions for provision for retirement benefits, including gratuity.\no\nThe law does not require that actual payments be made during the year, as long as the provision is earmarked for the purpose of payment of gratuity to retiring employees.\n•\nHeld: The provision made for gratuity to retiring employees is eligible for deduction, even if no actual payment was made during the year, as long as the provision is made and earmarked for gratuity payments.\n•\nKey Legal Reference:\no\nSections 40-A(7) and 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — relating to provisions for retirement benefits like gratuity.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 10 of 1994, decision dated: 4-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Gogoi and H. Roy for the Assessee, G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner\"\"", + "Party Name:": "GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 403 = 1999 SLD 403 = 1999 PTD 2813 = (1997) 228 ITR 793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income-Tax Penalty for Concealment After Search\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether penalties can be imposed for concealment of income when the taxpayer files revised returns only after the detection of concealment during a search.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee's assessments for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 were completed at nil income.\no\nFor the assessment year 1986-87, a search was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on June 29, 1985, and unexplained investments were detected, leading to an addition of Rs. 10,56,012 to the income.\no\nThe assessee filed revised returns offering additional income for four years after the search. The Assessing Officer accepted the additional income but initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).\no\nPenalties were imposed on the assessee for all four assessment years, but the Tribunal cancelled the penalties.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe central question was whether the penalties could be sustained, given that the revised returns were filed after the detection of concealment, and whether this constitutes voluntary disclosure.\no\nThe Revenue contended that the penalties should stand because the assessee only disclosed the income to avoid penalty after the search, not voluntarily.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalties was upheld, and the matter was referred for further clarification on the issue of whether such voluntary disclosure should override penalty imposition.\n•\nKey Legal References:\no\nSection 256(2) — allows for references to the High Court on questions of law from Tribunal decisions.\no\nArulprakasam (S.R.) v. Smt. Prema Malini Vasan, ITO (1987) 163 ITR 487 (Mad.).\no\nMohammad Shabbir v. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 111 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.269 and 273 to 275 of 1993, decision dated: 10-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner, J.W. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSURESHCHAND MITTAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 404 = 1999 SLD 404 = 1999 PTD 2817 = (1997) 228 ITR 717", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Rejection of Books of Account and Estimate of Income\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the Income Tax Officer’s rejection of books of account and the estimation of income was correct.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee operated arrack and toddy shops. For the assessment year 1979-80, a return was filed showing income of Rs. 68,350.07.\no\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the books of account because of the absence of vouchers and unverifiable expenses.\no\nThe ITO also made additions to the income and estimated the income for that year at Rs. 2 lakh based on the income disclosed in subsequent years.\no\nThe Tribunal concluded that the books of account were not rejected and suggested a lower estimate of Rs. 1,12,906.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe rejection of books of account is governed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and if books are rejected, income can be estimated based on available information or previous years' records.\no\nThe Income Tax Officer’s estimate of Rs. 2 lakh was based on the disclosures made to the bank in subsequent years, which was considered reasonable.\n•\nHeld: The Income Tax Officer’s estimate of Rs. 2 lakh was justified and the Tribunal’s rejection of this estimate was incorrect. The court interfered in the reference and upheld the higher estimate.\n•\nKey Legal Reference:\no\nSection 256 — allows interference with Tribunal’s findings in reference cases.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.91 of 1991, decision dated: 8-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner, C. Kochunni Nair, Firoz and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHADRA ENTERPRISES (N0.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 405 = 1999 SLD 405 = 1999 PTD 2822 = (1997) 228 ITR 722", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income-Tax Long-Term Capital Gains and Short-Term Capital Losses\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether a short-term capital loss can be deducted from long-term capital gains when calculating deductions under Section 80-T.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee had long-term capital gains from the sale of equity shares and short-term capital losses from the sale of irredeemable non-cumulative preference shares.\no\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) recomputed the short-term capital loss and adjusted it against the long-term capital gain, allowing a deduction under Section 80-T on the entire long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,51,169.\no\nThe Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing that the short-term loss be treated separately.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 70 allows the set-off of short-term capital loss against any other capital gain, including long-term capital gains.\no\nThe interpretation of Section 80-T suggests that the statutory deduction is related to the total long-term capital gains, and that losses should be treated separately under Section 74.\n•\nHeld: The question of law arose as to whether the short-term loss should be deducted from the long-term gain, as it is treated separately for purposes of deduction under Section 80-T.\n•\nKey Legal Reference:\no\nSections 70, 74, and 80-T of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — related to the set-off of capital losses and eligibility for deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.65 of 1993, decision dated: 25-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and S.K. Sharma for Petitioner, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nOM PARKASH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 406 = 1999 SLD 406 = 1999 PTD 2825 = (1997) 228 ITR 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Excise Duty as Trading Receipts\n•\nIssue:\no\n(a) Whether amounts realized by the assessee from customers as excise duty, included as part of the price of goods, are considered trading receipts and assessable to tax.\no\n(b) Whether a writ petition is maintainable when there is an alternative remedy available.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee sold poppy heads and included excise duty in the price charged to customers. The income from the sale, including the excise duty component, was disputed regarding its taxability.\no\nAdditionally, the assessee filed a writ petition challenging the levy of tax on excise duty when an alternative remedy (appeal) was available.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe excise duty amounts realized from customers, when added to the price of goods, are considered trading receipts because they form part of the total sale price. As such, these amounts are assessable to tax as income.\no\nRegarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the existence of an alternative remedy (appeal to tax authorities) renders a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution not maintainable.\n•\nHeld: The excise duty collected by the assessee forms part of the sale price and, therefore, constitutes trading receipts, making them assessable to tax. The writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy (appeal).\n•\nCase Reference:\no\nChowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 87 ITR 542 (SC) — excise duty included in the sale price is assessable as trading receipts.\no\n31 STC 254 (SC) — regarding maintainability of writ petitions in tax matters when alternative remedies exist.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.540 of 1982, decision dated: 1st August, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " P. K. MUKHERJEE AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Barman for Petitioner, R.K. Agarwal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "JAGDISH PRASAD NIGAM\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF. Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 407 = 1999 SLD 407 = 1999 PTD 2826 = (1997) 228 ITR 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Carrying Forward Loss Without Filing Timely Return\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether an assessee can carry forward a loss even if the return is not filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee did not file its return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1), but sought to carry forward the business loss.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe Income Tax Act, 1961 allows the carry-forward of losses even if the return is not filed within the prescribed time. The assessee may still carry forward losses for set-off against future income in subsequent years.\no\nRelevant case law supports that the loss can be carried forward even in the absence of timely filing, as long as the return is filed within the extended time granted by the assessing authorities.\n•\nHeld: The assessee is entitled to carry forward losses even though it did not file its return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nCase Reference:\no\nCIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC) — affirming that loss can be carried forward even if the return was not filed on time.\no\nCIT v. Bezbarua (K.C.) (1992) 195 ITR 321 (Gauhati) — further reinforcing the carry-forward of losses despite late filing.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd June, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner, Nemo for the Assessee,", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKAMALA TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 408 = 1999 SLD 408 = 1999 PTD 2828 = (1997) 228 ITR 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance for Computers\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether a computer qualifies for investment allowance under Section 32-A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite being used as an office appliance.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee claimed investment allowance on the purchase of a computer used in its business. The assessing authority questioned whether it could qualify for investment allowance, as the computer might be considered an office appliance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nA computer is not considered an office appliance but is eligible for investment allowance under Section 32-A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it is used for the manufacture or production of goods.\no\nCase law supports that computers are used for manufacturing processes or business operations, and hence, they are entitled to such allowance.\n•\nHeld: The computer qualifies for investment allowance as it is used for manufacturing or production and is not an office appliance.\n•\nCase Reference:\no\nCIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 17 (Cal.) — confirming the eligibility of computers for investment allowance.\no\nCIT v. Peerless Consultancy Services (Pvt.) Ltd. (1990) 186 ITR 609 (Cal.) — reaffirming investment allowance for computers.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.281 of 1993, decision dated: 17-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. P.M. Choudhary for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSTEEL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. (No. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 409 = 1999 SLD 409 = 1999 PTD 2830 = (1997) 228 ITR 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stamp Duty on Renewal of Mining Lease\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the expenditure on stamp duty for securing the renewal of a mining lease should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee incurred stamp duty expenses of Rs. 1,37,050 for securing the renewal of its mining lease with the government.\no\nThe Income Tax Officer classified this expenditure as capital expenditure, while the assessee argued it was revenue expenditure.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nStamp duty on renewal of a lease is considered revenue expenditure when the lease gives the right to seek renewal and does not result in the acquisition of a new asset.\no\nExpenditure incurred to exercise a pre-existing right, such as renewing a mining lease, does not create a new capital asset but is necessary for continuing business operations, making it revenue expenditure.\n•\nHeld: The expenditure incurred by the assessee for stamp duty on the renewal of the mining lease is revenue expenditure, as it is incurred to continue an existing business operation.\n•\nCase Reference:\no\nBombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) — confirming that expenditure on renewal of rights is revenue expenditure.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.43 of 1988, decision dated: 25-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. RAO AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. V. Prasad for the Commissioner, C. Kodandaram for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPANYAM CEMENTS AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 410 = 1999 SLD 410 = 1999 PTD 2833 = (1997) 228 ITR 1411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Previous Year for Partners in a Firm\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhat is the previous year for a partner in a firm, especially when the firm and the partner have different year-end dates?\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee was a partner in a registered firm whose financial year ended on 31st March. However, the assessee’s own financial year ended on 31st December.\no\nThe assessee wanted to adopt its own year-end date for accounting its share of income from the firm.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 3 states that for a partner, the previous year for their share of the income from the firm follows the firm’s previous year. The income of the firm for the year ending 31st March will be assessed in the same period for the partner.\n•\nHeld: The partner must follow the same previous year as the firm, meaning income from the firm must be assessed in the firm’s accounting period, which ends on 31st March.\n•\nCase Reference:\no\nCIT v. M.S. Sheikh Rowther (1962) 46 ITR 259 (Ker.) — establishing that the partner’s previous year is the firm’s year.\no\nCIT v. McKenzies Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 458 (Bom.) — reaffirming that the partner’s income from the firm is assessed according to the firm’s year-end.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.8 of 1942 decided on 18-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. R. K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran and George George K. for the Assessee, P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NEW AMBADI ESTATES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 411 = 1999 SLD 411 = 1999 PTD 2836 = (1997) 228 ITR 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of IAC for Penalty Imposition\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) has jurisdiction to continue penalty proceedings under Section 274 after the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 1st April 1976.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe reference to IAC for penalty imposition was made before the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 274, and the IAC was handling the case when the amendment occurred.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe IAC’s jurisdiction to impose penalties remains intact for cases pending before him on March 31, 1976, despite the deletion of Section 274(2) from the Income Tax Act.\no\nThe deletion of sub-section (2) did not affect the IAC’s ability to continue proceedings and impose penalties for cases already under review.\n•\nHeld: The IAC retains jurisdiction to continue penalty proceedings that were initiated before 1st April 1976, even after the deletion of Section 274(2).\n•\nCase Reference:\no\nCIT v. Sharadamma (R.) (Smt.) (1996) 219 ITR 671 (SC) — confirming the IAC's jurisdiction after the deletion of Section 274(2).\no\nAbdul Azeez (R.) v. CIT (1981) 128 ITR 547 (Kar.) — reaffirming the IAC’s continuing jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 149 of 1982 (Reference No 63 of 1982), decision dated: 18-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. SWAMI, C.J. AND A.R. LAKSHMANAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam for C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner, Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSTAR OIL MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 412 = 1999 SLD 412 = 1999 PTD 2839 = (1997) 228 ITR 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust and Retrospective Rectification\n•\nIssue:\no\nWhether a trust is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 when its trust deed was amended with retrospective effect but the amendment does not affect previous years.\n•\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee claimed exemption as a public charitable trust, but its original trust deed was not wholly charitable. The trust sought rectification of the deed with retrospective effect through a Civil Court decree.\no\nThe rectification of the trust deed was granted in 1972, but the court decree applied only prospectively.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nExemption under Sections 11 and 12 is available only if the trust is wholly charitable. The retrospective rectification of the trust deed was ruled ineffective for prior years.\no\nThe retrospective effect of the court’s decree did not alter the nature of the trust for the assessment years in question.\n•\nHeld: The charitable trust did not qualify for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 for the years 1965-66 to 1969-70 and 1971-72 because the rectification had prospective effect only.\n•\nCase Reference:\no\nCIT v. Kamla Town Trust (1996) 217 ITR 699 (SC) — confirming the prospective nature of rectification.\no\nCIT v. Jaipur Charitable Trust (1971) 81 ITR 1 (Delhi) — ruling on the effect of retrospective rectification.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 137 to 142 of 1976, decision dated: 30-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DEVINDER GUPTA, M. K. SHARMA AND K. S. GUPTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma for the Assessee, R.D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BHRIGURAJ CHARITY TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME, TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 411 = 1999 SLD 411 = 1999 PTD 2844 = (1997) 228 ITR 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax—Assessment—Undisclosed Income—Cash Found in Possession of Assessee—Burden of Proof on Assessee.\nConclusion:\nIn this case, a search by the Enforcement Directorate resulted in the seizure of Rs. 4,28,713 from the assessee's premises. The assessee claimed that the money was part of a larger sum of Rs. 6 lakhs given to him by two individuals from Bombay for distribution under instructions from a person in Singapore. However, the assessee could not provide adequate proof regarding the source of the money or the identities involved. The Income-tax Officer added Rs. 4,28,713 as income from other sources under Section 69-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the seized amount did not belong to him, and as per Section 110 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that the money was not his. Thus, the amount was rightly assessed under Section 69-A.\nReferences:\n•\nChuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Pichaimanickam Chettiar (S.) (1984) 147 ITR 251 (Mad.) (no longer valid law)\n•\nParkar (J.S.) v. Palekar (V.B.) (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1117 of 1984 (Reference No.974 of 1984), decision dated: 8-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramanian for the Commissioner, Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK.T.M.S. MOHAMOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 412 = 1999 SLD 412 = 1999 PTD 2851", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to Review Deputy Commissioner’s Order—Error and Prejudice—Show-Cause Notice.\nConclusion:\nThe case revolved around the Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s authority to review the Deputy Commissioner’s order. The Deputy Commissioner had assessed the case based on the information provided by the assessee regarding investments, but the Inspecting Additional Commissioner issued a show-cause notice, claiming the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial. The Tribunal ruled that the show-cause notice was more of an inquiry than a definitive finding, making it an illegal action. The Tribunal emphasized that the Inspecting Additional Commissioner should not review the Deputy Commissioner’s order based on a fishing inquiry.\nReferences:\n•\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 700", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1979/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 13-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P. for Appellant. Imtiaz A. Barakzai, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 413 = 1999 SLD 413 = 1999 PTD 2853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to Revise Deputy Commissioner’s Order—Non-disclosure of Plot in Wealth Tax Return.\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the assessee had failed to declare a plot in the wealth tax return for the assessment year 1995-96. A show-cause notice was issued, but the Tribunal found that the error was corrected when the assessee filed the declaration under Section 59-D. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s cancellation of the assessment was challenged, and the Tribunal ruled that the error was rectified by the declaration, and thus the order for revision was invalid. The case emphasized that information about the plot was already available at the time of assessment, and no further investigation was warranted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59D,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1391/LB of 1999, decision dated: 22-05-1999, hearing DATE : 30-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan for Appellant. Khalid Aziz Banth, DR. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 414 = 1999 SLD 414 = 1999 PTD 2859", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessment—Commission Received from Manufacturer—Accounting Error.\nConclusion:\nThe assessee was engaged in selling products on commission but failed to separately mention commissions, freight, and bonuses in the Trading and Profit and Loss Account. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on this omission. The Tribunal set aside the addition, directing the Assessing Officer to verify the ledger accounts with the manufacturer to determine whether these amounts were included in purchases. If the amounts were debited against purchases, no reassessment would be required; if paid in cash or were additional, they could be considered taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.234/KB, 588/KB and 589/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 11-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Soomro, D.R. for Appellant, Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 415 = 1999 SLD 415 = 1999 PTD 2862", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income—Electricity Expenses Claimed Twice.\nConclusion:\nThe assessee had mistakenly claimed electricity expenses twice, once in the trading account and once in the Profit and Loss Account. The amount claimed in the Profit and Loss Account was added back, and a penalty equal to 100% of the tax evaded was imposed. The Tribunal held that this was an accounting mistake, not a concealment of income, as no inaccurate particulars were provided. As the error was corrected by the department, the penalty was cancelled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.282/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 3rd April, 1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noor Muhammad, D.R. for Appellant, A.S. Jafri for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 416 = 1999 SLD 416 = 1999 PTD 2864 = (1999) 80 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement—Consultancy Services.\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, a non-resident company, provided technical consultancy services to the Civil Aviation Authority of Pakistan. The company claimed exemption under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Pakistan and France. However, the Income Tax Officer rejected the claim, arguing that the income from technical services did not qualify as “industrial and commercial profits” under the agreement. The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that technical services were excluded from the definition of commercial profits and, therefore, not exempt.\nReferences:\n•\n1985 PTD (Trib.) 877\n•\nI.T.A. No.3750/LB of 1986-87; CIT v. General Tyres Limited 1989 PTD 664\n•\nGlaxo Group Ltd. v. CIT, General Zone-B, Karachi 1992 PTD 636", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=163,80AA ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1551/HQ of 1988-89, decision dated: 16-04-1999, hearing DATE : 9-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ul-Haq and Arshad Siraj for Appellant, Mumtaz Sheikh, D.R. and Ashraf-ud-Din Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 417 = 1999 SLD 417 = 1999 PTD 2873", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistake—Appellate Additional Commissioner.\nConclusion:\nThe assessee filed an application for rectification of an appellate order, claiming that the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were not incorporated into the appellate order. The Appellate Additional Commissioner rejected the application, considering the matter disposed of. However, the Tribunal set aside the order, stating that the case should be reconsidered in light of the Commissioner’s directions and a conscious decision should be made on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,63/132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.587/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 13th March 1999", + "Judge Name:": " SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEM AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P. for Appellant, Imtiaz A. Barakzai, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 418 = 1999 SLD 418 = 1999 PTD 2884 = (1999) 80 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme—Circular No. 12 of 1991—Instructions Under Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nConclusion:\nThe case involved Circular No. 12 of 1991, which was issued by the Central Board of Revenue under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal held that this circular was not mandatory under Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance. It was only a hypothetical example, and its provisions did not have the force of law. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the Inspecting Additional Commissioner had no valid grounds to revise the Deputy Commissioner’s order regarding the proration of expenses between imports and local sales.\nReferences:\n•\nCentral Insurance Company v. C.B.R. 1993 SCMR 1232 = 1993 PTD 766\n•\nI.T.A. No. 2014/KB of 1986-87; CIT v. Abbot Finance Co. Ltd. 1991 PTD 915\n•\nRaleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Karachi East, Karachi 1983 PTD 126", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,143B,55,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.479/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 24-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Appellant. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 419 = 1999 SLD 419 = 1999 PTD 2891", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Sections 13(1)(b) & 65 — Addition — Self-Assessment Scheme — No Account Case — Special Audit\nSummary:\nIn the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1997-98, a special audit was conducted, during which it was revealed that the assessee made an accretion in wealth for the year 1984-85. The Assessing Officer found that the income declared in previous years (1981-82 to 1984-85) was less than the wealth accretion for 1984-85 and added the balance amount to the assessment of 1997-98 under Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The assessee contended that this addition should have been made for 1984-85, but that year was time-barred for action under Section 65. The First Appellate Authority deleted the addition, agreeing that the unexplained accretion as of June 30, 1997, should have been considered in the 1997-98 assessment. However, the property purchased in 1997 was irrelevant to the 1997-98 assessment. Hence, the addition was rightly deleted, although for different reasons.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(b),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.565/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 11-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN.AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Soomro, D.R. for Appellant. A. Tahir Ansari, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 420 = 1999 SLD 420 = 1999 PTD 2899 = (1999) 80 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Section 65 — Constitutional Petition — Additional Assessment\nSummary:\nThe case involved a show-cause notice issued to the assessee for reopening the case under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, on what the assessee deemed frivolous grounds. The Constitutional petition was disposed of with the observation that any objections to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the notice under Section 65 should first have been raised before the Assessing Officer, who was required to decide on those objections. If the assessee was dissatisfied with the decision, they could then challenge it before higher forums within the Income Tax Ordinance’s hierarchy.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Art.199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6210 of 1996, heard on 26-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Aisha Fazil Qazi for Appellant. Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "AHMAD FABRIC\nVs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 421 = 1999 SLD 421 = 1999 PTD 2901 = (1999) 80 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Section 24(i), Explanation (i) — Deduction — Bonus — Salary\nSummary:\nIn this case, the assessee's payment of bonus to an employee was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that it was not paid as per an agreement between the employer and the employee. However, the issue was clarified under Section 24(i) of the Income Tax Ordinance, which defines salary to include bonuses, regardless of whether they are paid according to an agreement. The Tribunal allowed the bonus paid to be included in the salary for tax purposes. The case also involved the interpretation of the word or in Section 24(i), Explanation (i), where it was concluded that or should be used in a disjunctive sense between bonus and commission, and not as conjunctive.\nReferences:\n•\nAbdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority PLD 1994 SC 512\n•\nSardar Muhammad and others v. Municipal Committee, Jhelum PLD 1970 SC 497\n•\nPakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Karachi Municipal Corporation PLD 1967 SC 241\n•\nAbdul Rehman v. I.G. Police, Punjab PLD 1995 SC 546", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(i),Expln.(i) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 172 of 1987, heard on 2-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant, Waheed Farooqui and Nasrullah Awan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN SERVICES LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C (COS-1), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 422 = 1999 SLD 422 = 1999 PTD 2907 = (1999) 80 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2480\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Section 24(i), Explanation (i) — Deduction — Bonus — Salary\nSummary:\nIn this case, the assessee's payment of bonus to an employee was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that it was not paid as per an agreement between the employer and the employee. However, the issue was clarified under Section 24(i) of the Income Tax Ordinance, which defines salary to include bonuses, regardless of whether they are paid according to an agreement. The Tribunal allowed the bonus paid to be included in the salary for tax purposes. The case also involved the interpretation of the word or in Section 24(i), Explanation (i), where it was concluded that or should be used in a disjunctive sense between bonus and commission, and not as conjunctive.\nReferences:\n•\nAbdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority PLD 1994 SC 512\n•\nSardar Muhammad and others v. Municipal Committee, Jhelum PLD 1970 SC 497\n•\nPakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Karachi Municipal Corporation PLD 1967 SC 241\n•\nAbdul Rehman v. I.G. Police, Punjab PLD 1995 SC 546", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(7),59(3) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 350 of 1990", + "Judge Name:": " S. SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant, Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMessrs SADIQ TRADERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 112 = 2000 SLD 112 = 2000 PTD 2040 = (1999) 235 ITR 467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Sections 12(7) & 59(3) — Addition — Deemed Interest Income\nSummary:\nIn this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition under Section 12(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, while passing an order under Section 59(1) of the same Ordinance. The AO's action involved including deemed interest income in the assessee's declared income. The assessee contested this addition on the grounds that the AO, while exercising powers under Section 59, could not add or include any amounts that fall within the definition of income under Section 12. The court held that the AO's powers under Section 59 are limited to adjustments related to allowable expenses or deductions under various provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance. The AO could not include additional income such as deemed interest income. Therefore, the addition of deemed interest income to the declared income was deemed invalid.\nConclusion:\nThe addition of deemed interest income by the AO was invalid as it exceeded the scope of adjustments permissible under Section 59(3), which only applies to the regulation of allowable expenses or deductions, not the inclusion of additional income.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 12(7) and 59(3).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 23 of 1995, decision dated: 24-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " P.A. MOHAMMED AND P. SHANMUGAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pathros Mathai M. and Mariam Mathai for the Assessee, P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KERALA CHEMICALS AND PROTEINS LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 113 = 2000 SLD 113 = 2000 PTD 2038 = (1999) 235 ITR 464", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appellate Tribunal — Scope of Powers — Duty to Consider Relevant Law\nSummary:\nThe issue arose when the assessee became entitled to interest under Section 214(1-A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment had been completed, and subsequent appeals led to a refund. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, claiming that interest under Section 214 should only be payable up to the date of the first assessment. The assessee contended that the Tribunal should have considered the provisions of Section 214(1-A), which were in the statute at the time the case was being decided. However, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s argument, stating that since Section 214(1-A) was not referenced in the hearing, it did not need to be considered. The assessee filed a miscellaneous application pointing out the error of not referring to Section 214(1-A). The Tribunal's refusal to reconsider its decision led to a reference being made.\nConclusion:\nThe court held that the Tribunal had a duty to consider all provisions of law, including Section 214(1-A), even if the assessee had not explicitly mentioned it. The Tribunal was bound to follow the law as it existed at the time, and failure to do so was deemed an error.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 920 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (1984) 146 ITR 452 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. G.B. Transports (1985) 155 ITR 548 (Ker.)\n•\nParekh Brothers v. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 105 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No.636 of 1989, decision dated: 24-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.A. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K. Goswami, S.C Tibrewal and J.P. Sarma for Petitioners, G.K. Joshi for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMODI INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 114 = 2000 SLD 114 = 2000 PTD 2047 = (1999) 235 ITR 473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes — Interest under Section 214 — Refund Resulting from Rectification Order\nSummary:\nIn this case, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) argued that interest under Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could only be allowed on the difference between the tax determined in a regular assessment and the advance tax paid. The ITO also held that further interest could not be granted on refunds arising from rectification orders under Section 154, since these were not part of regular assessments. The Tribunal disagreed with the ITO’s ruling and set aside the order, relying on the Bombay High Court’s decision in CIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (1988). The High Court had held that the assessee is entitled not only to interest on the amount refunded by reason of a rectification order but also up to the date of that rectification order. This decision indicated that interest on refunds resulting from a rectification order was a debatable issue, with multiple interpretations.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal was correct in canceling the ITO’s order under Section 154, as the Bombay High Court's ruling supported the idea that interest should be paid on refunds resulting from rectification orders. Therefore, the ITO’s decision to withhold interest was found to be a mistake.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 314 (Bom.)\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 154 & 214", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1655 of 1984 (Reference No.1180 of 1984), decision dated: 11-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee. S. V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "CHOLAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 115 = 2000 SLD 115 = 2000 PTD 2043 = (1999) 235 ITR 470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Contributions to Flag Day Fund and Chief Minister's Rehabilitation Fund\n•\nTopic: Deductibility of contributions made by a business entity to charitable funds under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nIssue: The assessee made a contribution to the Flag Day Fund and the Chief Minister’s Rehabilitation Fund. The question was whether these contributions could be claimed as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe sum of Rs. 79,800 paid by the assessee was not considered as revenue expenditure, as it was deemed to be an expenditure incurred for business purposes.\no\nThe contributions to the Flag Day Fund and the Chief Minister’s Rehabilitation Fund were not in violation of any law or against public policy. Hence, they were made for a business purpose and were deductible.\n•\nCase References:\no\nAnna Transport Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1995): Followed in the ruling.\no\nSri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT (1997): Followed.\no\nCIT v. Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. (1996): Followed.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.93 of 1989, decision dated: 9-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " B.A. KHAN AND SHAMBHOO SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "CIT (Addl.) v. Rampratap Shankarlal (1979) 117 ITR 662 (MP) dissented from G.M. Chaphekar for the Assessee. V.K. Jain for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "RAMLAL CHIRONJILAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 116 = 2000 SLD 116 = 2000 PTD 2049 = (1999) 235 ITR 455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax - Penalty for Delay in Filing Return - Default under Section 139(1)\n•\nTopic: Applicability of penalty provisions under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act for delays in filing income tax returns under sections 139(1), 139(2), and 139(4).\n•\nIssue: The case dealt with the imposition of penalties for delay in filing returns. It was contended whether the default under section 139(1) was wiped out by the issuance of notice under section 139(2) or upon filing the return under section 139(4).\n•\nHeld:\no\nA default under section 139(1) continues until the return is filed or an assessment is made. A notice issued under section 139(2) does not eliminate the default.\no\nThe penalty under section 271(1)(a) is applicable for the delay, and the default does not cease until the return is filed or the assessment is completed.\n•\nCase References:\no\nChunnilal & Bros. v. CIT (1979): Followed.\no\nCIT v. Indra & Co. (1971): Followed.\no\nCIT v. Hindustan Industrial Corporation (1972): Followed.\no\nCIT (Addl.) v. Seth Devi Chand and Sons (1978): Followed.\no\nMullapudi Venkatarayudu v. Union of India (1975): Followed.\no\nCIT (Addl.) v. Rampratap Shankarlal (1979): Dissent on this case.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. A. No. 131 of 1991, decision dated: 21st October, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " U. P. SINGH, C.J. AND S. KRISHNAN UNNI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for Appellant. N. R. K. Nair for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3", + "Party Name:": "KERALA CLAYS AND CERAMIC PRODUCTS LTD\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 117 = 2000 SLD 117 = 2000 PTD 2051 = (1999) 235 ITR 457", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Business or Other Sources - Lease Income\n•\nTopic: Classification of income from leasing out machinery as business income or income from other sources.\n•\nIssue: Whether the income from leasing foundry machinery to a sister concern should be classified as business income or income from other sources.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe income from leasing out machinery was rightly classified as income from “other sources” and not business income.\no\nThe assessee’s involvement in the managing agency business ceased after 1970, and the leasing arrangement did not qualify as business income.\n•\nCase References:\no\nNew Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1969): Followed.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 205 of 1982 (Reference No. 117 of 1982), decision dated: 10-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. SIDDICK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Uttam Reddy for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "V. RAMAKRISHANAN SONS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 118 = 2000 SLD 118 = 2000 PTD 2055 = (1999) 235 ITR 663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Power of Tribunal to Recall its Order\n•\nTopic: Tribunal’s authority to recall its order under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, based on a mistaken assumption.\n•\nIssue: The Tribunal held a ground to be redundant based on the mistaken belief that relief had already been granted under section 154. Later, it was found that the relief had not been granted. The question arose whether the Tribunal had the power to recall its order and restore the appeal.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Tribunal had jurisdiction to rectify the mistake, as it was an error apparent from the record.\no\nUnder section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal can recall its order when an error apparent from the record is discovered.\n•\nCase References: No direct case references were provided, but the principle of rectifying mistakes apparent from the record is a well-established judicial practice.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Case No.209 of 1982, decision dated: 19-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. GULATI AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nU. P. SHOE INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 119 = 2000 SLD 119 = 2000 PTD 2057 = (1999) 235 ITR 679", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtIS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Salary - Incentive Bonus\n•\nTopic: Classification of incentive bonus paid to LIC Development Officers as salary versus business income, and the applicability of deductions.\n•\nIssue: Whether the incentive bonus received by LIC Development Officers should be classified as salary or income from business/profession. Additionally, the issue of whether deductions could be made for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties was raised.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe incentive bonus is considered part of the salary and is assessable under the head salary .\no\nIt is not considered business income, as the bonus is part of the remuneration package based on performance (sales) but does not reimburse expenses.\no\nDeduction under section 16(i) for the incentive bonus is allowed, but no separate deduction for expenses is permissible.\n•\nCase References:\no\nCIT v. Durga Kumar Nanda (1995): Distinguished.\no\nCIT v. Pramod Kumar Jain (1995): Distinguished.\no\nBadridas Daga v. CIT (1958): Followed.\no\nBhargava (K.P.) v. CIT (1954): Followed.\no\nChoudary (K. A.) v. CIT (1990): Followed.\no\nGestetner Duplicators (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1979): Referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 105 and 106 of 1986, decision dated: 27-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. GARG AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Mittal and Tarlochan Singh for the Assessee, R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "B. M. PARMAR, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 120 = 2000 SLD 120 = 2000 PTD 3407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance – Limitation on Ex Parte Assessment\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the assessee was brought on the tax roll on the strength of a notice under Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. An ex parte assessment was made after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year during which the notice was issued. The assessment was made under Section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, but was held to be invalid due to the limitation imposed by Section 64(3). Since the limitation period had expired, the ex parte assessment was not sustainable, and the Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal filed by the assessee.\nCitation:\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 1250 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,63,64(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3218/LB to 3223/LB of 1999, decision dated: 9-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. M. Akram fox Appellant. Basharat Ullah Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 122 = 2000 SLD 122 = 2000 PTD 3420 = (1999) 237 ITR 513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Unregistered Firm – Carry Forward and Set-Off of Losses\nConclusion:\nThe case concerns a partner of a firm that was assessed as an unregistered firm for the assessment year 1973-74 but as a registered firm in subsequent years. The partner claimed that the loss of the unregistered firm in 1973-74 could be carried forward and set off against the income from other sources in subsequent years. The Income-tax Officer initially allowed this, but the Commissioner of Income-tax revised the order, asserting that the unregistered firm's losses could only be set off against that firm's income. The Tribunal, however, ruled in favor of the assessee, citing Section 77(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows losses from an unregistered firm to be carried forward and set off against a registered firm's income.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. B.S. Dail Mills (1981) 131 ITR 111 (Kar.)\n•\nCIT v. Sunil Theatre (1989) 177 ITR 558 (P & H)\n•\nExcel Productions v. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 65 (Kar.) fol.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Jadavji Narsidas & Co. (1963) 48 ITR (SC) 41\n•\nCIT v. Sadhana Nayar (1994) 210 ITR 648 (Bom.)\n•\nTodi Paharmal v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 540 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 158 of 1990, decision dated: 23rd September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. RANGA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.V. Prasad for the Commissioner, K.V.S. Bhaskar Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nP.B. JAI SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 123 = 2000 SLD 123 = 2000 PTD 3425 = (1997) 226 ITR 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Tax and Interest on Excess Payment – Minor's Income from Firm\nConclusion:\nThe minor in this case was assessed to income tax on his share in a partnership firm, and his income was included in his father’s total income as per Section 64(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from April 1, 1976. Though the minor filed his return and paid advance tax, a protective assessment was initially made and later canceled, with the income being included in the father's return. The minor's father faced a shortfall in advance tax payment due to the inclusion of the minor’s income. Although the minor had paid advance tax and was entitled to interest under Section 214, the refund was not awarded on grounds of equity. Interest on the shortfall was waived for the father, thus no additional interest was granted to the minor.\nCitation:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 214.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.141 of 1982, decision dated: 10-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S.L. SARF AND IKARAM-UL-BARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for Petitioner. Shambhu Chopra for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Sri ONKAR NATHMAHENDRA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 124 = 2000 SLD 124 = 2000 PTD 3428 = (1999) 237 ITR 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Penalty for Delay in Filing Returns\nStatute: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 271(1)(a)\nSummary:\nThe petitioners were partners of a registered firm, claiming that their main source of income was the share of profits from this firm. The firm filed its returns for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 on January 21, 1984, and January 24, 1985, respectively. The petitioners, however, filed their returns on July 30, 1985. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) imposed a penalty for the delay in filing the returns, as there was no acceptable explanation provided for the delay between January 21, 1984, and July 30, 1985. The only reason given was that they had entrusted all papers to their previous chartered accountant, who was responsible for the delay. However, the same chartered accountant had filed the firm’s returns within the required time.\nConclusion:\nThe court dismissed the writ petitions, finding that the petitioners failed to provide any substantial evidence to justify the delay. The explanation offered about the chartered accountant’s fault was deemed insufficient, especially since the same accountant had filed the firm's return promptly. The penalty under Section 271(1)(a) was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax.\nReference:\nCIT (Addl.) v. Dargapandarinath Tuljayya & Co. (1977) 107 ITR 850 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.4416 to 4419 with W.M.P. Nos.6475 to 6478.of 1989, decision dated: 20-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " P. SATHASIVAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Sivaraman for Petitioners, Mrs. Kala Ramesh for C.V. Rajan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SHIV CHAND DALMIA and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 125 = 2000 SLD 125 = 2000 PTD 3434 = (1999) 237 ITR 821", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Refund of Electricity Charges\nStatute: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 41(1)\nSummary:\nThe assessee, a chemical products manufacturer, challenged the higher electricity tariff charged by the Electricity Department. The dispute was resolved by the Supreme Court on November 21, 1975, which held that the higher tariff did not apply to the assessee. In 1976, the assessee requested a refund of Rs. 8,50,282, and was later refunded Rs. 5,58,597. The Assessing Officer initially argued that the refund should be assessed as income for the assessment year 1977-78, based on the Supreme Court's decision. The appellate authority upheld this, though limited the amount to the refund of Rs. 5,58,597. However, the Tribunal later remanded the case, and the High Court clarified that the receipt could only be assessed under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, and not as a trading receipt.\nConclusion:\nThe court reversed the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the term “obtained” in Section 41(1) should not be interpreted as “capable of being obtained”. The timing of the refund quantification was crucial—since the refund amount was determined in August 1978, the refund could not be included as income for the assessment year 1977-78. The refund was not a trading receipt and therefore could not be assessed as income for that year.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Moon Mills Ltd., (1966) 59 ITR 574 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries (1993) 199 ITR 67 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Rashmi Trading (1976) 103 ITR 312 (Guj.)\n•\nMotilal Ambaidas v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 136 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.86 of 1994, decision dated: 22-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K. K. USHA AND K. A. MOHAMMED SHAFI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair and M.A. Firoz for the Assessee, P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "TRAVANCORE CHEMICAL AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 126 = 2000 SLD 126 = 2000 PTD 3440 = (1999) 237 ITR 865", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Deduction of Incentive Bonus as Business Expenditure\nStatutes: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 36 & 37; Indian Payment of Bonus Act, 1965\nSummary:\nThe case revolves around whether an incentive bonus is deductible as a business expense under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 does not apply to incentive bonuses, attendance bonuses, or customary bonuses, as these are not considered bonuses under that Act. The allowance for such expenditure is determined under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The expenditure on incentive bonuses is considered allowable for deduction under Section 37, which pertains to the general deduction of business expenses.\nConclusion:\nThe incentive bonus paid by the assessee is allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Payment of Bonus Act does not affect the deductibility of incentive bonuses for tax purposes.\nReference:\nCIT v. Sivanandha Mills Limited (1985) 156 ITR 629 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.984 of 1985 (Reference No.5.15 of 1985, decision dated: 5-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHAVANI MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 127 = 2000 SLD 127 = 2000 PTD 3412 = (1999) 237 ITR 549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Reassessment Due to Failure to Disclose Material Facts\nStatutes: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 147(a), 148 & 149\nSummary:\nThe case deals with the reassessment of an assessee who transferred land to a firm in which they were partners. The transfer resulted in capital gains, but the transfer was not disclosed in the return filed by the assessees, nor during the original assessment. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment under Sections 147(a) and 148, stating that the capital gains from the land transfer were not disclosed, leading to an escapement of income. The assessees argued that the ITO was already aware of the land transfer as it was disclosed during the assessment of the firm. They claimed that the ITO’s knowledge of the land transfer in the firm’s assessment relieved them of the duty to disclose it.\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) initially accepted the assessees' argument and cancelled the reassessment. However, the Tribunal affirmed the ITO's reassessment order, and the matter was referred to the High Court.\nConclusion:\nThe court reaffirmed that it is the duty of the assessee to disclose all primary facts necessary for the assessment. Even though the ITO could have discovered the transfer of land during the firm’s assessment, the failure of the assessee to disclose the material facts in their return was deemed sufficient for reopening the assessment. The reassessment was thus held to be valid.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC)\n•\nPhool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC)\n•\nSri Krishna Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC)\n•\nZohar Siraj Lokhandwala v. M.G. Kamat (1994) 210 ITR 956 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.443 of 1985, decision dated: 3rd November 1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with S.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMiss ESTHER P. CARVALHO and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 128 = 2000 SLD 128 = 2000 PTD 3410 = (2001) 83 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Penalty for Late Filing of Return\nStatutes: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 108 & 136\nSummary:\nIn this case, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty for the late filing of the return of total income, which was subsequently reduced by the First Appellate Authority. The reduction was made on the grounds that the delay was not intentional or willful. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the First Appellate Authority's order. The issue presented in the case was whether the delay was intentional, which was a question of fact, not law.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the question of whether the delay was intentional or not was a factual determination made by the two lower forums. Since no question of law arose from the decision, the appeal under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, could not be entertained.\nReference:\n•\nAdditional CIT v. Chattur Singh Taragi 1980 PTD 91\n•\nCIT v. L.H. Vora (1968) 17 Tax 7 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 2 of 1998, heard on 6-06-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND TALAT QAYUM QURESHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Eid Muhammad Khattak for Appellant. Dilawar Khan Jadoon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, ZONEA, PESHAWAR\nVs\nRUSTAM KHAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICER, MANSEHRA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 129 = 2000 SLD 129 = 2000 PTD 3400 = (2001) 84 TAX 172 = (2001) 83 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Penalty for Late Filing of Return and Appeal\nStatutes: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 108 & 136\nSummary:\nThe assessee filed a late return, and the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty. The penalty was reduced by the First Appellate Authority, based on the finding that the default was not intentional and had reasonable cause. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. The issue was whether an appeal under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, could be filed when no question of law arose from the decision of the lower forums.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court held that an appeal under Section 136 could only be filed if there was a question of law arising from the order. Since the question before the Appellate Authority was based on the facts of the case and not the interpretation of legal provisions, no question of law had arisen. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable, and the decision of the First Appellate Authority, confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, stood.\nReference:\n•\nAdditional CIT v. Chattur Singh Taragi 1980 PTD 91\n•\nCIT v. L.H. Vora (1968) 17 Tax 7 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No.3 of 1998, decision dated: 8-06-2000, hearing DATE : 6-06-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND TALAT QAYUM QURESHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Eid Muhammad Khattak for Appellant. Abdur Razzaq and Azhar Naeem Qurni for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, PESHAWAR, ZONEPR\nVs\nMUHAMMAD ZAHOOR, PALVESHAH FURNITURE, SUPPLY BAZAR, ABBOTTABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 423 = 1999 SLD 423 = 1999 PTD 3550 = (1998) 230 ITR 794", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtITFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Business Expenditure: Capital or Revenue\nStatutes: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 31(1), 37, & 256(2)\nSummary:\nThe assessee, a hotel owner, claimed a deduction for the expenditure incurred on repairing and modernizing the hotel, including replacing old components such as furniture and fittings. The Income-tax Officer classified the expenditure as capital, as it provided an enduring benefit to the business. However, the Tribunal held that the expenditure was for current repairs and modernizing the hotel, and therefore, it was revenue expenditure. The case was referred to the High Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the expenditure was incurred to create a more conducive and beautiful environment for the hotel business, and was not of an enduring nature. Therefore, the expenditure was rightly treated as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act and allowed as a deduction.\nReference:\nCIT v. Dasaprakash (1978) 114 ITR 210 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1335 to 1338 of 1982 (References Nos.826 to 829 of 1982), decision dated: 13-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner, P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSIMPSON & CO. LTD. (N0.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 130 = 2000 SLD 130 = 2000 PTD 2087 = (1999) 235 ITR 743", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Questions of Law and Fact\nStatutes: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 256(2)\n(a) Depreciation and Government Subsidy\nIssue: Whether a government subsidy should be deducted from the actual cost for calculating depreciation.\nConclusion: The question of deducting a government subsidy from the actual cost for calculating depreciation was concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court. Since the issue had already been settled by the apex court, the question was not fit for reference under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act.\n(b) Addition to Income\nIssue: Whether the addition made to the income was correct or how much addition should be made.\nConclusion: The issue was determined to be a question of fact, not law. As a result, no question of law arose from the matter, and thus, it was not eligible for reference under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B: Income Tax Reference Application No. 6 of 1995, decision dated: 17-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.R. ARORA AND P. C., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner, Sanjeev Johri for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBANSWARA TEXTILES MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 131 = 2000 SLD 131 = 2000 PTD 2090 = (1999) 235 ITR 747", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Recovery of Tax and Mortgaged Property\nStatutes: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 220(2), 226(3)\nIssue: The Tax Recovery Officer issued a notice to a company to recover tax arrears from a partner of a firm who had mortgaged property to the petitioner (mortgagee). The company was asked to pay rent due from the company to the Tax Recovery Officer for recovery of tax dues from the partner.\nConclusion: The Tax Recovery Officer's actions were invalid. The property was mortgaged to the petitioner, not the partner, and the company was the tenant of the petitioner, not the partner. Therefore, the company was not required to pay rent to the partner or the firm. The recovery proceedings were deemed unlawful, and the amount recovered from the company was directed to be refunded to the petitioner.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "No. 2173 of 1997, decision dated: 17-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Mittal for Petitioner R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with S. K. Sharma for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ANITA RANI\nVs\nTAX COVERY OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 132 = 2000 SLD 132 = 2000 PTD 2094 = (1999) 235 ITR 785", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Questions of Law and Fact\nStatutes: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 256, 37\n(a) Inference from Facts\nIssue: Whether an inference drawn from facts found is a question of law.\nConclusion: The inference drawn from the facts is a question of law because it involves applying legal principles to the facts of the case.\n(b) Gifts to Children of Cine Artiste\nIssue: Whether gifts given to the children of a cine artiste by film producers constitute indirect remuneration to the cine artiste.\nConclusion: The issue was deemed a question of law. The Tribunal held that the gifts were not remuneration for the cine artiste’s professional services. The matter was referred for further consideration under Section 256, focusing on whether these gifts should be included in the cine artiste's income.\n(c) Leasing Distribution Rights\nIssue: Whether the amount received by the assessee for leasing distribution rights of a picture was assessable.\nConclusion: The issue involved examining the effect of the lease agreements. The question was referred for further clarification.\n(d) Business Expenditure and Mercantile Accounting\nIssue: Whether the amounts payable during the accounting year related to leased pictures should be deducted under the mercantile system of accounting.\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction for amounts payable during the relevant accounting year. No question of law arose from the Tribunal’s order, and therefore, no reference was made under Section 256.\nReference:\n•\nChitarasu (C.P.) v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Sundaravadanam (B. M.) (Dr.) (1984) 148 ITR 333 (Mad.)\n•\nGeorge Thomas (K.) (Dr.) v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 412 (SC)\n•\nPatnaik & Co. Ltd v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 365 (SC)\n•\nSree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 28 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C.P. Nos. 70 to 73 of 1996, decision dated: 20-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner, P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG. S. R. KRISHNAMURTHY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 133 = 2000 SLD 133 = 2000 PTD 2106 = (1999) 235 ITR 507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Appeal to AAC — Power of AAC — Export markets development allowance — Weighted deduction claimed in respect of some items before Income-tax Officer — AAC's power to consider claim in respect of other items\nConclusion:\nThe assessee had claimed the weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for certain items before the Income-tax Officer (ITO). Later, the assessee sought to claim this deduction on additional items before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). It was concluded that since the assessee had already set up a claim for weighted deduction before the ITO, the AAC had the power to entertain and consider the additional items for the same claim. The Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the AAC to consider the claim for the additional items, especially as there was no finding by any authority that the facts regarding these additional items were not available on record.\nReferences/Citations:\nMadhu Jayanti (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 277 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No.212 of 1981, decision dated: 28-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharat Ji Agarwal for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHARAT CURIO STORES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 134 = 2000 SLD 134 = 2000 PTD 2108 = (1999) 235 ITR 509", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Income — Additions to income — Remittances received by assessee from abroad for Indian Gospel Mission — Not assessable in assessee's hands\nConclusion:\nThe remittances received by the assessee from abroad were not considered taxable in the hands of the assessee, as the amounts were received for and on behalf of the Indian Gospel Mission. Since the funds were intended for the Mission and not for personal use or as income of the assessee, they could not be assessed as income.\nReferences/Citations:\nNone provided in the text.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. Nos. 170, 171, 172, 173 and 174 of 1991, decision dated: 27-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner, P. Balachandran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDr. K. GEORGE THOMAS through Executor of the Will" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 135 = 2000 SLD 135 = 2000 PTD 2110 = (1999) 235 ITR 514", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Salary — Deduction — Exemption — Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) — Deduction of 40% of incentive bonus and whole of additional conveyance allowance received by Development Officers allowed by Tribunal — Incentive bonus and additional conveyance allowance not reimbursed expenses — No exemption notification under S.10(14) for such allowances\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction of 40% of the incentive bonus and the entire additional conveyance allowance for Development Officers was incorrect. The incentive bonus and conveyance allowance were taxable under the head Salary, as specified in sections 15, 16, and 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These amounts were not reimbursements of expenses but part of the salary. Furthermore, as no specific notification under section 10(14) existed for exemption regarding incentive bonuses or additional conveyance allowances, these amounts were not eligible for exemption. Therefore, the amounts should be included in the income of the Development Officers and taxed accordingly.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nChoudary (K. A.) v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 29 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. B. Chinnaiah (1995) 214 ITR 368 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Sheo Raj Bhatia (1999) 235 ITR 523 (Raj.) (Appex)\n•\nCIT v. Sir S. M. Chitnavis (1932) 2 Comp Cas 464; AIR 1932 PC 178\n•\nCIT v. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. (1983) 141 ITR 415 (Mad.)\n•\nKrishna Murthy (M.) v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 163 (AP)\n•\nM. A. Namazie Endowment v. CIT (1988) 174 ITR 58 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 131 of 1997, decision dated: 22-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND K. P. SIVASUBURAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramanian for the Commissioner, T. C. A. Ramanujam for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nE. A. RAJENDRAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 136 = 2000 SLD 136 = 2000 PTD 2119 = (1999) 235 ITR 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Business Expenditure — Guarantee Commission Paid for Deferred Payment of Machinery Consideration\nConclusion:\nThe guarantee commission paid by the assessee to the bank and ICICI for ensuring the deferred payment of the purchase consideration for machinery was allowable as revenue expenditure. This expenditure was incurred as part of the normal business operations and not as a capital outlay, hence qualifying as a deductible business expense under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Akkamamba Textiles Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 464 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Sivakami Mills Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 465 (SC)\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax — Disallowance of Personal Use of Telephone Facility by Director\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s decision to disallow one-sixth of the telephone expenditure for personal use by the director was justified. There was no evidence to show that the entire telephone facility was used solely for business purposes. A portion of the expenditure was appropriately deemed as personal and was therefore disallowed under sections 40A(5) and 40(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReferences/Citations:\nNone provided in the text.\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax — Reimbursement of Medical Expenses of Director\nConclusion:\nThe reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the director was categorized as a benefit to the director under Section 40(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since it was considered a benefit to the director, it was not allowable as a business expenditure.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nGujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 358 (Guj.)\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax — Insurance Premium for Directors’ Personal Accident\nConclusion:\nIf a company takes out a personal accident insurance policy for its directors to protect itself against liabilities arising from accidents, the premium paid is a deductible business expense. This is because the company's objective was to insure itself against potential liabilities towards the directors, rather than offering a voluntary benefit to the directors. Therefore, such premiums are allowable as business expenses under Section 37.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nCIT v. Lala Shri Dhar (1972) 84 ITR 192 (Delhi)\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax — Foreign Tour Expenses for Setting Up New Projects\nConclusion:\nExpenditure on foreign tours of directors and employees to set up new projects in Malaysia and Indonesia was considered capital expenditure. The projects were not part of the existing business, and the expenses were incurred with the aim of establishing new business ventures, making the expenses capital in nature, and therefore not deductible under Section 37.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nMcGaw-Ravindra Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 1002 (Guj.)\n•\nShahibag Entrepreneurs (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 998 (Guj.)\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax — Development Rebate on Machinery\nConclusion:\nThe machinery installed in both the textile division and the machinery division was eligible for a higher development rebate of 25% under Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The textile machinery was covered by Item 32 of the Fifth Schedule, while the machinery in the machinery division was covered by Item 4, allowing both to qualify for the rebate.\nReferences/Citations:\nNone provided in the text.\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax — Legal Expenses for Defending Compensation Claim\nConclusion:\nLegal expenses incurred to resist a higher compensation claim for land acquired were deemed capital expenditures. Since the expenses were related to the acquisition of land and impacted its cost, they could not be treated as revenue expenditure under Section 37.\nReferences/Citations:\nNone provided in the text.\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax — Revision of Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144B\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) is permitted to revise a draft assessment order under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to correct any errors or omissions. The revised draft order does not create a vested right in the assessee. As long as the procedure allows the assessee to object to the revised order, there is no prejudice caused, and the revised order does not vitiate the assessment proceedings.\nReferences/Citations:\nNone provided in the text.\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax — Fluctuations in Foreign Exchange and Capital Expenditure\nConclusion:\nLosses resulting from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates are considered capital in nature and must be added to the actual cost of the asset under Section 43A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The loss is not an allowable revenue expenditure.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nCIT v. Windsor Foods Ltd. (1999) 235 ITR 249 (Guj.)\n•\nAmbica Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 583 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Akkamba Textiles Ltd. (1979) 117 ITR 294 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 644 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 389 (Guj.)\n•\nSudhir Sateen v. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 445 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 88 of 1983, decision dated: 3rd April, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Hansa B. Punani for the Assessee, Pranav Desai with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AMBICA MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 137 = 2000 SLD 137 = 2000 PTD 2157 = 2001 PTCL 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to Revise Deputy Commissioner’s Order\nConclusion:\nSection 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, can be invoked when an erroneous order is passed by the Assessing Officer that causes prejudice to the Revenue. However, the order under Section 66-A should not be used for minor corrections or without examining the substance of the matter. In this case, the Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s revision under Section 66-A was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal as the error was a clerical mistake, which did not justify the revision.\nReferences/Citations:\nNone provided in the text.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 190/KB of 1997, decision dated: 2-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal, I.T.P. for Appellant, Mehfooz-ur-Rehman Pasha, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 138 = 2000 SLD 138 = 2000 PTD 2159 = 2001 PTCL 189 = (2000) 81 TAX 390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Jurisdiction of Central Board of Revenue to Issue Circulars Affecting Judicial Powers of Assessing Officer\nConclusion:\nThe Central Board of Revenue (CBR) does not have the jurisdiction to issue circulars that affect the judicial or quasi-judicial powers exercised by the Income-tax Authorities. Any circular issued by the CBR cannot override the judicial discretion or power of the Assessing Officer.\nReferences/Citations:\nNone provided in the text.\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Adjustment of Tax Deducted at Source\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer’s refusal to allow adjustment of tax deducted at source under Section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, during the financial year when computing the advance tax payable by the assessee was declared to be unlawful. The High Court ruled that the tax deducted at source should be considered while calculating advance tax payable under Section 53, thus disallowing the Assessing Officer's decision.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nCollector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore and others v. Messrs S. M. Ahmad & Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad 1999 SCMR 138\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Constitutional Petition Regarding Tax Adjustment\nConclusion:\nThe constitutional petition filed by the assessee regarding the non-adjustment of tax deducted under Section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was entertained by the High Court. The Court ruled that the law explicitly allowed the adjustment of tax deducted at source while calculating the advance tax payable, and the Assessing Officer’s failure to comply with this provision was without lawful authority.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nK. G. Old, Principal, Christian, Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court Northern Zone and others PLD 1976 Lah. 1097", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,50 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Art.199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10536 of 1998, heard on 9-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Hamid for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "THE BANK OF PUNJAB, LAHORE\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 139 = 2000 SLD 139 = 2000 PTD 2162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Rectification of Mistake under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nCase Summary:\nThis case deals with the rectification of mistakes in the Appellate Tribunal’s orders under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The assessee applied for the rectification of two issues:\n1.\nFirst Issue: The assessee argued that the Appellate Tribunal misquoted written submissions and failed to reproduce the arguments, leading to incorrect conclusions. The Tribunal was accused of misinterpreting the facts by citing we find on the facts and circumstances supra without considering the detailed written submissions.\n2.\nSecond Issue: The assessee contended that the Tribunal had recorded a figure of Rs. 14,000,000 for purchases in the trading account, whereas the actual figure was Rs. 12,400,000. The Tribunal’s conclusion was based on this erroneous figure, which the assessee had not brought up during the hearing.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal dismissed both applications for rectification. The Court held that if there were omissions or errors in the Appellate Assistant Commissioner’s order, those should be rectified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and not by the Appellate Tribunal. The error regarding the purchases figure had not been raised during the hearing, and therefore the Tribunal’s order was upheld.\nReferences:\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Sethi Brothers, 1987 PTD 703\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore v. Gulzar Muhammad, 1989 PTD 1008\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Koh-i-Noor Trading Company, Sialkot, 1989 PTD 1047", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (RECT) 160/KB of 1999-2000 (Ref: I.T.O: No.1502/KB of 1998), decision dated: 16-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P. for Appellant. Muhammad Umer Farooque, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 274 = 2000 SLD 274 = 2000 PTD 2165 = (2000) 82 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Discretion of the Tribunal Regarding Appeal Procedure\nCase Summary:\nThis case concerns the dismissal of a departmental appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned order was missing from the Memorandum of Appeal. The Department contended that the Tribunal could exercise discretion under Rule 11(3) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, to accept the appeal even without all required documents.\nConclusion:\nThe Court ruled in favor of the Department, emphasizing that technicalities should not hinder the fair dispensation of justice. The Tribunal had the discretion to accept the Memorandum of Appeal even if some documents were missing, particularly since the oversight was due to an administrative lapse in the Tribunal's office. The Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal’s dismissal and remanded the case for reconsideration.\nReferences:\n•\nZamir Hussain and others v. Rasul Butt, PLD 1992 Lah. 427\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Koh-i-Noor Trading Company, 1989 PTD 1047", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=R.11,R.11(3) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R.1 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 13 of 1998, heard on 2-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Noor Mustafa and Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Appellant. Rana Nazar Saeed on behalf of Muhammad Ali Kausar Siddique for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMUHAMMAD TARIQ JAVED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 275 = 2000 SLD 275 = 2000 PTD 2171 = 2001 PTCL 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Tax Rectification\nCase Summary:\nThis case involves an assessee who had filed a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The Assessing Officer subsequently rectified the assessment under Section 156 and imposed tax on prize bond winnings under Section 50(7C) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The assessee argued that the income should be covered under the presumptive tax regime (Section 80-D) and was not subject to tax under Section 50(7C), as no individual prize exceeded Rs. 25,000.\nConclusion:\nThe Court ruled that the Assessing Officer’s actions were flawed. The imposition of tax under Section 156 and the additional tax under Section 88 were without jurisdiction, as these provisions did not apply to the assessee’s case. The Court held that the Assessing Officer should have invoked Sections 52 and 52A, which are specifically related to the taxation of such income. The orders under Sections 56 and 88 were annulled by the Appellate Tribunal.\nReferences:\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Crescent Pak Soap and Oil Mills Ltd., 1985 PTD 3", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,86,88,59(1),50(7C),80D,52 & 52A ", + "Case #": "I.T. As: Nos. 1416/KB and 1417/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 1st March, 2000", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.S. Jafry for Appellant. Zaki Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 276 = 1990 SLD 276 = 1990 PTD 196 = (1990) 61 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Insurance Companies and Income Calculation\nCase Summary:\nAn insurance company, not engaged in life insurance, sought exemption under Section 4(3)(xii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, in respect of income derived from house property. The company argued that its income should be exempt as it was calculated under the First Schedule provisions for the insurance business.\nConclusion:\nThe Court rejected the assessee’s claim for exemption. It ruled that the special rules for calculating profits and gains in the insurance business under the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1922, supersede ordinary tax computation methods. The Court emphasized that Section 4(3)(xii) applies only to income calculated under the head Income from Property, which was irrelevant for the insurance business under the First Schedule.\nReferences:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. The Asian Insurance Co. Ltd. (1962) 46 I.T.R. 560\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. Karachi, PLD 1981 SC 293\n•\nVanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1966) 60 I.T.R. 496", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(xii),10(7) & First Schedule,R.2(b),6,7,8,9 & 10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 28-K of 1978, decision dated: 7-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, SAAD SAOOD JAN AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noorul Arifin, Advocate of Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Sheik Haider, Advocate of Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hasan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HABIB INSURANCE CO. LTD. and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 277 = 2000 SLD 277 = 2000 PTCL 282 = 2000 PTD 2173 = (2000) 81 TAX 249 = (2000) 82 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Interpretation of Statutes and Non-Obstate Clauses\nCase Summary:\nThis case discusses the legal interpretation of non obstante or notwithstanding clauses in statutes. The issue involved the interpretation of conflicting provisions in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, specifically the application of the Third Schedule and the Second Schedule regarding slump sales.\n1.\nNon Obstate Clause: The Court explained that such clauses override earlier provisions only in cases of conflict. It emphasized that such clauses should be applied in the context of the statutory scheme to resolve inconsistencies.\n2.\nExemption for Slump Sale: The Court considered the tax treatment of proceeds from a sale of a business where the entire concern, including assets like buildings, furniture, and equipment, was sold as a lump sum.\nConclusion:\nThe Court ruled that a slump sale, where a business is sold as a whole, should not be taxed under provisions that apply to the sale of individual assets. The sale proceeds were not liable to tax under Clause 7(c) of the Third Schedule, which deals with asset sales, as the sale was a complete business transfer. The Court cited that such sales are exempt from taxation under certain conditions.\nReferences:\n•\nPackages Limited and others v. Muhammad Maqbool, PLD 1991 SC 258\n•\nFederation of Pakistan and others v. Saeed Ahmed, PLD 1974 SC 151\n•\nArif Hussain Shah v. The Operative Director Administration, Electric Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1979 PLC 389", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,PartI,cl.99 & ThirdSched,cl.7(c) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 174 of 1991, heard on 13-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Mansoor Ahmed Khan far Respondent. C.N. Ramachandran Nair and A.K.J. Nambiar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNATIONAL AGRICULTURE LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 278 = 2000 SLD 278 = 2000 PTD 2188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income from House Property and Notional Assessment\nCase Summary:\nIn this case, an assessee, a co-owner of a property leased to a company of which he was a director, declared rental income based on the actual rent received from the company. However, the company sublet the property at a much higher rent to third parties. The Assessing Officer considered the transaction to be collusive and assessed the income on a notional basis, based on the higher sublet rent.\nConclusion:\nThe Court upheld the Assessing Officer's action, stating that the income from property should be assessed on the basis of what could reasonably be expected from the property, rather than the actual rent received. Under Section 19(2), the annual value is related to the market value of the property and not limited to the actual rent received by the owner. As the company was subletting the property at a higher rent, this could reasonably be expected as the annual value for tax purposes.\nReferences:\n•\nM. Rehman, Income-tax Officer and others v. Narayangang Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (1971) 23 Tax 223\n•\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 122\n•\nI.T.A. Nos. 933 to 937/LB of 1991-92", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,19(2),156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.423/LB of 1993 and 2115/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 13-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. A. Khan for Appellant, Sh. Muhammad Hanif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nANJANI KUMAR & CO. (PVT) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 279 = 2000 SLD 279 = 2000 PTD 2193 = 2001 PTCL 439 = (2000) 82 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistake and Tax Recovery\n•\nKey Topics: Rectification of mistake, Additional assessment, Presumptive tax regime, Tax recovery under Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nCase Summary: The assessee, a contractor, declared an amount of Rs. 23,00,000 for construction work. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, claiming additional tax under Section 88 due to non-deduction of tax under Section 50(4). The assessee contested this, arguing that the income was covered under the presumptive tax regime. The Appellate Tribunal and First Appellate Authority rejected the claim. However, the court held that if the income was under the presumptive tax regime, the provisions of Sections 52, 52A, and 86 applied for recovery, not the normal tax regime under Section 65. Thus, the AO's actions were found to be without jurisdiction, and the proceedings were annulled.\n•\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer was found to have no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 65 since the income was covered under the presumptive tax regime. The action taken was declared void.\n•\nReferences: I.T.A. No.473/KB of 1999-2000; PLD 1997 SC 582", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,65,62,86,88,80C,143B,50(4),52 & 52A ", + "Case #": "M.A. (R) 82 (IB) in I.T.A. No. 201/IB and M. A. (R) No. 50(IB) of 1999-2000, decision dated: 7-03-2000hearing DATE : 7-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD DAUD TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmed for Applicant. Abdul Wadood, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 280 = 2000 SLD 280 = 2000 PTD 3396 = (2000) 82 TAX 127 = (2001) 83 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction on Service Charges\n•\nKey Topics: Deduction of tax at source, Tax default, Jurisdiction of Director Finance, Service charge violation.\n•\nCase Summary: The case involved WAPDA and a bank where the bank violated an agreement not to charge service fees for the collection of electricity bills. The Assessing Officer treated the Director Finance of WAPDA as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax on the service charges. The court ruled that WAPDA, being a statutory body, was not liable for this charge as no commission was to be paid to the bank. Additionally, the Director Finance did not fall within the definition of a Principal Officer under Section 2(34) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: The assessment actions against the Director Finance were deemed unlawful, and the orders were declared of no legal effect.\n•\nReferences: Circular No. 11 of 1991, WAPDA agreement with Bank.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),(2),2(29)(32),2(34) & 34,2(34)(a),2(34B) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11510 of 1997, decision dated: 17-04-2000, hearing DATE : 7-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioners. Shahbaz Butt for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "THE DIRECTOR FINANCE (A.E.B.), WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GUJRANWALA and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 281 = 2000 SLD 281 = 2000 PTD 2204 = (1999) 235 ITR 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital or Revenue Expenditure\n•\nKey Topics: Capital expenditure, Revenue expenditure, Machinery maintenance, Integral machinery, Sugar plant.\n•\nCase Summary: The assessee, engaged in sugar manufacturing, incurred substantial expenditure on machinery maintenance, replacing key components of the sugar plant. The AO initially classified the expenditure as capital, but the Tribunal ruled that these components were integral parts of the plant, and their replacement was a revenue expenditure, not capital, since no new assets were created.\n•\nConclusion: The expenditure was correctly treated as revenue expenditure since the machinery was integral to the plant's functioning, and its replacement did not result in new assets of enduring value.\n•\nReferences: Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No-88 of 1995, decision dated: 18-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon; Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. B.S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate, P.R. Raman and K. Anand for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCOOPERATIVE SUGARS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 282 = 2000 SLD 282 = 2000 PTD 2211 = (1999) 235 ITR 398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "2518 - Deduction of Sales Tax Payment Under Section 43-B\n•\nKey Topics: Deduction of sales tax, Actual payment, Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nCase Summary: The assessee paid sales tax after the end of the accounting year but within the prescribed period under Section 43-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, which allows the deduction of tax paid before the due date for submitting a return. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the payment, although made in the subsequent year, was within the statutory timeframe and thus deductible.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal's ruling was affirmed, allowing the deduction of sales tax paid after the accounting year but within the statutory deadline.\n•\nReferences: Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 147 of 1991, decision dated: 3rd November, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " B.A. KHAN AND SHAMBHOO SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Jain for the Commissioner. Maheshwari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRAGATI METAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 283 = 2000 SLD 283 = 2000 PTD 2214 = (1999) 235 ITR 386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Irregularity vs. Nullity in Tax Orders\n•\nKey Topics: Jurisdiction, Irregularity vs. Nullity, Waiver of irregularity, Tax appeal process.\n•\nCase Summary: The assessee’s advocate filed a petition for the cancellation of an ex parte assessment, which was subsequently canceled, and a fresh assessment was conducted. The assessee later contested that the advocate did not have authority to file the petition. However, the court ruled that the assessee had ratified the action by participating in the fresh assessment without objection. The court distinguished between irregularity (which can be waived) and nullity (which cannot), determining that the cancellation was not a nullity.\n•\nConclusion: The ex parte assessment cancellation was upheld as valid due to the assessee's participation in subsequent proceedings and the waiver of objections.\n•\nReferences: Dhrendra Nath Gorai v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, AIR 1964 SC 1300.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.124 and 125 of 1994, decision dated: 13-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K. K. USHA AND N. DHINAKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair and M.A. Feroz for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nN. KRISHNAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 284 = 2000 SLD 284 = 2000 PTD 2222 = (1999) 235 ITR 1 = (1999) 79 TAX 549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains Computation for Non-Resident\n•\nKey Topics: Capital gains, Non-resident, Rule 115, Sale proceeds in Indian currency.\n•\nCase Summary: A non-resident company sold shares of an Indian company, receiving the sale proceeds in Indian currency, which were then converted into U.S. dollars and remitted abroad. The assessee calculated capital gains using Rule 115 of the Income Tax Rules, which was for converting foreign currency into Indian rupees. The Income-tax Officer ruled against this, treating the capital gain in Indian rupees based on the sale price in India. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's computation based on the actual transaction in Indian currency, irrespective of the remittance in foreign currency.\n•\nConclusion: The capital gain was computed in Indian currency since the transaction was carried out in Indian rupees, even though the funds were remitted in foreign currency.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Pfizer Corporation (1993) 202 ITR 115 (Bom.); Asbestos Cement Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 358 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1987, decision dated: 15-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANSOOR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Milind Sathe with S.A. Diwan for the Commissioner. P.I. Kaka instructed by T. Pooran & Company for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nE.R. SQUIBB & SONS INC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 285 = 1999 SLD 285 = 1999 PTD 2227 = (1999) 235 ITR 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income-tax - Penalty for Concealment of Income)\nCase Summary:\nThis case involves a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee, a firm, had claimed a deduction for Rs. 63,993 as interest paid to a financing firm. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) disallowed this deduction on the grounds of a close relationship between the partners of the assessee-firm and the financing firm, and alleged manipulation of capital accounts.\nThe ITO imposed a penalty for concealment of income based on this disallowance, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this. However, the Tribunal, upon reviewing the facts, decided to cancel the penalty. It found that the transactions were not manipulative, the financing firm was genuine, and the fund transfer was reflected in the bank accounts, not just in the books. The Tribunal concluded that there was no concealment or inaccurate reporting.\nKey Legal Points:\n1.\nStandard of Proof for Penalty: The standard of proof for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is different from that for determining income addition. A penalty cannot be imposed if the case put forth by the assessee is plausible and there could be two legitimate views on the matter.\n2.\nTribunal's Role: The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. In this case, the Tribunal evaluated the facts and found no concealment of income.\n3.\nNo Question of Law: The findings of the Tribunal were based on the evaluation of facts, and no question of law arose for reference.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s findings were based on facts and no error in law was found. The penalty for concealment of income was not justified.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 40 of 1996, decision dated: 25-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. GULATI AND O. P., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGARG ENGINEERING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 286 = 2000 SLD 286 = 2000 PTD 2230 = (1999) 235 ITR 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income-tax - Advance Tax Interest)\nCase Summary:\nThe assessee, a company, was required to pay advance tax on interest income. However, the payer of the interest did not deduct tax at the time the interest accrued, but only deducted it after the financial year had ended. The ITO charged interest under section 215, which deals with interest for non-payment or late payment of advance tax, without considering the tax deductible at source under section 194-A. The assessee contended that the tax deductible at source should be reduced from the advance tax liability for computing interest under section 215.\nThe Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, agreed with the assessee, stating that the term tax deductible under the relevant provisions should be considered for calculating interest under section 215, not just the amount actually deducted.\nKey Legal Points:\n1.\nAdvance Tax and Interest: The interest charged under section 215 should be computed after reducing the tax deductible at source (as per sections 194-A, etc.), even if the tax was not deducted at the time of accrual but was deducted later.\n2.\nMeaning of Tax Deductible : The Tribunal held that the expression tax deductible should not be confused with tax actually deducted and should be considered when calculating interest under section 215.\n3.\nRole of Sections 194-A, 191, and 215: The payer is liable to deduct tax at the time of crediting interest, and if this is not done, the assessee must pay the tax directly under section 191. However, the assessee should not be penalized with interest under section 215 for the payer’s failure to deduct tax at the time of accrual.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal was correct in ruling that the amount of tax deductible at source should be considered when calculating interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 105 with 147, 192, 193 and 195 of 1990, 110, 115, 161, 173, 185, 187, 217,219, 220, 227, 234, 245 of 1991, 14, 27, 51, 60, 61, 83, 283, 285, 378, 392 of 1992, 270, 284, 285 of 1995, 62, 66, 68 and 69 of 1996, decision dated: 31st March, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " R.K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir Thakore with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. D.A. Mehta, R.K. Pates, M.K. Pates and B.D. Karia for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRANOLI INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 287 = 2000 SLD 287 = 2000 PTD 2248 = (1999) 235 ITR 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Gratuity\nIssue:\n•\nWhether provisions made for additional gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act during the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1973-74 are deductible under Section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe expression any sum paid under Section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act is interpreted broadly to include not just cash payments but also the transfer of valuable securities.\n•\nRule 101 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, does not prohibit trustees from receiving valuable securities. Only after Section 43B was introduced (in 1984) did the Act require actual cash payment for contributions to a gratuity fund.\n•\nIn the case at hand, the provision made for additional gratuity amounting to Rs. 3,07,607 was in compliance with the Payment of Gratuity Act, and the Tribunal rightly held that the amount was deductible for assessment year 1973-74.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 36(1)(v)\n•\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962, Rule 101\n•\nRaja Mohan Raja Bahadur v. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 378 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Loyal Textile Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 573 (Mad.)\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax - Gratuity - Transfer of Approved Securities\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the transfer of approved securities to a gratuity fund constitutes payment for the purpose of Section 36 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75.\nConclusion:\n•\nIn the relevant accounting year, the assessee discharged its liability partly through the transfer of approved securities and partly through cash payments.\n•\nThe securities were recognized in the accounts of the gratuity fund, satisfying the requirement for payment. \n•\nThe transfer of these securities, which were purchased earlier with cash and were approved for investment in the gratuity fund, fulfilled the obligation of payment. The Tribunal’s decision that the liability was discharged was correct.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 36(1)(v)\n•\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962, Rule 101\n•\nCIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 770 (Bom.)\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax - Reference - Point Not Raised Before Tribunal\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the High Court can consider points not raised before the Tribunal during reference proceedings.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court cannot entertain points that were not raised or considered by the Tribunal. The issue of whether the amount of gratuity was payable during the previous year had not been raised by the Revenue at the Tribunal stage, thus it could not be brought up in the High Court during reference proceedings.\nCitations/References:\n•\nRaja Mohan Raja Bahadur v. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 378 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 190 and 191 of 1984 (References Nos. 139 and 140 of 1984), decision dated: 29-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramaniam for C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. T. Srinivasamoorthy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVELLORE ELECTRIC CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 288 = 2000 SLD 288 = 2000 PTD 2259 = (1999) 235 ITR 142 = (1999) 79 TAX 513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Depreciation - Change in Constitution of Firm\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the assessee-firm is entitled to claim depreciation on the book value of the machinery when there was no change in the constitution of the firm after its predecessor was taken over as a proprietary concern.\nConclusion:\n•\nIf there is a change in the constitution of a firm, depreciation can only be claimed based on the written down value of the assets.\n•\nIf there is no change in the constitution, depreciation can be claimed either on the book value or market value of the assets.\n•\nIn this case, after the original firm came to an end and was taken over as a proprietary concern, the new partnership (assessee-firm) was entitled to claim depreciation on the book value of the assets because no change in the constitution of the assessee-firm occurred.\n•\nThe Tribunal's order was upheld, and the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under Section 263 was cancelled.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 32\n•\nCIT v. Loyal Textile Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 573 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 239 of 1981 (Reference No.91 of 1981), decision dated: 22-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBISON KNITTING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 289 = 2000 SLD 289 = 2000 PTD 2263 = (1999) 235 ITR 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Penalty - Concealment of Income\nIssue:\n•\nWhether penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income when the assessee had provided an explanation for low gross profit.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalties under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied only if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the assessee has concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of their income.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the assessee had an explanation for the low gross profit rate, attributing it to market conditions and trading necessity. The Revenue did not establish that the assessee had concealed or inaccurately reported income.\n•\nThe addition to income was made based on an estimate, not on any omission of sales or purchases. As such, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied, and the High Court’s reference was deemed incompetent.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 271(1)(c)\n•\nCIT v. Jhaverbhai Biharilal & Co. (1992) 1 BUR 377 (Pat.)\n•\nCIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC)\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income-tax - Reference - Penalty - Explanation 1(b) to Section 271(1)(c)\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the cancellation of penalty was justified in light of the fact that there was no concealment of income.\nConclusion:\n•\nSince the Tribunal concluded that there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars of income, the reference on whether Explanation 1(b) to Section 271(1)(c) was applicable was found to be incompetent.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 271(1)(c)\n•\nCIT v. Nathulal Agarwala & Sons (1985) 153 ITR 292 (Pat.)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No.20 of 1987 (R), decision dated: 17-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. K. Vidyarthi and K. K. Jhunjhunwala for the Commissioner. Binod Poddar, Biren Poddar and Anubha Rawat Chowdhary for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKAILASH CROCKERY HOUSE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 290 = 2000 SLD 290 = 2000 PTD 2269 = (1999) 235 ITR 549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Entertainment Expenditure\nIssue:\n•\nWhether the expenditure incurred on entertainment during the assessment year 1974-75 can be deducted under Section 37(2A) of the Income Tax Act.\nConclusion:\n•\nThere was no clear finding from the Tribunal regarding the nature of the entertainment expenditure incurred by the assessee. The case was remanded for further examination.\n•\nThe Supreme Court had previously ruled that ordinary meals provided as a business necessity would not be classified as entertainment expenditure and could be deducted under Section 37(2A) prior to the retrospective amendment in 1983.\n•\nIn this case, the Tribunal failed to discuss the nature of the entertainment expenses, and as such, it was difficult to determine if the guest house expenses, general charges, and entertainment expenses were deductible.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Section 37(2A)\n•\nCIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC)\n•\nBrij Raman Dass & Sons v. CIT (1976) 104 ITR 541 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.63 of 1982, decision dated: 18-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. GULATI AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "RENUSAGAR POWER CO. LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (NO. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 291 = 2000 SLD 291 = 2000 PTD 2271 = (1999) 235 ITR 604", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment for Failure to Disclose Material Facts\nConclusion: The assessee's duty is to disclose all primary facts, but they are not required to disclose their own conclusions or inferences. In this case, the Assessing Officer issued a reassessment notice based on doubts about the creditworthiness of creditors. However, the names of the creditors and documents supporting the loans were already provided during the original assessment. Since no new material or evidence was introduced, the reassessment notice was invalid and quashed. The provisions of reassessment (Section 147) were governed by the unamended laws applicable for the assessment year 1988-89, as the amendment to Section 147 came into force in 1989.\nCitations:\n•\nBasanta Ram Kedarnath v. ITO (1987) 165 ITR 777 (Cal.)\n•\nITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nSarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2169 of 1992 (R), decision dated: 18-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. N. Jain, H.P. Mody and B. K. Jalan for Petitioner. Devi Prasad and K. K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RANCHI HANDLOOM EMPORIUM\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 292 = 2000 SLD 292 = 2000 PTD 2281 = (1999) 235 ITR 619", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax via Garnishee Proceedings\nConclusion: The petitioner was incorrectly assumed to owe money to a defaulter based on a balance sheet, which the petitioner contested. As a result, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to prove that the debt was misrepresented. The absence of an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard made the garnishee proceedings under Section 226(3) invalid. Thus, the certificate directing payment was quashed.\nCitations: No specific references are provided in the case summary.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 21292 of 1997-I, decision dated: 11-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. P. M. Aslam and Thomas M. Jacob for Petitioner. N. R. K. Nair for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "TISSAN JOSEPH\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 293 = 2000 SLD 293 = 2000 PTD 2283 = (1999) 236 ITR 845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment for Income Escaping Assessment\nConclusion: The petitioner initially declared an income of Rs. 8,22,400, later filing a revised return showing a loss after adjusting Rs. 8,52,000. The Assessing Officer included the amount in the current year’s assessment instead of the prior year, which was contested. The reassessment under Section 147 was illegal, as the income was not escaped from assessment. The petitioner had been transparent about the receipt, and the income was correctly taxed in the 1984-85 assessment.\nCitations: No specific references are provided in the case summary.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. O. No. 8283(W) of 1996, decision dated: 23rd May, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. GUPTA., J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pradip Dutta, Pratima Mishra and Swapna Misra for Petitioners. R. C. Prasad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "HUM BOLDT WEDAG INDIA LTD. and others\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 294 = 2000 SLD 294 = 2000 PTD 2286 = (1999) 236 ITR 786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rental Income and Business Income Classification\nConclusion: The assessee’s oil mill was closed, and rental income from attached quarters was classified as business income. The Tribunal upheld this classification. However, the court found the rental income should not have been treated as business income and corrected the decision. The case clarified the distinction between business income and rental income, referencing past decisions that classified rental income separately.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Ramdas & Sons (1997) 225 ITR 416 (Pat.)\n•\nBengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1949) 17 ITR 308 (Cal.)\n•\nCEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC)\n•\nEast India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.69 of 1985, decision dated: 2-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": " B.M. LAL, C.J. AND S. K. SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Shambhu Sharan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAMDAS & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 295 = 2000 SLD 295 = 2000 PTD 2289 = (1999) 236 ITR 832", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment on Discovery of Mistakes in Assessment\nConclusion: A reassessment notice for the assessment year 1991-92 was issued in 1996 for the taxation of capital gains related to the conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade, which had been missed during the original assessment. The reassessment was justified as the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and the discovery of the oversight constituted sufficient cause to initiate reassessment.\nCitations:\n•\nBirla VXL Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 1 (Guj.)\n•\nChimanram Mottilal v. CIT (1943) 11 ITR 44 (Bom.)\n•\nGarden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CIT (Deputy) (1996) 222 ITR 68 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Applications Nos. 4201 and 4203 of 1996, decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. N. Divatia for Petitioners. Mihir Joshi and Manish R. Bhat for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PRAFUL CHUNILAL PATEL and another\nVs\nM. J. MAKWANA/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 296 = 2000 SLD 296 = 2000 PTD 2302 = (1999) 236 ITR 829", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax via Notice of Demand\nConclusion: The intimation sent under Section 143(1)(a) was deemed a notice of demand under Section 156, obligating the assessee to pay the due amount. Since the appeal was pending, the petitioner could have sought a stay from the Tribunal, but it failed to do so. Consequently, the High Court could not interfere with the recovery proceedings as it was premature.\nCitations:\n•\nITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty (1964) 52 ITR 538 (SC)\n•\nManmohanlal v. ITO (1987) 168 ITR 616 (SC) (Not applied)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.38098 of 1998, decision dated: 7-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "E. S. Kiresur for Petitioner. E. R. Indra Kumar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SHREE SOMESHWARA FARMERS COOPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD\nVs\nJOINT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 297 = 2000 SLD 297 = 2000 PTD 2305 = (1999) 236 ITR 820", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Interest and Penalty under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nTopic: Income-tax - Penalty - Advance tax - Return - Waiver of interest and penalty\nSummary: This case revolves around the application for the waiver or reduction of penalty and interest under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee sought to waive the penalties and interest imposed due to failure to furnish returns on time, concealment of income, and non-furnishing of estimates of advance tax.\nSection 273A provides the Commissioner of Income-tax with the discretion to reduce or waive penalties and interest imposed on the assessee if they admit to defaults and pay the consequent taxes. The court observed that an application under Section 273A can be filed even before the penalty is imposed, and the Commissioner can either waive or reduce the penalty based on the facts of the case.\nConclusion: In this case, the application revealed that the appellant did not comply fully with the conditions of Section 273A. The assessee admitted the failure to file the return in time, concealment of income, and non-furnishing of the advance tax estimate. Despite agreeing to the additions and paying the consequent taxes, the assessee was not entitled to a complete waiver of the penalties and interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax, however, reduced the penalty, and the order was upheld.\nReferences:\n•\nMohammed Ali v. CWT (1983) 141 ITR 690 (Gauhati)\n•\nShakuntla Mehra v. CWT (1976) 102 ITR 301 (Delhi)\n•\nHarbans Kaur (Smt.) v. CWT (1997) 224 ITR 418 (SC)\n•\nHasan Ahmad Khan v. CWT (1975) 99 ITR 414 (All.)\n•\nIndra & Co. v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 510 (Raj.)\n•\nJakhodia Brothers v. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 61 (All.)\n•\nJaswant Rai v. CBDT (1982) 133 ITR 19 (Delhi", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. A. No. 1094 of 1994, decision dated: 21st April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. LAKSHMANAN AND S. M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. S. Balakrishnan for Appellant. S. V. Subramanian for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Dr. V. M. SIVAPRAKASAM\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 298 = 2000 SLD 298 = 2000 PTD 2315 = (1999) 236 ITR 780", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subsidy and Depreciation under Section 32 & 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nTopic: Income-tax - Subsidy - Actual cost - Depreciation\nSummary: This case discusses the treatment of Central subsidy received by an assessee and its impact on the calculation of depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue at hand was whether the Central subsidy received by the assessee, which was based on a percentage of the fixed capital cost, should be deducted from the actual cost for the purpose of calculating depreciation.\nThe Central subsidy was not a payment made directly or indirectly to meet any part of the actual cost of the asset, but rather, it was an incentive aimed at encouraging entrepreneurs. The fact that the subsidy was calculated as a percentage of the fixed capital cost did not alter its nature, and thus, it should not be deducted from the actual cost of the asset when calculating depreciation.\nConclusion: The Supreme Court held that the Central subsidy received by the assessee was not to be considered as part of the actual cost of the asset for the purposes of calculating depreciation. Therefore, the subsidy should not be deducted from the cost of the asset when determining depreciation.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) – Followed\n•\nCIT v. Bhandari Capacitors (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 647 (MP)\n•\nCIT v. Diamond Dies Mfg. Corporation Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 655 (Kar.)\n•\nCIT v. Elys Plastics (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 11 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Godavari Plywoods Limited (1987) 168 ITR 632 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Jindal Bros. Rice Mills (1989) 179 ITR 470 (P & H)\n•\nCIT v. Premier Extraction (P.) Ltd. (1989) 175 ITR 22 (MP)\n•\nCIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)\n•\nSahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC)\n•\nSeaham Harbour Dock Co. v. Crook (1931) 16 TC 333 (HL)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "LT.R. No. 167 of 1993, decision dated: 1st December, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with B. M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner. G. S. Jetley. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMENEZES FARMACO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 299 = 2000 SLD 299 = 2000 PTD 2322 = (1999) 236 ITR 746", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Reassessment under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nTopic: Income-tax - Reassessment - Information - Judicial Decisions\nSummary: The case revolves around the interpretation of information under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for reassessment if new information comes to light after the original assessment. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) originally brought Rs.80,000 to tax as income from interest on short-term deposits. However, the ITO later felt that this amount was incorrectly assessed, as the interest earned from deposits out of borrowed funds was not included in the original assessment.\nSubsequently, the ITO reopened the assessment based on judicial decisions made by the Bombay and Madras High Courts. These decisions, which were not available during the original assessment, were seen as new information that justified reassessment. The Tribunal initially set aside the reassessment, but the High Court referred the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the case, stating that the judicial decisions provided information under Section 147(b), making the reassessment valid.\nConclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that judicial decisions coming to the ITO's knowledge after the original assessment constitute information under Section 147(b), thus justifying reassessment. The Court upheld the reassessment proceedings, noting that the ITO had valid grounds based on new information obtained from judicial decisions.\nReferences:\n•\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 663 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. United Wire Ropes Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 762 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Madras Fertilisers Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 139 (Mad.)\n•\nKalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC)\n•\nMaharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nTuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.36 of 1986, decision dated: 5-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. RANGA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. V. Prasad for the Commissioner. C. Kodanda Ram for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNOVAPAN INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 300 = 2000 SLD 300 = 2000 PTD 2328 = (1999) 236 ITR 454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Balancing Charge and Depreciation under Section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nTopic: Income-tax - Business Income - Balancing Charge - Firm Reconstitution\nSummary: In this case, the issue was the computation of profits under Section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, following the reconstitution of a firm after the death of a partner. The firm transferred certain assets to its partners and a stranger in the previous year ended March 31, 1978. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) initially took into account depreciation that was allowed to the firm before its reconstitution while computing profits under Section 41(2).\nHowever, on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled that only depreciation deductions allowed to the reconstituted firm could be considered for computing profits, not the deductions granted to the original, dissolved firm. The Tribunal upheld this decision, and the case was referred for judicial opinion.\nConclusion: The Supreme Court confirmed the Tribunal’s decision, holding that in computing profits under Section 41(2), the depreciation allowed to the firm prior to its reconstitution could not be taken into account. The Court clarified that the deductions granted to the dissolved firm were not relevant for the reconstituted firm’s tax computation.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Empire Estate (1996) 218 ITR 355 (SC) – Applied", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 1087 of 1984 (Reference No. 944 of 1984), decision dated: 25-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nAYYANARAPPAN & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 301 = 2000 SLD 301 = 2000 PTD 2330 = (1999) 236 ITR 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "- Valuation of Stock-in-Trade in a Dissolved Firm\nTopic: Income-tax - Firm - Stock-in-trade - Valuation - Escapement of Income\nSummary: This case concerns the valuation of stock-in-trade in a partnership firm that was dissolved shortly after its constitution. Under commercial accounting, stock-in-trade at both the beginning and the end of a period should be valued at the lower of cost or market price. The true income is determined based on the real value of opening and closing stock. If there is a difference between the opening and closing stock, the difference is treated as taxable income.\nIn this case, the partnership firm was dissolved within two months of its constitution. As a result, there was minimal difference between the value of the opening stock and the closing stock, and the Income-tax Officer did not find any escapement of income from the valuation process.\nConclusion: The Court held that due to the short duration of the partnership, the minimal difference in stock valuation resulted in no escapement of income. The firm was not liable for additional tax based on the stock valuation, as the dissolution within two months meant the difference between opening and closing stock was insignificant.\nReferences:\n•\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)\n•\nSunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 139 of 1990, decision dated: 14-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. RANGA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner. A. Satyanarayana for the Assessee. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAGARWAL ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 302 = 2000 SLD 302 = 2000 PTD 2334 = (1999) 236 ITR 573", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nTopic: Income-tax - Reference - Penalty - Concealment of Income - Discretionary Levy of Penalty\nSummary: In this case, the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of concealment of income. This was based on material seized during a search at the assessee's premises, which led to the discovery of unexplained investments. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalty after concluding that there was no conscious concealment of income by the assessee.\nThe Tribunal emphasized that penalties should not be imposed as a matter of routine. Instead, there must be substantial evidence or circumstances indicating that the unexplained investments indeed represented income for the relevant assessment years.\nWhen the case was referred to the High Court under Section 256(2) for a question of law, the Court held that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion correctly by removing the penalty. No question of law arose as the Tribunal's decision was based on facts and discretion rather than any legal issue.\nConclusion: The Court ruled that the imposition of penalty for concealment of income is discretionary, and the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty after determining there was no intentional concealment of income. Therefore, no legal question required referral to the High Court.\nReferences:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Sections 256(2) & 271(1)(c)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 626 of 1993, decision dated: 8-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Sapre for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema, Senior Advocate for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPURUSHOTTAMDAS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 303 = 2000 SLD 303 = 2000 PTD 2336 = (1999) 236 ITR 665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtEQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Loss from Sale of Shares to Partners\nTopic: Income-tax - Business Loss - Firm Dealing in Shares - Sale of Shares to Partners\nSummary: In this case, the assessee was a firm dealing in shares. The firm had acquired 10,000 shares in a company at Rs.10 per share, and these shares were shown as stock-in-trade. Two of the firm's partners purchased 8,000 and 2,000 shares, respectively, from the firm at Rs.4 per share. The firm claimed a loss of Rs.60,000 due to this transaction, treating it as a business loss for the assessment year 1972-73.\nThe Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, but the Tribunal held that the sale of shares from the firm to its partners was a commercial transaction, and the loss was allowed. The Tribunal concluded that transactions between a firm and its partners could still be treated as commercial, and losses arising from such transactions could be allowable as business losses.\nConclusion: The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the sale of shares to partners was a legitimate commercial transaction and that the resulting loss was an allowable business loss under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that transactions between a firm and its partners, such as buying, selling, or lending, are common in commercial practice and do not invalidate the trade or profit.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Kaluram Puranmal (1979) 119 ITR 564 (Bom.)\n•\nMalabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.329 of 1985, decision dated: 24-12-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramaniam, Senior Advocate with T. U. Khatri and J. P. Deodhar for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHASE TRADING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 304 = 2000 SLD 304 = 2000 PTD 2340 = (1999) 236 ITR 629", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reduction or Waiver of Interest under Section 273A\nTopic: Income-tax - Advance Tax - Reduction or Waiver of Interest - Discretionary Power of Commissioner\nSummary: This case deals with the discretionary power of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to reduce or waive interest for failure to file advance tax estimates or delay in filing returns. The assessees in this case voluntarily filed their tax returns for multiple years, including for years where assessments were barred by limitation, and paid the tax on self-assessment.\nThe Commissioner admitted that all conditions under Section 273A(1) were satisfied, but still granted only a partial (25%) waiver of the interest due to the delay in filing returns. The assessees argued for a 100% waiver of interest under Sections 139(8) and 217, as they had cooperated fully, disclosed their income, and paid the taxes due.\nThe Court held that the discretionary power to reduce or waive interest under Section 273A should be exercised judiciously. Given that the conditions for the waiver were met, including voluntary filing of returns and payment of tax, the assessees were entitled to a full waiver of interest.\nConclusion: The Court ruled that the Commissioner should have granted a 100% waiver of interest, as the assessees met all the conditions outlined in Section 273A. The discretionary power under this section must be exercised judiciously, and the delay in filing returns should not be a sole reason for denying full relief.\nReferences:\n•\nCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC)\n•\nHarbans Kaur (Smt.) v. CWT (1997) 224 ITR 418 (SC)\n•\nJaswant Rai v. CBDT and Revenue (1998) 231 ITR 745 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. P. Nos.9962 to 9964 of 1989 and W. M. P. Nos. 14266 to 14268 of 1989, decision dated: 26-06-1998.", + "Judge Name:": " Y. VENKATACHALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Janakiraman for Petitioners. S. V. Subramaniam for C. V. Rajan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "N. GOPALAKRISHNAN and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 305 = 2000 SLD 305 = 2000 PTD 2348 = (1999) 236 ITR 604", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment for Excess Depreciation\nTopic: Income-tax - Reassessment - Failure to Disclose Full Facts - Depreciation\nSummary: In this case, the petitioner filed a return of income for the assessment year 1989-90, declaring a total income of Rs.17,30,000, with a depreciation allowance of Rs.10,14,837 on plant and machinery. The depreciation was claimed at the rates of 33-1/3% on eight items and 50% on 12 other items. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) and accepted the depreciation claimed by the petitioner.\nHowever, later, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148, claiming that excess depreciation was allowed and that income had escaped assessment due to the failure to disclose full and true material facts. The petitioner contended that the reassessment notice was barred by limitation.\nHeld: The Court ruled that the material facts, including the written-down value of the assets and the depreciation rates claimed, were disclosed in the return. While the depreciation rate on 12 items was higher than the prescribed rate, the Court found that this did not constitute a failure to disclose material facts. It was the Assessing Officer's duty to correctly interpret and apply the disclosed facts, not the assessee's responsibility to point out errors in the claim.\nThe Court emphasized that reassessment under Section 147 is an extraordinary power and must meet strict requirements. Since the material facts were provided by the petitioner, the reassessment notice was deemed invalid.\nConclusion: The reassessment notice under Section 148 was invalid as the petitioner had disclosed all material facts regarding depreciation, and it was the Assessing Officer's duty to make the correct assessment based on those facts.\nReferences:\n•\nIndo-Aden Salt Mfg. and Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 624 (SC)\n•\nRenusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1979) 117 ITR 719 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 13014 of 1998, decision dated: 20-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " P. SHANMUGAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bechu Kurian Thomas for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PALA MARKETING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD\nVs\nSTATE OF KERALA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 306 = 2000 SLD 306 = 2000 PTD 2356 = (1999) 236 ITR 574", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trusts and Protective Assessment of Trustee\nTopic: Income-tax - Representative Assessee - Trustee's Role in Partnership\nSummary: In this case, the assessee was a discretionary trust, which had entered into a partnership with a firm. The trust deed specifically authorized the trustees to carry on business as proprietors or as partners in a firm. One of the trustees joined the partnership firm, and the Income-tax Officer assessed the income from the partnership in the individual capacity of the trustee.\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the trustee was acting in a representative capacity for the trust and that the share of income from the partnership should be assessed in the hands of the trust, not the individual trustee. This view was upheld by the Tribunal.\nHeld: The Court found that the trustee joined the partnership in a representative capacity for the trust, as clearly mentioned in the partnership deed. Since the trust deed allowed the trustees to act as partners, the share of income from the partnership was assessable in the hands of the trust, not the trustee individually. Therefore, the assessment on a protective basis against the trustee in his individual capacity was incorrect.\nConclusion: The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the income from the partnership should be assessed in the hands of the trust, as the trustee joined the firm in a representative capacity, as permitted by the trust deed. The protective assessment against the trustee in his individual capacity was canceled.\nReferences:\n•\nNo specific case references provided in this summary.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 408 and 412 of 1983, decision dated: 4-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. B. Naik for Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. Manish Shah for J. P. Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANGALDAS BECHARDAS FAMILY TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 307 = 2000 SLD 307 = 2000 PTD 2359 = (1999) 236 ITR 881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Fines and Penalties for Sales Tax\nTopic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Fines and Penalties - Sales Tax Penalty\nSummary: In this case, the assessee was penalized for the delayed payment of sales tax under Section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The penalty levied for the delay was considered by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) for potential deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows deductions for business expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.\nThe key issue was whether the penalty, which was not compensatory in nature, could be treated as a business expenditure deductible under Section 37.\nHeld: The Court ruled that the penalty for delayed payment of sales tax was not compensatory but punitive in nature. As such, it was not considered an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. Hence, it was not an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion: The penalty for the delayed payment of sales tax was not deductible as a business expense since it was not compensatory in nature, and thus not incurred wholly or exclusively for business purposes.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Vegetable Vitamin Foods Co. (P.) Ltd. (1994) 209 ITR 840 (Bom.)\n•\nPrakash Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 684 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 117 of 1988, decision dated: 2-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with B. M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner. Nemo for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nJOLLY STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 308 = 2000 SLD 308 = 2000 PTD 2361 = (1999) 236 ITR 878", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Under Section 263\nTopic: Income-tax - Revision - Draft Assessment Order - Powers of CIT Under Section 263\nSummary: This case dealt with whether the order passed by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) under the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) under Section 144A could be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nThe ITO had passed an order based on the directions provided by the IAC, and the CIT exercised its powers of revision under Section 263, challenging the correctness of that order.\nHeld: The Court held that the order passed by the ITO following the directions of the IAC under Section 144A is indeed subject to revision by the CIT under Section 263. The CIT has the authority to revise orders if they are found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, even if the order was made based on IAC's directions.\nConclusion: The order passed by the ITO under the direction of the IAC is subject to revision by the CIT under Section 263 if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.\nReferences:\n•\nTarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 45 (Gauhati)\n•\nCIT v. Christian Mica Industries Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 627 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. Dulichand Bhatia (1989) 175 ITR 634 (MP)\n•\nCIT v. East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 314 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Gangaram Mohanlal Mittal & Sons (1990) 181 ITR 392 (MP)\n•\nCIT v. K. L. Rajput (1987) 164 ITR 197 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1090 of 1980, decision dated: 7-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Mani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nV.V. A. SHANMUGAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 309 = 2000 SLD 309 = 2000 PTD 2365 = (1999) 236 ITR 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nTopic: Income-tax - Reference - Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure - Project Reports\nSummary: The assessee was involved in the business of bottling aerated water and altered its objects to pursue additional features. The company entered into an agreement with VBCC for the identification and preparation of project reports. The assessee incurred expenditure of Rs.11,52,506 for these reports and claimed it as a revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1988-89.\nThe Assessing Officer, however, treated this as capital expenditure, and this was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The assessee then filed an application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking a reference to the High Court regarding whether the Tribunal was correct in treating the expenditure as capital.\nHeld: The Court held that the question of whether the expenditure of Rs.11,52,506 incurred for the project report was capital or revenue in nature was a valid question of law. The expenditure was aimed at bringing into existence an asset or advantage of an enduring nature, making it capital in nature.\nConclusion: The expenditure incurred in connection with the project reports was capital in nature, as it was aimed at acquiring an asset or enduring advantage. The question of whether the expenditure was capital or revenue was deemed fit for reference to the High Court.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Barium Chemicals Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 164 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 321 (Kar.)\n•\nCIT v. Sri Krishna Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. (1989) 175 ITR 154 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Venkateswara Transmission (P.) Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 476 (AP)\n•\nPraga Tools Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 773 (AP)\n•\nScientific Engineering House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 27 of 1993, decision dated: 3rd July, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MOTILAL B. NAIK AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kodanda Ram for Petitioner. S. R. Ashok for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "V. B. C. INDUSTRIES LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 310 = 2000 SLD 310 = 2000 PTD 2369 = (1999) 236 ITR 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Return – Defects in Return – Rectification of Defects – Powers under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nSummary:\nThis case deals with the application of subsection (9) of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that when a return is filed with defects, the Assessing Officer (AO) must inform the assessee about the defects and provide an opportunity for rectification. In this specific case, a public sector company filed its return for the assessment year 1994-95, but the return was incomplete as it lacked an audit report as required under section 44AB of the Act. This was due to a delay by the Central Government in appointing auditors. The company requested extensions multiple times and filed the revised return on September 25, 1996, along with the audit report.\nHowever, the AO rejected the revised return, claiming it was filed after the deadline and refused to condone the delay. The AO also issued a notice for reassessment. The court held that the AO was obligated to consider the petitioner's application for the condonation of delay under the proviso to section 139(9) because the assessment for that year was still pending when the revised return was filed.\nThe court concluded that the actions of the AO, rejecting the return and issuing a notice for reassessment, were not valid. The AO was directed to treat the application as one for condonation of delay and to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer failed to consider the provisions under section 139(9) regarding the condonation of delay, and the orders rejecting the return and initiating reassessment were invalid. The case was remanded for reconsideration with proper procedure.\nReferences:\n•\nCollector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)\n•\nKerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 1042 (Ker.)\n•\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 213 ITR 862 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No.5660 of 1997, decision dated: 27-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " G. SIVARAJAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. G. K. Warriyar, Mathew Cherian and P. Balakrishnan for Petitioner. N. R. K. Nair and P. K. R. Menon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 311 = 2000 SLD 311 = 2000 PTD 2385 = (1999) 236 ITR 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Deduction of Tax at Source – Employer’s Responsibility for TDS\nSummary:\nIn this case, a bank filed a return for the financial year 1992-93 under section 206 of the Income Tax Act, detailing the salary paid to its employees and the tax deducted at source (TDS). Two employees claimed tax rebates on investments made in National Savings Certificates (NSC) and Public Provident Fund (PPF) accounts. The bank, relying on the information provided by the employees, deducted tax after giving the rebates. However, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) questioned the source of investment and issued a demand for short collection of tax.\nThe bank explained that for one employee (K), the money was withdrawn from his account a few days before making the investments, and for another employee (G), the investments were made from her overdraft account. Both employees' investments were verified, and the sources of their money were explained.\nDespite this, the ITO issued an order holding the bank liable for the short collection of tax, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) rejected the bank's applications for rectification. The court held that the bank, as an employer, had no authority to question or disbelieve the source of investment made by its employees, as the investments were genuine and the source of the funds was adequately explained. The court further pointed out that summary assessments had been completed for the employees, and no tax demand was created; instead, they received refunds.\nThe court quashed the ITO's order and the CIT's decisions, directing that the bank be refunded the amount it had paid with interest.\nConclusion:\nThe bank, as an employer, was not authorized to inquire into the sources of investment made by its employees. Since the employees' investments were valid and explained, the demand for short collection of tax was unjustified. The ITO's order and the CIT's decisions were quashed.\nReferences:\n•\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, Sections 154, 192, 201 & 264", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 1520 of, 1997, decision dated: 7-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Mittal for Petitioner. R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with S.K. Sharma for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "STATE BANK OF PATIALA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 312 = 2000 SLD 312 = 2000 PTD 2393 = (1999) 236 ITR 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Depreciation – Roads, Drains, Culverts, Sewage Lines as Part of Buildings\nSummary:\nThis case revolves around the allowance of depreciation on roads, drains, culverts, and sewage lines constructed within the vicinity of a factory and used exclusively by employees for factory purposes. The assessee claimed depreciation under section 32(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for these assets, which were considered part of the factory premises.\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) initially rejected the claim, stating that these structures (roads, culverts, and sewage lines) were not used solely by employees drawing a salary of less than Rs.7,500, as per the provision under section 32(1)(iv). The ITO also restricted depreciation to buildings and did not consider roads, culverts, and sewage lines eligible for depreciation. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed depreciation on these structures but limited it to a specific ratio, citing that some of the roads were used as approaches to officers’ flats.\nThe Tribunal, on further appeal, agreed with the assessee’s contention, stating that roads, culverts, and sewage lines constructed for the purpose of running the factory should be eligible for depreciation, even if they were used by employees of various salary grades. The Tribunal held that these assets were ancillary to the building and, thus, depreciation could be allowed on their construction cost.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s ruling was upheld, and depreciation was allowed on roads, culverts, and sewage lines constructed for factory use, as they were part of the factory’s infrastructure and used primarily for the benefit of employees.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No.44 of 1985, decision dated: 30-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. M. LAL, C.J. AND S. K. SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. K. Vidhyarthi and S. K. Sharan for the Commissioner. K. N. Jain, Senior Advocate, Vikash Jain, Sudhir Narain, Shambhu Sharan and Dr. R. Usha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTATA ROBINS FRAZER LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 313 = 2000 SLD 313 = 2000 PTD 2397 = (1999) 236 ITR 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtER1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Penalty – Concealment of Income – No Concealment of Income\nSummary:\nThis case addresses the issue of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of alleged concealment of income. The assessee, a film artiste, had various additions made in her assessment for the year 1973-74. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.33,153 for two items: an addition of Rs.2,153 for notional income from a self-occupied property and Rs.25,000 for capital gains from the sale of certain lands.\nThe Tribunal found that the construction of the house continued until February 1973 and the assessee had another house during this period. The income from the property was assessed on a notional basis, and there was no evidence of income evasion. Regarding the capital gains, the property was admitted as belonging to the assessee after a settlement petition was filed. The Tribunal determined that there was no concealment of income or misreporting of the capital gains.\nThe Tribunal consequently canceled the penalty, finding that there was no basis for penalty under section 271(1)(c), as the income was disclosed voluntarily, and the Department did not prove any concealment.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s decision to cancel the penalty was upheld, as there was no concealment of income. The income from property was assessed on a notional basis, and the capital gains from land sale were disclosed voluntarily. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 271(1)(c)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1077 of 1983 (Reference No.535 of 1983), decision dated: 17-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. ABDUL WAHAB, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramanani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. B. SAROJA DEVI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 314 = 2000 SLD 314 = 2000 PTD 2401 = (2000) 81 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Business Income of Charitable Trust:\n(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Clauses 62 & 62A of the Second Schedule:\n•\nThe case revolves around the claim for exemption of business income by a charitable trust (assesses) under clause 62A of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nThe trust was established for the welfare of ex-employees and serving personnel of the Federal Government. Its income was derived from donations, voluntary contributions, investments, and from business activities like manufacturing furniture and garments.\n•\nThe assessing officer initially rejected the exemption claim, particularly on business income, but the Appellate Tribunal later modified the order, allowing the exemption on the part of the business income that was actually expended on welfare activities.\n•\nThe key point is that under clause 62A, only the portion of income that was actually spent on welfare projects is exempt from taxation. The exemption was removed through an amendment to the clause in 1992, changing the rules for business income exemptions.\n(b) Exemption Interpretation under Clause 62:\n•\nThe words so much of the income as used in clause 62 refer specifically to the income that was actually spent on welfare activities. Therefore, income not expended on welfare projects is not eligible for exemption.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14 & 2(16) & SecondSched.,PartI,cls.62,62A ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos.838/IB to 841/IB of 1998-99, decision dated: 1st June, 1999", + "Judge Name:": " KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD DAUD TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 315 = 2000 SLD 315 = 2000 PTD 2407 = (2000) 82 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes and Appeals in Income Tax Matters:\n(a) Service of Notice and Constitutional Petition:\n•\nThe service of a notice by affixture was contested, but the constitutional petition challenging the service method was dismissed. The Court held that such issues were factual and not suitable for constitutional petitions.\n(b) Rectification of Mistakes - Jurisdiction:\n•\nUnder sections 156 and 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, rectifications can be made to orders issued by the tax authorities, and these rectified orders can merge with the original decisions.\n•\nIf the rectification is contested, it is considered an appealable issue under the provisions, as the rectification order is treated as part of the original assessment.\n(c) Appeals to the High Court and Limitation:\n•\nThe High Court found that an appeal could be filed after a rectification order, even if the original order was passed over a year earlier, as the rectification merges with the original order, making it an appealable order.\n•\nThe High Court rejected the argument that the appeal was time-barred, upholding the filing of the appeal based on the merged orders.\n(d) Power of High Court to Convert Writ Petitions:\n•\nThe High Court has the power to convert writ petitions into appeals if it determines that the appeal is not maintainable under normal procedures, as long as there is no legal prohibition against such a conversion.\n(e) Rectification Jurisdiction:\n•\nWhen a mistake is apparent on the face of the record, tax authorities must rectify it. The High Court affirmed that the authorities are obliged to correct any evident mistakes, and the scope of rectification extends beyond simple errors, potentially impacting the entire order, as long as it is based on the record available.\n(f) Limitation Period in Rectification Matters:\n•\nThe High Court found that rectifications do not have a strict limitation period, particularly when the rectification involves correcting errors on the record, thus allowing appeal even after an extended time frame.\n(g) Mistakes Apparent on the Record - Scope of Rectification:\n•\nRectification can go beyond simple factual errors and may involve correcting any mistake that is evident from the available records. This includes the ability to cancel entire orders if necessary, but cannot involve reassessing evidence.\n(h) Capital Gain from Land Sale:\n•\nA significant aspect of the case involved the sale of land and buildings that had been treated as capital assets. The tax authorities initially classified the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade, but the High Court found that the transaction was an isolated one, and the land had been held as a capital asset. The taxation of capital gains from the sale was therefore unlawful, and the High Court annulled the tax.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=154,135,156,62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Art.199 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 158 of 1998, decided-on 3rd January, 2000hearing DATE : 23rd December, 1999", + "Judge Name:": " DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD AND ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Appellant. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN ELECTRIC FITTINGS MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. through Directors\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 316 = 2000 SLD 316 = 2000 PTD 2427 = 2001 PTCL 13 = (2000) 82 TAX 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment & Additional Assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nFacts:\nThe case involved the Self-Assessment Scheme under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice under Section 65, alleging that the principal company was responsible for advertisement expenses under an agreement with the assessee, but the assessee had also claimed these expenses in their respective assessments. The assessee contended that the principal company was responsible for media and other major advertisement expenses, while the local advertisement expenses were their responsibility, as per the amended agreement between them and the principal company.\nSubsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a second notice, and the assessee made a representation to the Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the second notice. However, no action was taken by the Commissioner.\nIssue:\nWhether the High Court had jurisdiction to resolve the factual dispute arising from the show-cause notice and the representation made by the assessee.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court concluded that the matter involved disputed facts, which could not be resolved under the constitutional jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the Constitutional petition was not maintainable against the show-cause notice, and the assessee could not bypass the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal, which was vested with the authority to decide such issues. The petition was dismissed as the High Court had no jurisdiction over factual disputes.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nMuhammad Younas Khan's case 1993 SCMR 618\n•\nMuhammad Muzafar Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf Khan PLD 1959 SC 9\n•\nPhilips Company’s case 1990 PTD 389\n•\nEdulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. I.T.O. 1990 PTD 155\n•\nM/s. Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trusts 1989 PTD 1010\n•\nShagufta Begum's case PLD 1989 SC 360", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59(1) & 23(18) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Art.199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 14208 to 14210 of 1999, heard on 17-04-2000.", + "Judge Name:": " CH. EJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ajay Kumar for Petitioner. R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Bansal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DATA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES through Sole Proprietor\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CIRCLE 8, COMPANY Zone-I, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 317 = 2000 SLD 317 = 2000 PTD 2437 = (2000) 81 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Workers Welfare Fund & Definition of Industrial Establishment \nFacts:\nThe assessee was engaged in the fabrication of bus and truck bodies. The Assessing Officer levied the Workers Welfare Fund, arguing that the assessee was operating as an industrial establishment under the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971. The First Appellate Authority, however, deleted the levy, concluding that the assessee did not meet the definition of an industrial establishment because the manufacturing process mainly involved labor, with minimal use of electrical or mechanical energy.\nIssue:\nWhether the assessee's business of manufacturing bus and truck bodies qualifies as an industrial establishment under the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court determined that the definition of industrial establishment under the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance covers any factory or workshop using mechanical, electrical, or other forms of energy in production. The definition excludes only energy generated by human or animal labor. The Court noted that the assessee used electrical and mechanical energy in the manufacturing process, despite the significant involvement of manual labor. Therefore, the assessee fell within the definition of industrial establishment, and the deletion of the Workers Welfare Fund was not justified.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. M.K. Smt. Pratap Kumari 1982 PTD 59\n________________________________________\n(b) Topic: Additional Tax under Sections 88 & 54 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nFacts:\nThe assessee initially filed a return declaring a loss, which was revised during the assessment proceedings to declare an income. The department accepted the revised return but charged additional tax under Section 88 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, on the grounds that the tax due under Section 54 was not correctly paid in the original return. The assessee challenged the additional tax, arguing that no separate order had been passed and that they had not been given an opportunity for a hearing. The First Appellate Authority set aside the additional tax order, instructing the department to issue a proper notice and hear the case on merits.\nIssue:\nWhether the imposition of additional tax under Section 88 was justified when the assessee had filed a revised return and paid the tax due based on that return.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority. It found that no tax was due under Section 54 when the assessee filed the original return declaring a loss, and the tax was only due after the revised return was filed and the department agreed to it. Since the additional tax under Section 88 was based on an incorrect assumption of non-payment of tax, the Court concluded that additional tax was not applicable in this situation. The direction to issue a proper notice and decide the case on merits was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 88 & 54", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2(f) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=88,54 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1145/IB of 1995-96, decision dated: 21st January, 2000, hearing DATE : 19-01-2000", + "Judge Name:": " JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadir Mumtaz, D.R. for Appellant. Nasir Ahmed Sahi, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 318 = 2000 SLD 318 = 2000 PTD 2441 = (2000) 82 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) S. 50(4) – Deduction of Tax at Source – Enhanced Rate of Tax on Existing Contracts\nIssue:\nThe issue arose when the tax on payments to the assessee for the execution of a contract was deducted at an enhanced rate of 5% as fixed by the Finance Act, 1995, instead of the 3% rate prevailing at the time the contract was executed. The assessee contended that the modified tax should apply only to new contracts and not to existing ones, arguing that its imposition violated various fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan.\nFacts:\nThe tax was deducted at a higher rate of 5% under the Finance Act, 1995, even though the contract was executed before the new rate was imposed. The assessee argued that such an increase was unconstitutional as it applied retroactively to existing contracts, thereby violating fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution (Arts. 2A, 3, 4, & 25).\nConclusion:\nThe High Court ruled that the contracts between the parties required the assessee to pay income tax in accordance with the prevailing law at the time of the contract execution. Thus, the principle of estoppel applied, preventing the assessee from challenging the tax deduction rate based on a change in law. The Court also dismissed the constitutional petition, finding no merit in the contention that the enhanced rate violated constitutional provisions. The High Court relied on the principle of reciprocal promises and concluded that the principle of approbate and reprobate was not applicable in this case.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nElahi Bakhsh Cotton’s case PLD 1997 SC 582\n•\nGhulam Rasool’s case PLD 1971 SC 376\n•\nThe Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. The District Magistrate PLD 1958 SC 267\n•\nMessrs Momin Motors Co. v. The Regional Transport Authority PLD 1962 SC 108\n•\nFauji Foundations case PLD 1983 SC 457\n•\nSalauddin’s case PLD 1991 SC 546\n________________________________________\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes – Retrospective Application of Laws\nIssue:\nWhether retrospective application of tax laws, including those in the Finance Act, is valid under constitutional interpretation.\nFacts:\nThe Court reviewed various cases and statutory interpretations to clarify whether the legislature could enact tax laws with retrospective effect.\nConclusion:\nThe Court emphasized that while laws may not generally have retrospective penal effects, tax laws may be enacted with retrospective effect under the Constitution. The Court reinforced the principle that statutes should be interpreted in such a way as to preserve their validity rather than declaring them ultra vires. The Constitution should be read as an organic whole, and statutory provisions could be retrospectively applied to fulfill legislative intent.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nMulti Nationals case PLD 1995 SC 432\n•\nFauji Foundations case PLD 1983 SC 457\n•\nSalauddin’s case PLD 1991 SC 546\n•\nHaider Automobile Ltd. v. Pakistan PLD 1969 SC 623", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,2A,3,4,25 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5264 of 1996, heard on 4-04-2000hearing DATE : 4-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": " CH. EJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nisar A. Mujahid for Appellant. Shafqat Chohan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GUARANTEE ENGINEERS (PVT.) LTD through its Lahore Office\nVs\nFEDERATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance Department, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 319 = 2000 SLD 319 = 2000 PTD 2445 = (1999) 236 ITR 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Reference – Penalty for Concealment of Income\nIssue:\nThe key issue was whether the assessee was liable to pay penalty for concealing income under section 271(I)(c) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1985-86.\nFacts:\nThe Tribunal had to decide whether the assessee concealed income during the tax assessment year, which could trigger a penalty under the mentioned section. The matter was referred to the High Court for clarification of the legal question involved.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court held that the issue of whether the assessee was liable for the penalty for concealment of income was a matter of law that required further investigation and referred the case back to the Tribunal for a determination based on the facts.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 256 & 271(1)(c)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 90 of 1993, decision dated: 30-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Mittal for the Assessee. B. S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Barisal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Dr. K. L. BATRA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 320 = 2000 SLD 320 = 2000 PTD 2446 = (1999) 236 ITR 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax – Capital or Revenue Expenditure: Fluctuation in Foreign Exchange\nIssue:\nWhether the extra liability incurred due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, while repaying the cost of a capital asset, should be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.\nFacts:\nThe assessee had purchased plant and machinery from foreign sellers on deferred payment terms in foreign currency. Due to fluctuations in the exchange rate, the assessee incurred additional liability while repaying the installments. The assessee argued that the extra expenditure was a part of its normal business operations and should be treated as revenue expenditure.\nConclusion:\nThe Court ruled that any increased liability due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rates when repaying the cost of a capital asset should be treated as capital expenditure. The extra cost incurred due to currency fluctuations is an inherent part of the capital liability, and such expenditure could not be claimed as a revenue expenditure.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nSutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nAshok Textiles Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 94 (Ker.)\n•\nBestobell (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 789 (Cal.)\n•\nUnion Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 351 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.61 of 1982, decision dated: 9-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. GULATI AND M. C. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRENUSAGAR POWER CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 321 = 2000 SLD 321 = 2000 PTD 2453 = (1999) 236 ITR 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax – Diversion of Income by Overriding Title (Commission Income)\nIssue:\nWhether commission income accrued to the assessee-firm but paid to retiring partners, in accordance with a deed of dissolution, is assessable in the hands of the firm.\nFacts:\nThe firm was dissolved, and the business was taken over by the continuing partners. The deed of dissolution provided that outgoing partners were entitled to commission income for the period prior to their retirement, even if the commission was received after the dissolution. The continuing partners were obliged to collect and pay this commission to the retired partners. The assessee claimed that the commission was a legitimate business expenditure, but the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court ruled that the commission income was diverted by an overriding title to the retiring partners and could not be included in the firm’s income. The firm was only acting as a trustee to collect the commission on behalf of the retired partners. Since the commission was legally diverted before it reached the firm, it was not assessable in the hands of the firm.\nReferences/Citations:\n•\nCIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. V. G. Bhuta (1993) 203 ITR 249 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Crawford Bayley & Co. (1977) 106 ITR 884 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 86 of 1984 (Reference No. 39 of 1984), decision dated: 11-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramanian for C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUBRAMANIAM BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 322 = 2000 SLD 322 = 2000 PTD 2460 = (1999) 236 ITR 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Loss – Firm – Carry Forward and Set-off of Loss – Loss Incurred When Firm Was Unregistered – Subsequent Registration of Firm.\nConclusion:\nA loss incurred by an unregistered firm can be carried forward and set off even after the firm becomes registered in subsequent years. The critical condition is that the firm must remain the same; a change in the firm's constitution would have different consequences. The term firm under Section 77(1) of the Income Tax Act includes both registered and unregistered firms. The registration of the firm does not eliminate the benefit of loss carry forward if the firm remains unchanged.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. B. S. Dall Mills (1981) 131 ITR 111 (Kar.)\n•\nCIT v. Sunil Theatre (1989) 177 ITR 558 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 141 of 1982, decision dated: 28-07-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and S. K. Sharma for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKISHAN GOPAL SHITAL PARSHAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 323 = 2000 SLD 323 = 2000 PTD 2463 = (1999) 236 ITR 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtESFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Accrual of Income – Principle of Mutuality – Cement Manufacturers Association.\nConclusion:\nThe principle of mutuality is applicable where all contributors to the common fund are entitled to participate in the surplus. In the case of the Cement Manufacturers Association, the contributors (cement manufacturers) contributed to a common fund and received benefits on a pro-rata basis. The surplus generated was not taxable as income because the contributions were returned as savings, and there was no profit-making.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Bombay Oilseeds and Oil Exchange Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 198 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.591 of 1985. decided on 25-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with B. M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner. S. J. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCEMENT ALLOCATION AND COORDINATING ORGANIZATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 324 = 2000 SLD 324 = 2000 PTD 2471 = (1999) 236 ITR 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Representative Assessee – Agent of Non-Resident – Liability of Agent.\nConclusion:\nAn agent of a non-resident who withholds an amount under Section 162 of the Income Tax Act, based on the Income-tax Department's direction, cannot be held liable for any difference due to fluctuations in exchange rates between the time the amount was withheld and when it was paid. The agent is not liable for the fluctuation in currency exchange rates. The agent merely retained the amount as per legal obligation under Section 162, and thus there was no wrongful retention.\nCitations/References:\n•\nChampsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. AIR 1923 PC 66\n•\nDutt (S.) (Dr.) v. University of Delhi AIR 1958 SC 1050\n•\nRaghava Reddi (P.V.) v. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 720 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Arbitration Petition No. 233, in Award No.45 of 1995, decision dated: 4-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " A. P. SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. A. Dada with Saraf instructed by Vyas and Bhalwal for Petitioner. D. D. Madon with Nurgis Colabawalla and S. B. Jijina instructed by Mulla and Mulla for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION\nVs\nMcDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL. INC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 325 = 2000 SLD 325 = 2000 PTD 2481 = (1999) 236 ITR 507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Depreciation – Written Down Value – Central Subsidy.\nConclusion:\nA subsidy received from the government (Rs.1,14,995 in this case) is not deductible when calculating the written down value of assets for the purpose of granting depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. This subsidy cannot be used to reduce the value of assets for depreciation purposes.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Jindal Brothers Rice Mills (1989) 179 ITR 470 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.89 of 1989, decision dated: 5-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. GARG AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with S. K. Sharma for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAJAY METALS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 326 = 2000 SLD 326 = 2000 PTD 2483 = (1999) 236 ITR 472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Capital Gains – Sale of Business as a Going Concern – Excess over Written Down Value of Assets.\nConclusion:\nThe excess amount realized over the written down value on the sale of assets as part of the sale of a business must be analyzed to determine whether it attracts capital gains tax. If the sale consideration can be attributed to the transferred assets, then provisions of Section 41(2) apply, and the surplus is taxable. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further examination of the facts.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1965) 57 ITR 299 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 1900 of 1984, decision dated: 28-04-1998.", + "Judge Name:": " R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS. NATARAJAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 327 = 2000 SLD 327 = 2000 PTD 2488 = (1999) 236 ITR 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Capital Gains – Sale of Business as a Going Concern – Excess over Written Down Value of Assets.\nConclusion:\nThe excess amount realized over the written down value on the sale of assets as part of the sale of a business must be analyzed to determine whether it attracts capital gains tax. If the sale consideration can be attributed to the transferred assets, then provisions of Section 41(2) apply, and the surplus is taxable. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further examination of the facts.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1965) 57 ITR 299 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 31 of 1996, decision dated: 11-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with A. K. Mittal for Petitioner. R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with S. K. Sharma for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ESCORTS EMPLOYEES ANCILLARIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 328 = 2000 SLD 328 = 2000 PTD 2489 = (1999) 236 ITR 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Capital or Revenue Receipt – Salami Received in Lieu of Rent.\nConclusion:\nThe amount received as Salami or Pagadi from tenants in return for paying lower rents was determined to be a revenue receipt rather than a capital receipt. This was because the Salami was considered an advance payment made in exchange for favorable rent terms, which qualified as income.\nCitations/References:\n•\nMember for the Board of Agricultural Income-tax v. Sindhurani Chaudhurani (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC).\n•\nDurga Das Khanna v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC).\n•\nMaharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 464 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "R. No. 41 of 1990, decision dated: 21st July, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MOTILAL B. NAIK AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajeev Reddy for the Assessee. S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "B. R. ASSOCIATES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 329 = 2000 SLD 329 = 2000 PTD 2493 = (1999) 236 ITR 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Bonus – Excess Payment of Bonus.\nConclusion:\nIf the payment of bonus is customary and reasonable, it can be deducted under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, even if it exceeds the allowable limit under Section 36(1)(ii). The Tribunal found that the bonus was paid in accordance with the company's customs, and thus, it was deductible.\nCitations/References:\n•\nMumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai AIR 1976 SC 1455.\n•\nCIT v. Alikunju (P.) (1987) 166 ITR 611 (Ker.).\n•\nGrahams Trading Co. (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1959-60) 17 FJR 130 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 782 of 1982 (Reference No. 519 of 1982), decision dated: 6th November 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for J. Jayaraman for the Commissioner. Aravind R. Pandian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nEGMORE BENEFITS SOCIETY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 330 = 2000 SLD 330 = 2000 PTD 2495 = (1999) 236 ITR 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax – Business Expenditure – Repair and Renovation – Burden of Proof.\nConclusion:\nThe assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim for repairs and renovation expenses. The Tribunal upheld the finding of the authorities that no repairs were carried out during the relevant period, and thus the expenditure was disallowed. The assessee failed to prove that the repair and renovation work had occurred.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. S. G. V. M. Ltd. (1984) 146 ITR 200 (SC).\n•\nSudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala AIR 1989 SC 890.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.54 of 1992, decision dated: 12-01-1999.", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee. P. K. Ravindranatha Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "PREMIER BREWERIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 331 = 1999 SLD 331 = 1999 PTD 2813 = (1997) 228 ITR 793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "- Penalty for Concealment of Income\nTopic: Income-tax - Penalty for Concealment of Income and Revised Returns\nIssue: Whether penalties can be imposed under Section 271(1)(c) when revised returns are filed after a search is conducted and additional income is disclosed.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessments for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 were completed at nil income.\n•\nThe return for the assessment year 1986-87 was filed by the assessee, showing a loss of Rs.1,95,575.\n•\nA search was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on June 29, 1985, and an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed, adding Rs.10,56,012 to the income of the assessee due to unexplained investments.\n•\nFollowing this, the assessee filed revised returns for four assessment years, offering additional income, which the Assessing Officer accepted as undisclosed income.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for all four years and imposed penalties.\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalties, but the Tribunal canceled the penalties for all four years.\nTribunal's Reasoning:\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the revised returns were filed only after the detection of concealment due to the search, making it difficult to accept the voluntary nature of the disclosure.\n•\nIt ruled that the penalties could not be imposed since the assessee had not made a voluntary disclosure but had only done so after the search was conducted.\nRevenue's Appeal:\n•\nThe Revenue filed an application under Section 256(2) for reference to the High Court, arguing that penalties were justified because the assessee's conduct was contumacious (willfully dishonest) before the detection, and the filing of revised returns could not negate the initial concealment.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Court held that a question of law arose as to whether the penalties were correctly imposed and whether the revised returns, filed after the detection of concealment, could eliminate the presumption of concealment.\n•\nThe Court referred the issue for judicial scrutiny, noting that while penalties can be imposed for deliberate concealment, the Tribunal’s cancellation of penalties was based on a reasonable assessment of facts.\nReferences:\n•\nArulprakasam (S.R.) v. Smt. Prema Malini Vasan, ITO (1987) 163 ITR 487 (Mad.);\n•\nIndian Cloth Depot v. CIT (1988) 173 ITR 330 (Ker.);\n•\nMohammad Shabbir v. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 111 (MP);\n•\nSir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.269 and 273 to 275 of 1993, decision dated: 10-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. J.W. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSURESHCHAND MITTAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 332 = 2000 SLD 332 = 2000 PTD 2503 = (1999) 236 ITR 719", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure on Panchayat Contribution\nTopic: Income-tax - Deductibility of Business Expenditure for Employee Welfare\nIssue: Whether a contribution made by a company to a Panchayat for upgrading a school is deductible as a business expenditure under Section 37.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee company made a donation of Rs.35,000 to the Panchayat to upgrade its elementary school to a high school.\n•\nThe school management assured the company that it would provide preferential admission to the children of the company's employees.\n•\nThe company claimed the donation as a revenue expenditure in its tax return.\n•\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim for deduction, arguing it was a personal expense, not a business expense.\nTribunal’s Reasoning:\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the contribution was made with the specific purpose of benefiting the company’s employees by ensuring better education opportunities for their children.\n•\nThe expenditure was categorized as staff welfare expenditure because it aimed to create goodwill among employees and improve their satisfaction, thus benefiting the business indirectly.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, affirming that the expenditure was a legitimate business expense.\n•\nIt noted that the fact the benefit was extended to the general public (i.e., children outside the employees’ families) did not disqualify it from being treated as a business expenditure.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 203 (Mad.);\n•\nSri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 101 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.756 of 1984 (Reference No.671 of 1984), decision dated: 4-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALALSUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER.OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIA RADIATORS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 333 = 2000 SLD 333 = 2000 PTD 2506 = (1999) 236 ITR 702", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Intimation under S.143(1)(a) vs. Notice under S.143(2)\nTopic: Income-tax - Difference between Intimation and Notice under Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(2)\nIssue: Whether an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) can be issued after a notice under Section 143(2) has been given.\nFacts:\n•\nThe issue pertains to the sequence of assessments in Income Tax cases and the nature of jurisdiction exercised under Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(2).\n•\nUnder Section 143(1)(a), the Assessing Officer can issue a summary intimation based on the return filed, while Section 143(2) pertains to the initiation of a detailed scrutiny assessment.\n•\nThe assessees argued that an intimation could not be issued after a notice under Section 143(2), but the Revenue contended that an intimation could still be issued in some cases.\nTribunal’s Reasoning:\n•\nThe Tribunal followed the interpretation that Section 143(1)(a) deals with a summary process, and once a notice under Section 143(2) has been issued, it initiates a full-fledged assessment, which precludes the issuance of an intimation under Section 143(1)(a).\nHeld:\n•\nThe Court concluded that once a notice under Section 143(2) has been issued, an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be issued, as the two processes serve different purposes: one for summary assessment and the other for detailed scrutiny.\nReferences:\n•\nGujarat Poly-AVX Electronics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (1996) 222 ITR 140 (Guj.);\n•\nLakhanpal National Limited v. Deputy CIT (1996) 222 ITR 151 (Guj.);\n•\nModern Fibotex India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (1995) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.);\n•\nCIT v. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust (1992) 195 ITR 825 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Matter No. 1950 of 1991, decision dated: 24-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " Y. R. MEENA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debi Prosad Pal, Pronab Kumar Pal and Miss Manisha Seal for Petitioners. Dipak Kumar Shome acrd Md. Nizam-ud-Din for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "PEICO ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICALS LIMITED and another\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 334 = 2000 SLD 334 = 2000 PTD 2511 = (1999) 236 ITR 1003", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e)\nTopic: Income-tax - Deemed Dividend and Loan to Shareholder after Death\nIssue: Whether a transfer of a debit balance from a deceased shareholder's account to the account of his wife can be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee was a shareholder in a private company, and her late husband, G. N. Sam, was also a shareholder.\n•\nAfter his death, a debit balance in his estate account was transferred to the wife's account in the books of the company.\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer treated this transfer as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e), invoking the provision for loans or advances to shareholders.\n•\nThe assessee argued that the transfer was not a payment but a book entry and thus could not be treated as a deemed dividend.\nTribunal’s Reasoning:\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the transfer of the debit balance to the wife’s account did not involve an actual flow of cash from the company to the shareholder, which is essential for the classification of a transaction as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).\n•\nIt concluded that only actual payments or advances could be considered as deemed dividends.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the transfer of a debit balance was not a payment, and therefore, could not be treated as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).\nReferences:\n•\nGovindarajulu Naidu (G.R.) v. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 13 (Mad.);\n•\nSundaram Chettiar (T.) v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 287 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1104 of 1982 (Reference No.665 of 1982), decision dated: 17-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " J. KANAKARAJ AND K. NATARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. SAVITHIRI SAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 335 = 2000 SLD 335 = 2000 PTD 2516 = (1999) 236 ITR 1001", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Capital Gain on Sale of Land Declared Null and Void\nIssue: Whether capital gains tax can be levied on a sale transaction declared void by the Collector under the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee sold 105 plots of land that came to his share after a family partition.\n•\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) calculated capital gains on the sale and included the amount in the assessee's taxable income.\n•\nHowever, the Collector of Surat declared the sale void under the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972, which prohibited such sales in urban areas.\n•\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, ruling that the sale was null and void and, therefore, no capital gains tax could be levied.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that since the sale was void ab initio, no transaction of sale occurred, and thus no capital gains could arise.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.343 of 1983, decision dated: 16-04-1998(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 25 9 1977 in P.T.R. 317 of 1972)", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir Joshi, B. B. Nayak with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. Manish J. Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVITHALBHAI P. PATEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 336 = 2000 SLD 336 = 2000 PTD 2519 = (1999) 236 ITR 988", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Failure to File Advance Tax Estimates\nTopic: Income-tax - Penalty for Failure to Furnish Estimate of Advance Tax\nIssue: Whether penalties can be imposed under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273 for failing to file advance tax estimates when no prior satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee failed to file estimates for advance tax and delayed filing returns.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) for delay and Section 273 for failure to estimate advance tax.\n•\nThe penalties were imposed, but the assessee contested that no valid satisfaction regarding the delay in filing returns was recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing the penalty notice.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Court held that the imposition of penalties was invalid, as no valid satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating the penalties. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to quash the penalties was upheld.\nReferences:\n•\nManasvi (D. M.) v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 150 of 1995 and 21 to 26 and 115 of 1996, decision dated: 8-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. P. M. CELINE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 337 = 2000 SLD 337 = 2000 PTD 2524 = (1999) 236 ITR 981", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 65\no\nDefinite Information:\n\nThe concept of definite information refers to information that is clear, factual, and not based on estimates, gossip, or surmises.\n\nA report or information should not be based on assumptions; it must be concrete and verifiable to be considered definite. \n\nThe cases from 1997 PTD 47, 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1097, 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1994 reaffirm this principle that information provided must be beyond mere speculation.\n2.\nSelf-Assessment Scheme – Section 65 & Section 13(1)(d)\no\nReopening of Assessment:\n\nThe Assessing Officer (AO) had re-opened an assessment that was initially completed under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n\nThe reassessment involved an increase in property valuation, but the information used by the AO was found to be insufficiently definite. \n\nThe reassessment was canceled by the Appellate Tribunal due to a lack of corroborative evidence and incomplete investigation into the transaction.\n3.\nInformation for Reopening:\no\nIf information is under further scrutiny or lacks authenticity, it cannot be deemed definite. \no\nThe AO failed to gather adequate evidence or corroborate the details provided by an inspector's report.\no\nThe reassessment was thus declared void for lack of jurisdiction.\n4.\nNotice and Jurisdiction under Section 65:\no\nA notice issued under Section 65 without properly ticking the relevant clauses rendered the assessment invalid.\no\nThe absence of a clear direction in the notice indicated the AO's uncertainty regarding which section applied to the case, further invalidating the reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.33 of 1984, decision dated: 29-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. V. Ramakrishnan for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nT. P. S. H. SOKKALAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 338 = 2000 SLD 338 = 2000 PTD 2531", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 65\no\nDefinite Information:\n\nThe concept of definite information refers to information that is clear, factual, and not based on estimates, gossip, or surmises.\n\nA report or information should not be based on assumptions; it must be concrete and verifiable to be considered definite. \n\nThe cases from 1997 PTD 47, 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1097, 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1994 reaffirm this principle that information provided must be beyond mere speculation.\n2.\nSelf-Assessment Scheme – Section 65 & Section 13(1)(d)\no\nReopening of Assessment:\n\nThe Assessing Officer (AO) had re-opened an assessment that was initially completed under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n\nThe reassessment involved an increase in property valuation, but the information used by the AO was found to be insufficiently definite. \n\nThe reassessment was canceled by the Appellate Tribunal due to a lack of corroborative evidence and incomplete investigation into the transaction.\n3.\nInformation for Reopening:\no\nIf information is under further scrutiny or lacks authenticity, it cannot be deemed definite. \no\nThe AO failed to gather adequate evidence or corroborate the details provided by an inspector's report.\no\nThe reassessment was thus declared void for lack of jurisdiction.\n4.\nNotice and Jurisdiction under Section 65:\no\nA notice issued under Section 65 without properly ticking the relevant clauses rendered the assessment invalid.\no\nThe absence of a clear direction in the notice indicated the AO's uncertainty regarding which section applied to the case, further invalidating the reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(1),13(1)(d) & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3728/LB of 1995, decision dated: 20-04-2000hearing DATE : 8-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SAFIA CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 339 = 2000 SLD 339 = 2000 PTD 2538 = (1999) 236 ITR 978", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nPowers of Commissioner under Section 263\no\nRevision of Assessment:\n\nThe Commissioner (CIT) set aside an assessment order for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96, directing a fresh assessment.\n\nAfter the Assessing Officer (AO) re-assessed, the CIT issued a notice to show cause why powers under Section 263 should not be exercised due to failure in following previous directions.\n\nThe case underlines that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner could have addressed the issues directly with the CIT.\n2.\nLegal Recourse and Writ Petition:\no\nInstead of filing a writ petition, the assessee could have raised their concerns directly with the CIT under Section 263, as the order under Section 263 is appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).\no\nThe notices were merely provisional, and the issue could be resolved without judicial intervention at this stage.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rules Nos.464 and 465 of 1998, decision dated: 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. CHOWDHURY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Gogoi,. Dr. A. K. Saraf, R. K. Joshi, K. K. Gupta and R. K. Agrawalla for Petitioners. U. Bhuyan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "GUPTA AGRO-FARM and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 340 = 2000 SLD 340 = 2000 PTD 2541 = (1999) 236 ITR 931", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nRefund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS)\no\nBarred by Time:\n\nThe assessee sought a refund of Rs. 2.88 lakh after tax was deducted at source (TDS). The assessment had become time-barred, meaning the department could no longer assess the tax liability.\n\nThe court ruled that since the assessment had expired, the refund should be processed, along with any applicable interest.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "C. W. P. No. 943 of 1996, decision dated: 16-09-1998.", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kumkum Sen for Petitioner. Ms. Geetanjali Bhushan for Respondent No. 1. R. D. Jolly and Ms. Preinlata Barisal for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4", + "Party Name:": "AROON K. BASAK\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 341 = 2000 SLD 341 = 2000 PTD 2543 = (1999) 236 ITR 910", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nPenalty for Concealment of Income under Sections 271 and 274\no\nJurisdiction to Levy Penalty:\n\nThe penalty proceedings were referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) before the amendment to Section 274 in 1976, which removed the IAC's authority to levy penalties.\n\nEven though the penalty order was issued after the amendment, the IAC retained jurisdiction because the proceedings were initiated before the amendment came into effect.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 562 of 1983 (Reference No. 302 of 1983), decision dated: 6-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA. VADIVEL CHETTIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 342 = 2000 SLD 342 = 2000 PTD 2545 = (1999) 236 ITR 909", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nAdvance Tax – Reduction or Waiver of Interest\no\nInterest under Sections 215 and 217:\n\nThe Deputy Commissioner (DCIT) and CIT reduced interest payments under Sections 215 and 217 by 50% after evaluating the case.\n\nThe High Court upheld this decision, noting that there was no reason to interfere as the authorities had properly applied their minds.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. Nos. 11646 and 11649 of 1991, decision dated: 13-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " A. S. VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for Petitioner. P. K. R. Menon, Senior Advocate for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "MANUEL SONS WINES\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 343 = 2000 SLD 343 = 2000 PTD 2546 = (1999) 236 ITR 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtERlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nAssessment and Reference under Section 256\no\nBifurcation of Income:\n\nThe issue was whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) had the authority to bifurcate capital gains into long-term and short-term capital gains.\n\nThe Tribunal decided that the land should be treated as a long-term capital asset even after the construction of a building, based on the holding period of the land.\n\nThe Revenue did not challenge the order of the CIT (Appeals), and the tribunal's decision on this matter was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.38 of 1995, decision dated: 17-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. R. K. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAMPURSHOTTAM AGRAWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 344 = 2000 SLD 344 = 2000 PTD 2549 = (1999) 236 ITR 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nDisallowance of Business Expenditure under Section 40A(3)\no\nPayments Exceeding Rs. 2,500:\n\nThe assessee made cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 to several parties, and the AO disallowed them under Section 40A(3), which mandates payments above this threshold to be made by cheque or bank draft.\n\nThe Tribunal allowed some of the payments as exceptional circumstances existed, such as insistence from the recipients or necessity.\n\nHowever, the court found that just the insistence of the recipients was not enough. Both conditions—necessity and refusal to accept cheque—should be met to allow such payments under the circular from the CBDT.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.34 of 1992, decision dated: 28-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansal, for the Commissioner. N. K. Sud for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG. S-. AUTO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 345 = 2000 SLD 345 = 2000 PTD 2553 = (1999) 236 ITR 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nCapital Gains – Long-term and Short-term\no\nBifurcation of Capital Gains:\n\nThe Tribunal ruled that land, held for over 36 months, could be considered as a long-term capital asset, while a building on the land, held for less than 36 months, was a short-term capital asset.\n\nThis bifurcation was valid, as the land itself continued to be a distinct capital asset even after the construction of the building.\n\nNo question of law arose, as the Tribunal's decision was consistent with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. P. No.406 of 1996, decision dated: 19-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramanian and C. V. Rajan for Petitioner. S. Gurunathkrishnan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDr. D. L. RAMACHANDRA RAO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 346 = 2000 SLD 346 = 2000 PTD 2559 = (1999) 236 ITR 742", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reassessment - Income Escaping Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nFacts:\nThe petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting hand tools (spanners). For the assessment year 1992-93, the petitioner filed an original return showing an income of Rs. 22,650, claiming a deduction of Rs. 64,34,244 under Section 80HHC. A revised return was later filed with the same income but a higher claim for the deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 69,35,182. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed a deduction of Rs. 54,78,739 in the final assessment order dated December 20, 1994.\nSubsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 154 for rectification of the assessment, pointing out that the deduction under Section 80HHC should have been higher (Rs. 69,49,555). An appeal was also filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in January 1995, where certain expenditures were disallowed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the AO to re-determine the deduction after ruling that the incentive received by the petitioner under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) formed part of the petitioner's income under Section 28 of the Act.\nThe AO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on July 16, 1996, to reopen the assessment for the year 1992-93 to re-examine the deduction under Section 80HHC, citing that the petitioner had wrongly claimed deductions for the incentive received under the IPRS.\nIssue:\nThe main issue was whether the AO could issue a notice under Section 148 for reassessment when new facts (non-utilization of imported raw materials despite receiving incentive money) had come to light during the reassessment of the subsequent assessment year (1993-94).\nHeld/Conclusion:\nThe reassessment notice under Section 148 was valid. The court held that new material had come to the AO's notice regarding the non-utilization of imported raw materials. This fact was not examined during the original assessment and was considered a new material discovered during the review of the following year's assessment. The reassessment was therefore justified under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 147, 148.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 12509 of 1996, decision dated: 6-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. GARG AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Mittal for Petitioner. R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Bindal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VENUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 347 = 2000 SLD 347 = 2000 PTD 2563 = (1999) 236 ITR 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Depreciation - Actual Cost and Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nFacts:\nThe assessee-company was a partner in a partnership firm consisting of nine partners. The other eight partners were also shareholders of the assessee-company. On February 25, 1985, the firm was dissolved, and its assets and liabilities were transferred to the assessee-company. According to the firm's books, the written down value (WDV) of the assets as of December 31, 1984, was Rs. 3,16,110. After the transfer, the assets were revalued at Rs. 22,30,795 on February 25, 1985. The company claimed depreciation on the revalued amount of Rs. 22,30,795, arguing that the revaluation was necessary for the adjustment of the mutual rights between the partners following the dissolution of the firm.\nThe Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the purpose of the dissolution and transfer of assets was mainly to reduce the tax liability by claiming higher depreciation on the revalued assets. He invoked Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act and determined the actual cost to the company to be Rs. 3,16,110, which was the original value of the assets, and disallowed the depreciation claim based on the enhanced value. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this disallowance.\nThe assessee-company appealed to the Tribunal, which found that the revaluation of the assets was done bona fide to adjust the mutual rights of the partners and ruled that Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) did not apply. The Tribunal held that the company was entitled to claim depreciation based on the enhanced value of the assets.\nIssue:\nWhether the assessee-company was entitled to claim depreciation on assets transferred from a dissolved partnership firm at the revalued enhanced price, or whether Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) would limit the depreciation claim.\nHeld/Conclusion:\nThe court held that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect. Although the revaluation of assets was done for adjusting mutual rights between the partners, the main purpose of the transaction was to reduce the company's tax liability by claiming higher depreciation. Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act applies to such cases where the primary intention behind the asset transfer is to reduce tax liability. Therefore, the actual cost of the assets for depreciation purposes should be determined by the Assessing Officer based on the original value (Rs. 3,16,110) and not the enhanced revalued price of Rs. 22,30,795.\nThe court also emphasized that the corporate entity could be disregarded if it is used to circumvent tax obligations. Therefore, the assessee-company was not entitled to claim depreciation on the revalued assets.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 32 & 43(1), Explanation 3.\n•\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 609 (SC)\n•\nCruikshank v. Sutherland (1922) 92 LJ Ch. 136 (HL)\n•\nFirestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Lewellin (Inspector of Taxes) (1958) 33 ITR 741 (HL)\n•\nGinners and Pressers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 616 (Bom.)\n•\nKungundi Industrial Works (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 540 (AP)\n•\nMalabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC)\n•\nSunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.92 and 93 of 1995 and 112 and 113 of 1996, decision dated: 3rd February, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " P.A. MOHAMMED AND P. SHANMUGAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPOULOSE AND MATHEN (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 348 = 2000 SLD 348 = 2000 PTD 2576 = (1999) 236 ITR 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Charitable Purpose - Charitable Trust - Business Expenditure - Scope of Section 13(1)(bb) - Running of Kuri Business by Charitable Trust\nFacts:\nThe assessee-company, engaged in the business of running Kuries, claimed that the income derived from the Kuri business was held under trust and applied for charitable purposes, thus entitling it to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This claim was based on a previous Supreme Court decision (Dharmadeepti v. CIT) in which the Supreme Court had held that the income from the Kuri business was exempt under Section 11 for the assessment year 1969-70.\nHowever, the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim for exemption for the subsequent years on the grounds that the income from business under a charitable trust would only be exempt if the business was carried out in the actual course of fulfilling the primary charitable purpose, as stipulated by the amendment to Section 13(1)(bb). The AO asserted that the Kuri business was merely a means of appropriating income for charitable purposes rather than being directly linked to the trust's primary objective.\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, but the Tribunal reversed this, stating that the Kuri business was incidental to the primary charitable purpose, and thus the exemption should apply as per the earlier Supreme Court ruling.\nIssue:\nWhether the income from the Kuri business run by the charitable trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11, considering the amendment introduced by Section 13(1)(bb), which generally disallows exemption for income from business unless directly related to the primary charitable activities.\nHeld/Conclusion:\n•\nThe primary purpose of the trust was charitable, and the business (Kuri) was carried out as a means of fulfilling the primary charitable objective, not as an independent business for profit. Therefore, the income derived from the Kuri business was a by-product of the charitable activities and was entitled to exemption under Section 11.\n•\nSection 13(1)(bb) did not apply because the business was conducted as a means of furthering the trust's charitable objectives, not as a business separate from the charitable purposes.\n•\nInterest on investments from accumulated funds over the years could not be classified as business income and was thus taxable under the head Other Sources. \n•\nThe Tribunal was correct in considering the merits of the claim despite the assessee abandoning a particular ground, as there was no estoppel against law.\nCitations/References:\n•\nThanthi Trust v. CIT (Asst.) (1995) 213 ITR 626 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nDharmadeepti v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 454 (SC)\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax - Income from Other Sources - Charitable Trust - Interest on Investments\nIssue:\nWhether the interest on the investment of accumulated funds by the charitable trust, running a Kuri business, could be considered income from the business or should be classified as income from Other Sources under the Income Tax Act.\nHeld/Conclusion:\n•\nThe interest earned on the investment of accumulated funds was not income derived from the business of running the Kuries. Instead, it was taxable under the head Other Sources. \n•\nThis distinction is critical in determining the proper classification of income under the Income Tax Act.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income-tax - Reference - Estoppel - Tribunal’s Consideration of Grounds\nIssue:\nWhether the Tribunal could consider the merits of a ground that the assessee had previously abandoned.\nHeld/Conclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal was justified in considering the ground on its merits, as there was no estoppel against law. Even though the assessee had given up a particular ground, the Tribunal was still entitled to examine the issue based on legal principles and the merits of the case.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference Nos. 119 to 121 of 1995, decision dated: 12th February 1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. V. M. Kurian, A. V. Thomas, E. K. Dilraj and Mathew B. Kurian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "CMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHARMADEEPTI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 349 = 2000 SLD 349 = 2000 PTD 2582 = (1999) 236 ITR 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Assessment - Compulsory Audit - Conditions Precedent for Application of Section 142(2A)\nFacts:\nSection 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act allows the Assessing Officer to direct an audit of the accounts if the accounts are complex or if the interests of the Revenue are at stake. In this case, the Assessing Officer proposed an audit under Section 142(2A) based on ongoing litigations involving the assessee with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Income Tax Department. The Assessing Officer’s proposal was not supported by any material showing that the accounts were complex or that an audit would benefit the Revenue.\nThe Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Chief CIT) approved the proposal, but the court held that the mere existence of litigation was not a valid reason for directing an audit under Section 142(2A) unless the accounts were indeed complex or the Revenue's interest was specifically at risk.\nIssue:\nWhether the conditions for directing an audit under Section 142(2A) were met, particularly in the absence of material showing complexity in the accounts or a direct benefit to the Revenue.\nHeld/Conclusion:\n•\nThe conditions for applying Section 142(2A) were not fulfilled. The mere fact of pending litigation with the RBI and the Income-tax Department did not justify the conclusion that the accounts were complex or that an audit would be beneficial to the Revenue.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to the complexity of the accounts and did not provide sufficient material to the Chief CIT for approval.\n•\nThe appointment of an auditor under Section 142(2A) without proper application of mind was invalid, and the order was quashed.\nCitations/References:\n•\nAssistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, Preventive Service Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra AIR 1972 SC 689\n•\nBarium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board (1966) 36 Comp. Cas. 639 (SC)\n•\nChaitnya Charan Das v. State of West Bengal AIR 1995 Cal. 336\n•\nChandra Kumar (L.) v. Union of India (1997) 228 ITR 725 (SC)\n•\nChhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 225 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Walchand & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC)\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax - General Principles - Principles of Natural Justice\nIssue:\nWhether the principles of natural justice apply in the case of directing an audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act.\nHeld/Conclusion:\n•\nThe principles of natural justice are applicable unless specifically excluded by law. In this case, the Assessing Officer’s failure to apply his mind properly before requesting an audit under Section 142(2A) violated these principles, leading to the invalidity of the order.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 751 of 1998, decision dated: 24-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SATYABRATA SINHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debi Prosad Pal, Pronab Pal and Miss Manisha Seal for Petitioners. Mukul Prakash Banerjee, Rupendra Nath Mitra and Jaydeb Chandru Saha for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD. and another\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 350 = 2000 SLD 350 = 2000 PTD 2595 = (1999) 236 ITR 660", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – Reference – Capital Gains – Business – Firm – Business Income or Capital Gains – Sale of Portion of Building by Firm – Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 28, 45 & 256(2):\nFacts:\nThe assessee, a firm, was established in 1970 with the objective of constructing a multi-storeyed commercial building. The firm was dissolved in March 1979 after completing the project, with a portion of the building already sold. For the assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78, the Tribunal had ruled that the firm was engaged in real estate business, and the land was treated as stock-in-trade. Following the dissolution, the assets, including the unsold portion of the building, were transferred to a new firm, and the remaining showrooms in the building were sold in the assessment year 1982-83. The Assessing Officer assessed the sale as business income based on the written-down value of the property in the books of the dissolved firm. The Tribunal, however, treated the surplus from the sale of showrooms as capital gains.\nIssue:\nWhether the income from the sale of the building portion should be assessed as capital gains or business income.\nHeld:\n(i) The Tribunal's decision regarding whether the income from the sale of the building portion at Rs. 4,33,685 should be assessed as capital gains was a question of law.\n(ii) The valuation of the assets at the time of the dissolution, used for calculating depreciation for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87, was a question of law.\n(iii) The Tribunal was correct in working out capital gains on the basis of the valuation made on March 17, 1979, and not using the actual cost of construction.\nRelevant Citations:\n•\nA. L. A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)\n•\nBihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 114 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Shree Ram Memorial Foundation (1986) 158 ITR 3 (Delhi)\n•\nCIT v. Water and Power Development Consultancy Services (India) Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 329 (Delhi)\n•\nKaloo Ram Govind Ram v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 335 (SC)\n•\nRaj Narain Agarwala v. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 1 (Delhi)\n•\nSaharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 294 (SC)\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax – Reference – Capital Gains – Computation of Capital Gains – Question of Law – Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 45, 48 & 256(2):\nThis section addresses whether the Tribunal’s treatment of the surplus on the sale of portions of the building as capital gains was appropriate and whether the method of calculation for capital gains was legally correct. The key issue was whether the Tribunal had applied the right valuation methods for computing capital gains and whether the sale proceeds were correctly treated as capital gains rather than business income.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income-tax – Reference – Depreciation – Actual Cost – Dissolution of Firm – Valuation for Depreciation – Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 32:\nAfter the dissolution of the original firm and the formation of a new one, the assets were transferred to the new firm based on a mutually agreed-upon valuation. The issue was whether this agreed valuation could be used as the basis for computing depreciation, instead of using the original cost of construction. The case raised the question of whether assets transferred during a dissolution could have their new agreed value used for the purpose of granting depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No. 80 of 1995, decision dated: 16th. November, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjiv Khanna with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for Petitioner. M. S. Syali with Satyen Sethi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHANSALAYA PROPERTIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 351 = 2000 SLD 351 = 2000 PTD 2601 = (1999) 236 ITR 648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – Business – Lease – Lease of Industrial Sheds – Income from Lease Assessable as Business Income – Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 22 & 28:\nFacts:\nThe assessee was a public sector undertaking of the State Government. It purchased land, developed it, and constructed industrial sheds, which were then leased out. The assessee argued that the income from these leases should be considered business income. The Income-tax Officer initially treated the income as income from property under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act. However, both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the lease income should be treated as business income under Section 28.\nIssue:\nWhether the income from the lease of industrial sheds should be classified as income from property or business income.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal correctly held that the income from the lease of industrial sheds was business income, based on the nature of the activity (development and leasing out property) and the intent of the business.\nRelevant Citation:\n•\nCIT v. A. P. Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation (1989) 175 ITR 352 (AP)\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax – Accounting – Change in Method of Accounting – Interest on Bridge Loans – Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 145:\nFacts:\nThe assessee had been advancing loans to various cooperative sugar factories and accounting for interest on these loans on an accrual basis. However, for the accounting year 1980-81, the assessee decided to switch to a cash basis for accounting interest on bridge loans. The reason for the change was stated in the directors' report. The Income-tax Officer objected to the change, asserting that the interest could not be accounted for on a cash basis.\nIssue:\nWhether the change in the method of accounting for interest on loans from accrual to cash basis was permissible under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal found that the change in the method of accounting was consistent, bona fide, and had no ulterior motive. The Tribunal ruled that the change was in accordance with the law, and the assessee could account for the interest on a cash basis. The assessee’s income could still be properly deduced without violating the provisions of Section 145(1).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 159 of 1990, decision dated: 21st September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND R. BAYAPU REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 352 = 2000 SLD 352 = 2000 PTD 2605 = (1999) 236 ITR 612", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Capital gains—Understatement of consideration\n•\nTopic: Applicability of Section 52(2) for understatement of consideration in capital asset transfers.\n•\nConclusion: Section 52(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only when the consideration for the transfer of a capital asset is understated. The burden of proving the understatement is on the Revenue.\n•\nCitations: K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC).\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax—Capital gains—Computation of capital gains (Sale of unquoted equity shares)\n•\nTopic: Treatment of gratuity provisions when computing capital gains on the sale of unquoted equity shares.\n•\nConclusion: Provisions for gratuity should be treated as liabilities and deducted from the value of assets when calculating the break-up value of shares.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. S. Ram (1984) 147 ITR 278 (Mad.).\n________________________________________\n(c) Income-tax—Capital gains—Long-term or short-term capital gains\n•\nTopic: Determination of long-term or short-term capital gains when shares are acquired before 1954 and exchanged in a merger.\n•\nConclusion: The shares acquired in 1954 or before are treated as long-term capital assets. The option to value them as on 1-1-1954 can be exercised. Bonus shares are not considered when determining the value of shares.\n•\nCitations: S. Ram v. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 353 (Mad.); Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. v. ITO (1971) 82 ITR 788 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos. 983 to 985 of 1981 (References Nos.479 to 481 of 1981), decision dated: 9-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. S. Sridhar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nT. S. SRINIVASAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 424 = 1999 SLD 424 = 1999 PTD 2910 = (1999) 80 TAX 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtES1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Quasi judicial authority—Objection as to jurisdiction\n•\nTopic: Jurisdictional objections in quasi-judicial authorities.\n•\nConclusion: A quasi-judicial authority must consider jurisdictional objections raised in proceedings and decide on them as a preliminary matter.\n•\nNo citations referenced.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (Pakistan)—Jurisdictional challenge in tax assessment proceedings\n•\nTopic: Powers of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner and jurisdiction under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: The court observed that jurisdictional objections should be raised before the concerned authorities, who must decide these matters as a preliminary issue. If the assessees are not satisfied with the decision, they can challenge it in appeal.\n•\nCitations: Constitutional Petition - High Court ruling on jurisdictional objections.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,156 & 62/132 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Art.199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.26331 of 1998, heard on 31st March, 1999", + "Judge Name:": " NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Akhtar for Petitioner. Mian Subah Sadiq Kalasson for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL MAJEED AWAN\nVs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 425 = 1999 SLD 425 = 1999 PTD 2912 = (1998) 229 ITR 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Business expenditure—Provision for contingent liabilities\n•\nTopic: Contingent liabilities and their deductibility under Section 37.\n•\nConclusion: Provision for contingent liabilities, such as unutilized leave, is not deductible as business expenditure.\n•\nCitations: Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 66 (SC).\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax—Business expenditure—Surtax\n•\nTopic: Deductibility of surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.\n•\nConclusion: Surtax is an additional tax on profits and cannot be deducted when calculating total income under the Income Tax Act.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 936 (Kar.).\n________________________________________\n(c) Income-tax—Capital or revenue expenditure—Rights issue\n•\nTopic: Deductibility of expenditure on the issue of rights shares.\n•\nConclusion: Expenditure incurred in the issuance of rights shares is considered capital expenditure and not deductible under Section 37.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1988) 173 ITR 374 (Kar.).\n________________________________________\n(d) Income-tax—Business expenditure—Perquisites and benefits to employees\n•\nTopic: Expenditure on perquisites and maintenance of residential quarters for employees.\n•\nConclusion: Depreciation, property tax, and routine repairs for residential quarters used by employees are not disallowed as perquisites under Section 40-A(5).\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1988) 173 ITR 374 (Kar.).\n________________________________________\n(e) Income-tax—Depreciation—Factory building and canteen\n•\nTopic: Depreciation on factory buildings and canteens.\n•\nConclusion: Canteens located within factory premises are considered part of the factory building and eligible for a higher rate of depreciation.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Engine Valves Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 347 (Mad.); CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1986) 158 ITR 734 (Kar.).\n________________________________________\n(f) Income-tax—Depreciation—Fluctuations in foreign exchange\n•\nTopic: Depreciation on assets whose value has increased due to exchange rate fluctuations.\n•\nConclusion: Depreciation is allowable on the increase in the value of assets resulting from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Arvind Mills (1992) 193 ITR 255 (SC).\n________________________________________\n(g) Income-tax—Depreciation—Roads and drains within factory premises\n•\nTopic: Depreciation on roads and drains laid in factory premises.\n•\nConclusion: Roads and drains within factory premises are part of the factory building and thus eligible for depreciation under Section 32.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC).\n________________________________________\n(h) Income-tax—Depreciation—Pipelines, sanitary fittings, and storage tanks\n•\nTopic: Classification of pipelines, sanitary fittings, and storage tanks as plant for depreciation purposes.\n•\nConclusion: Whether these assets are plant depends on their functional role in the business, to be determined on a case-by-case basis.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Kanodia Warehousing Corporation (1980) 121 ITR 996 (All.).\n________________________________________\n(i) Income-tax—Depreciation—Initial depreciation on agricultural machinery\n•\nTopic: Initial depreciation on components of agricultural machinery.\n•\nConclusion: Components of agricultural machinery not specified in the Ninth Schedule do not qualify for initial depreciation.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. J.B. Advani & Co. (Mysore) (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 638 (Kar.).\n________________________________________\n(j) Income-tax—Export markets development allowance—Weighted deduction\n•\nTopic: Eligibility for weighted deduction on insurance premiums paid to Export Credit Guarantee Corporation.\n•\nConclusion: Premium paid to the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation for information regarding overseas markets qualifies for a weighted deduction under Section 35-B.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. J.B. Advani & Co. (Mysore) (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 638 (Kar.).\n________________________________________\n(k) Income-tax—Appeal to CIT (Appeals)—Powers of CIT (Appeals)\n•\nTopic: Powers of CIT (Appeals) to permit new claims not made before the Income-tax Officer.\n•\nConclusion: CIT (Appeals) can allow the assessee to claim deductions not originally made before the Income-tax Officer when the relevant materials are on record.\n•\nCitations: Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC); CIT v. Sayaji Mills Ltd. (1974) 94 ITR 26 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R.C. Nos. l to 3 of 1994. decided on 27-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R. V. RAVEENDRAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. S.E. Dastur for King and Partridge for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMOTOR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. (N0.2) (and vice versa)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 426 = 1999 SLD 426 = 1999 PTD 2940 = (1999) 80 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #2591\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 77:\no\nGovernment liabilities arising after a charge on properties do not take precedence over secured creditors' claims (citing various case laws including Federation of Pakistan v. Pioneer Bank Limited and Industrial Development Bank Limited v. Maida Limited).\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance - Section 92:\no\nIndividual directors cannot be personally liable for the income tax of a company unless they can prove control or dominion over company funds in their personal capacity (referencing Iftikhar Hussain Mamdot v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation).\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance - Section 77 (again):\no\nRecovery of taxes from a company’s directors requires prior written approval from the Income-tax Commissioner. Without this approval, recovery cannot be made from directors.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=77,92 ", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 157 of 1990, decision dated: 15-03-1999, hearing DATE : 1st December, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " RANA BHAGWAN DAS AND SABIHUDDIN AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Iqbal Ahmed for Appellant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent No. 4", + "Party Name:": "HABIB BANK LTD\nVs\nMessrs RUDOLF DONHILL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 427 = 1999 SLD 427 = 1999 PTD 2949 = (1999) 80 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInterpretation of Statutes:\no\nStatutory provisions must be applied independently and cannot be limited by the actions of one agency (promissory estoppel is not applicable across all organs of the State).\no\nJudicial interpretation is creative within the boundaries of statute law and previous legal frameworks.\no\nThe use of distinct terms in legislation usually indicates different meanings, and the legislative intent should not be overlooked or assumed to be irrational.\n•\nBanking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962):\no\nDistinguishes between banking companies and financial institutions. Banking companies can issue cheque books and accept deposits, whereas investment finance companies cannot issue cheque books or accept deposits as defined in the ordinance.\no\nSpecific cases like 1997 PTD (Trib.) 786 and others are overruled, emphasizing the different statuses of banking companies and investment finance companies. It is critical to distinguish their roles, especially regarding the handling of deposits.\n•\nFiscal Burden & Tax Imposition:\no\nThe principles for imposing taxes or fiscal burdens should be derived directly from the statute, and statutes should not be interpreted in a way that contradicts the clear intent of the legislature.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(10) Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.38 Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=5(b),29,3A,7,5 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3027/LB and 3028/LB of 1996, decision dated: 19-04-1999, hearing DATE : 17-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Munir Hussain, Legal Advisor for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.3027/LB, 3028/LB, 1228/LB of 1992-93 and 6342 of 1996). Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent (in I.T.As. NOS.3027/LB and 3028/LB of 1996).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 428 = 1999 SLD 428 = 1999 PTD 3005 = (1999) 79 TAX 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Section 10(2)(xvi):\no\nAppeal to the Supreme Court: The question of whether liabilities arising from penal interest payments can be claimed as deductions under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was granted leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. This case aims to clarify whether such penalties related to business operations can be considered legitimate business expenses for tax deduction purposes.\n•\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Section 10(2)(viii):\no\nPenalties and Fines: Expenditures incurred due to penalties or fines, as a result of breaching the law, cannot be deducted as business expenses. However, if an expenditure is incurred due to the violation of legal provisions but does not constitute a penalty (such as in certain business-related cases), the deductibility of such expenses will depend on the specific circumstances of the case.\no\nCase References: Several case law examples, such as Messrs General Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1986 PTD 52), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alfa Insurance Co. (PLD 1981 SC 293), and others, were cited to support this principle.\n•\nIncome Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Sections 10(2)(xvi) & 10(1):\no\nPenal Interest for Banking Companies: Expenditures related to penal interest, arising from the failure of banking companies to maintain the required credit balance, were not considered normal business expenses. Such expenditure, being in the nature of a penalty, could not be deducted under Sections 10(2)(xvi) or 10(1). The case specifically relates to how banking companies' expenses incurred due to penal interest under the State Bank of Pakistan Act (1956) are treated for tax purposes.\no\nDistinction between Penalty and Penal Interest: The case clarifies that while penal interest is not a penalty per se, it still cannot be treated as a legitimate business expense for tax purposes due to its nature.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) & 10(1),10(2)(viii) State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=36,36(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.576 and 577 of 1994, decision dated: 14-01-1999, hearing DATE : 25-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, MAMOON KAZI AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-1 KARACHI\nVs\nPREMIER BANK LIMITED, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 429 = 1999 SLD 429 = 1999 PTD 3013 = (1998) 229 ITR 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDepreciation on Technical Know-How:\no\nDepreciation Claim: An assessee is entitled to claim depreciation for expenditure incurred on the acquisition of technical know-how in earlier years, even if no depreciation claim was made in the previous assessment years. This provision ensures that an assessee can claim depreciation in the year under consideration for such expenditures, regardless of the past non-claim.\no\nCase Law: The case of Nippon Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 231 (Kar.) and CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (1974) 96 ITR 672 (Guj.) were cited to establish the principle that depreciation on technical know-how, even if not claimed in earlier years, is still allowable.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.60 of 1981, decision dated: 9-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND S.L. SARAF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAHMAD HUSSAIN DILDAR HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 430 = 1999 SLD 430 = 1999 PTD 3016 = (1998) 229 ITR 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Section 246 & Section 3(4):\no\nAppeal Competency & Change of Accounting Year: Under Section 246(c) of the Income Tax Act, an assessee can appeal against an order of assessment under Sections 143(3) or 144, challenging the amount of income assessed, the amount of tax determined, or the period for which income is assessed. A request for a change in the accounting year under Section 3(4) may be a valid ground for appeal, even though the order rejecting such a request is not directly appealable.\no\nInterconnected Orders: The amount of income assessed is directly related to the period for which it is assessed. Therefore, any order affecting the assessment period, such as rejecting a request to change the accounting year, can be raised in the appeal against the order of assessment. The appeal is not limited to the specific appealable orders listed in Section 246, but can include any relevant decisions that affect the assessment.\no\nPrecedent: The case dissented from Delhi Registered Stockholders (Iron and Steel) Association Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 16 (P & H), where it was held that such a request was not appealable.\n•\nCase Reference: The judgment follows CIT v. Sri Hari Prosad Lohia (1983) 143 ITR 276 (Cal.), which supports this view.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 103 of 1988, decision dated: 19-06-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. M.J. Swamy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG. ARUN KUMAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 431 = 1999 SLD 431 = 1999 PTD 3021 = (1998) 229 ITR 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Section 256(2):\no\nReference & Findings of Fact: The assessee's income was increased based on the finding that a particular purchase transaction was sham, and related transportation charges were disallowed. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision.\no\nSham Transaction: The finding that the purchase transaction was not genuine was purely a finding of fact. As such, no question of law arose in this case, and the appeal regarding the disallowance was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1994, decision dated: 26-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee. V.K. Thankha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SYSTEM INDIA CASTINGS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 432 = 1999 SLD 432 = 1999 PTD 3023 = (1998) 229 ITR 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCapital vs. Revenue Expenditure:\no\nExchange Fluctuations on Imported Machinery: When a loan is taken for the import of machinery, and higher installments are paid than initially agreed due to exchange rate fluctuations, the additional payment is treated as capital expenditure. The reasoning is that the expenditure relates to the cost of acquiring an asset (machinery) and is thus capital in nature, rather than an ongoing revenue expense.\n________________________________________\nKey Takeaways\n1.\nAppeals and Assessment Period: In tax matters, appeals can be lodged not just against specific appealable orders, but also against other decisions (such as the rejection of a request for changing the accounting year) that affect the final assessment. The appeal can include challenges to the period for which income is assessed, even if such decisions are not separately appealable.\n2.\nFindings of Fact in Taxation: When an assessment is made based on a transaction found to be fictitious or a sham, it constitutes a finding of fact, not a question of law, and therefore cannot be challenged in a legal reference under Section 256(2).\n3.\nCapital Expenditure on Exchange Fluctuations: Any extra cost arising from exchange fluctuations on a loan used to purchase machinery is classified as capital expenditure, as it forms part of the overall cost of acquiring the asset.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1137 and 1138 of 1983 (References Nos.589 and 590 of 1983), decision dated: 7-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aravind Pandian for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "SIVANANDA STEELS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 433 = 1999 SLD 433 = 1999 PTD 3024 = (1998) 229 ITR 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #2598\nTopic: Reference on Gift Tax and Dividend Income\nKey Points:\n•\nLegal Provision: Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning references of questions of law to the High Court.\n•\nIssue: The assessee made a gift of shares to a donee, and the donee later received bonus shares and dividend income on those shares. The dispute was whether the dividend income should be assessed in the hands of the donor, depending on the validity of the gift.\n•\nConclusion: The question of whether the gift was valid was referred to the High Court during the gift tax proceedings. The Tribunal held that the gift was valid, but the Revenue argued that since the gift was void, the income should be assessed in the donor’s hands. The Court held that since the validity of the gift was crucial, the issues concerning the dividend income should be disposed of together with the question of gift validity.\n•\nKey Legal References:\no\nCIT v. Lakhiram Ramdas (1962) 44 ITR 726 (SC)\no\nHaripada Samanta Pramatha Nath Samanta v. CIT (1981) 128 ITR 592 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.58 and 59 of 1994, decision dated: 28-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N.K. SODHI AND M.L. SINGHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Goyal for the Commissioner. B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Barisal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSATYA NAND MUNJAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 434 = 1999 SLD 434 = 1999 PTD 3027 = (1998) 229 ITR 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtETFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #2599\nTopic: Income from Undisclosed Sources and Construction Cost\nKey Points:\n•\nLegal Provision: Income from undisclosed sources under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nIssue: The assessee had understated the cost of constructing a hospital and had agreed with the Revenue to spread the excess cost over four years. The assessee later contested that it should be spread over six years.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the cost should be spread over four years, as per the earlier agreement. Regarding the undisclosed equipment worth Rs.62,046, no opportunity to explain the source was provided to the assessee. The Court decided that no new direction should be given since more than 15 years had passed.\n•\nKey Legal References:\no\nCIT v. Sreedharan (M.) (1991) 190 ITR 604 (Ker.)\no\nGuduthur Bros. v. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 298 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 185 to 190 of 1991, decision dated: 10-06-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K.K. USHA AND K.A. MOHAMED SHAFI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee. PKR. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "UPASANA HOSPITAL AND NURSING HOME\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 435 = 1999 SLD 435 = 1999 PTD 3033 = (1998) 229 ITR 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes in Income from Undisclosed Sources\nKey Points:\n•\nLegal Provision: Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.\n•\nIssue: The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the deposit of Rs.47,422, leading to its inclusion as income from undisclosed sources. However, the explanation for another amount of Rs.3,60,276 was accepted.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal had considered the two assessments separately and had made independent findings. There was no error apparent on the face of the record, and the rectification application was therefore dismissed. The explanation for the two amounts was based on the evidence available, and no inconsistency was found in the Tribunal's decision.\n•\nKey Legal References:\no\nIndira Rani (B.) (Smt.) v. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 346 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.81 of 1993, decision dated: 5-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair and M.C. Madhavan for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Sint. B. INDIRA RANI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 436 = 1999 SLD 436 = 1999 PTD 3036 = (1998) 229 ITR 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure - Contribution to Provident Fund of Holding Company\nKey Points:\n•\nLegal Provision: Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows a deduction for contributions made by an employer to a recognized provident fund for the benefit of its employees.\n•\nIssue: The assessee, a subsidiary of M.M.T.C., deposited its employees’ provident fund contributions into M.M.T.C.'s recognized provident fund and claimed the amount as a deductible business expense.\n•\nConclusion: The deduction was disallowed because the assessee did not maintain its own recognized provident fund. Although it was a subsidiary of M.M.T.C., it remained a distinct entity, and contributions to the provident fund of its holding company could not be treated as contributions to its own employees’ provident fund. The assessee’s contributions to the holding company’s fund could not be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iv).\n•\nKey Legal References:\no\nCIT v. Burma Corporation Ltd. (AIR 1929 Rang. 193)\no\nCIT v. British India Corporation (1983) 142 ITR 563 (All.)\no\nGestetner Duplicators (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 1 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Cases Nos. 131 and 132 of 1985, decision dated: 4-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, C.J. AND S., J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. S.K. Katriar, Rita Kishore Sinha, S. Ranjan, R. Probhat and S.C. Mitra for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMICA TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 437 = 1999 SLD 437 = 1999 PTD 3040 = (1998) 229 ITR 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation - Extra Shift Allowance and Powers of Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A.A.C.)\nKey Points:\n•\nLegal Provision: The Income Tax Rules, 1962, Appendix 1, Part 1 for depreciation on assets and powers of A.A.C. under Sections 215 & 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nIssue 1 (Depreciation): The assessee sought an extra shift depreciation allowance for an electrical sub-station in its factory.\n•\nIssue 2 (Interest on Advance Tax): The assessee was penalized for delay in paying advance tax due to a delay in the clearance of a cheque by the bank. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A.A.C.) canceled the interest charge.\n•\nConclusion 1 (Depreciation): The assessee was entitled to the extra shift depreciation allowance for the electrical sub-station in its factory, as per the prescribed rules.\n•\nConclusion 2 (Interest): The A.A.C. had full powers to entertain the issue of interest on advance tax, and in this case, the delay was not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, the interest charge was correctly canceled.\n•\nKey Legal References:\no\nJute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC)\no\nTravancore Electro Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 273 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 121 and 122 of 1989, decision dated: 21st June, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair, M.A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TRAVANCORE ELECTRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 438 = 1999 SLD 438 = 1999 PTD 3044 = (1998) 229 ITR 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment - Jurisdiction, Failure to Disclose Material Facts, and Limitation\nKey Points:\n•\nLegal Provision: Sections 125, 147, and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning reassessment and concurrent jurisdiction of authorities.\n•\nIssue 1 (Jurisdiction): The reassessment notice was issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I.A.C.), and the question was whether this was valid as the jurisdiction was also conferred on the Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.).\n•\nIssue 2 (Failure to Disclose Material Facts): The assessee failed to disclose material facts related to the valuation of closing stock and excessive development rebate, leading to the reassessment.\n•\nIssue 3 (Writ Petition): The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the reassessment notice on the grounds that it was issued without jurisdiction and that it was barred by limitation.\n•\nConclusion 1 (Jurisdiction): The jurisdiction for reassessment could be concurrently exercised by both the I.A.C. and the I.T.O. Therefore, the reassessment notice issued by the I.A.C. was valid.\n•\nConclusion 2 (Failure to Disclose): The failure to disclose the correct valuation of closing stock and to disclose all material facts warranted the reassessment. Mere production of account books is not sufficient to fulfill the requirement of disclosure under Section 147.\n•\nConclusion 3 (Writ Petition): The adequacy of the reasons for reassessment cannot be evaluated in a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that the issue of limitation could be considered by the assessing authority, not in the writ proceedings.\n•\nKey Legal References:\no\nBansal (K.M.) v. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 247 (All.)\no\nIndo-Aden Salt Mfg. and Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 624 (SC)\no\nMahajan (M.M.) v. GTO (1992) 194 ITR 184 (P & H)\no\nV.K. Construction Works Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 215 ITR 26 (P & H)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No.2838 of 1980, decision dated: 29-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. MALTE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Mittal for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney Singh, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "VARDHMAN SPINNING AND GENERAL MILLS LTD\nVs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENTS) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 439 = 1999 SLD 439 = 1999 PTD 3052 = (1997) 228 ITR 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Powers of the High Court in an income-tax reference under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee or their counsel did not appear in court despite multiple opportunities.\n•\nDecision: The High Court can answer the question referred to it or return it unanswered but cannot recall or rehear the matter once it has made a decision, as that would amount to reviewing its earlier decision. The case was heard in the absence of the assessee’s counsel and answered after a careful review of the records.\n•\nKey Point: The High Court has no power to re-hear the reference after answering the question, and the Limitation Act does not apply to tax cases under Section 256.\n•\nRelevant Cases: Ahamad (K.) v. CIT (1974), CIT v. Bansi Dhar & Sons (1986), CIT v. K.T.M.S. Mohamood (1997), Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. CIT (1977), and Lakshmi Industries and Cold Storage Co. (P.) Ltd., In re (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.692 and 693 of 1996 in T.C (R.) No. 1117 of 1984, decision dated: 11-12-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.S. Jayakumar for Petitioner. S.V. Subramanian for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "K.T.M. S. MOHAMMAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 440 = 1999 SLD 440 = 1999 PTD 3060 = (1998) 229 ITR 615", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Taxability of income earned by a foreign company (Swiss) in India under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company entered into an agreement with an Indian company for providing know-how, engineering, and technical services.\n•\nDecision: The Tribunal’s treatment of a portion of the fee as royalty was incorrect. The payment for technical services was not taxable under Section 9(1)(vii), as the agreement was approved by the government before April 1, 1976. The portion of the payment related to technical assistance was deductible, and the balance, which could be considered royalty, was taxable.\n•\nKey Point: Payments for technical services under an agreement approved before April 1, 1976, are not taxable, while royalty payments are subject to tax under Section 9.\n•\nRelevant Cases: CIT v. K.T.M.S. Mohamood (1997), and CIT v. Bansi Dhar & Sons (1986).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.439 and 440 of 1990, decision dated: 17-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. H. S. Shrivastava for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKREBS & CO. (and vice versa)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 441 = 1999 SLD 441 = 1999 PTD 3068 = (1998) 229 ITR 577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Deductibility of contributions made by a cooperative society to an education fund under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nDecision: The contribution to the education fund was a statutory obligation of the cooperative society under Section 68 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, directly related to its business activities. As such, the expenditure was allowable as a deduction under Section 37.\n•\nKey Point: Statutory contributions that are directly related to the business operations of an entity are deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nRelevant Cases: Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. CIT (1964), Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. CIT (1993), and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT (1997).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.61 and 63 of 1986, decision dated: 16/17-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. N. Inamdar and K. B. Bhujle for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian with T. U. Khatri and J. P. Deodhar, instructed by H. D. Rathod for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 442 = 1999 SLD 442 = 1999 PTD 3076 = (1998) 229 ITR 559", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains – Firm – Dissolution of Firm – Partner – Amount received on dissolution\nConclusion:\nThe dissolution of the firm and the retirement of four partners did not result in the levy of capital gains tax. The amount received by the retired partners was not taxable under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The facts demonstrated that the firm was completely dissolved, and the assets were distributed among the partners. Since there was no transfer of assets as per Section 2(47), the distribution of assets during dissolution is not taxable as capital gains.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Palaniappa Gounder (N.) (1983) 143 ITR 343 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Patel (P.H.) (1988) 171 ITR 128 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Tribhuvaridas G. Patel (1978) 115 ITR 95 (Bom.)\n•\nMavukkarai (N) Estate Tea Factory v. Addl. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 715 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.285 and 286 of 1982 (References Nos. 189 and 190 of 1982), decision dated: 8-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Mani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nV. KRISHNAMOORTHY and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 443 = 1999 SLD 443 = 1999 PTD 3082 = (1998) 229 ITR 548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Loss – Depreciation – Set-off of carried forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation – Business not carried on\nTopic (b): Cash Credits – Burden of Proof – Genuineness of credits\nConclusion (a):\nThe assessee, engaged in the business of growing, processing, and selling tea, sold a part of its tea estate and the whole of its factory during the relevant year. As the business activity was not carried on during the year, the losses carried forward and unabsorbed depreciation could not be set off against the current year's income under Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion (b):\nThe burden of proving the genuineness of cash credits lies with the assessee. Since the assessee did not discharge this burden, the addition to income representing the cash credits was upheld. The question of fact could not be answered by the High Court.\nCitations/References:\n•\nEast Asiatic Co. (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 135 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Virmani Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 607 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 59 of 1991, decision dated: 9-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. C. Chacko and Roy Chacko for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MALABAR AGRICULTURAL CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 444 = 1999 SLD 444 = 1999 PTD 3090 = (1998) 229 ITR 519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference – Amnesty Scheme – Revised Return after Search – Immunity under Amnesty Scheme\nConclusion:\nThe issue was whether the revised return filed by the assessees, after their premises were searched, could be considered under the Amnesty Scheme for immunity. The Tribunal ruled that the revised return should be treated as a return under the Amnesty Scheme, which was in favor of the assessee. The Revenue's request for a reference under Section 256(1) was dismissed, but the question of law on the applicability of the Amnesty Scheme was referred to the High Court.\nCitations/References:\n•\nA. V. Joy, Alukkas Jewellery v. CIT (1990) 185 ITR 638 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. Nos. 1.1579, 12161 and 11214 of 1995, decision dated: 3rd July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. C. Kochunni Nair, M.C. Madhavan and S. Vinodkumar for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nC. JOSEY NEROTH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 445 = 1999 SLD 445 = 1999 PTD 3093 = (1998) 229 ITR 501", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Valuation of Stock – Loss of Stock Due to Damage\nConclusion:\nIn the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee, a firm engaged in seafood exports, incurred damage to goods worth Rs.1,60,192 due to an electric supply failure. The explanation of the damage was accepted by both the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. As the explanation was accepted by the fact-finding authorities, the deletion of Rs.1,60,192 from the total income was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.67 of 1989, decision dated: 3rd July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. S. P. Chal for Respondents Nos.2 to 8. P.B. Radhakrishnan and K. Sikhivahanan for Respondents Nos.9 and 10.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nO. K. INDUSTRIES and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 446 = 1999 SLD 446 = 1999 PTD 3095 = (1998) 229 ITR 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Reassessment – Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Income from House Property\nTopic (b): Question of Law – Interest under Sections 139(8) & 217\nTopic (c): Jurisdiction of Single Member Bench of Tribunal\nConclusion (a):\nThe reassessment proceedings included income from house property in the individual assessment of the assessee. The Commissioner upheld the reassessment, but the Tribunal set it aside. The High Court needed to determine whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the reassessment. The assessee's argument that the property belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) was not accepted, and the matter was referred for a decision.\nConclusion (b):\nThe question of charging interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 was already decided in a similar case and could not be referred to the High Court.\nConclusion (c):\nA single member bench of the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear cases involving up to Rs.1,00,000, as per the amendment to Section 255(3) effective from April 1, 1989. The question regarding the jurisdiction of a single-member bench in a case involving more than Rs.1,00,000 was referred.\nCitations/References:\n•\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Multimetals Ltd. (1991), 187 ITR 98 (Raj.)\n•\nMadan (D.B.) v. CIT (1991) 192 ITR 344 (SC)\n•\nMaharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT (1963) 67 ITR 725 (Pat.)\n•\nNarayanappa (S.) v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC)\n•\nPhool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B.I.T. Reference Application No-4 of 1994, decision dated: 5-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M.G. MUKHERJI, C.J. ARID BHAGWATI PRASAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAHENDRA SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 447 = 1999 SLD 447 = 1999 PTD 3103 = (1998) 229 ITR 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Disallowance – Ceiling on Travel and Hotel Expenditure\nConclusion:\nSection 37(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, imposes a ceiling on the expenditure incurred by an assessee for travel, including hotel expenses and allowances. The ceiling limits are determined based on the salary of the employee, the location of the travel, and whether lodging is provided free of charge. The deduction is calculated on a per-day basis, and the total allowable deduction depends on these factors. The method of calculating the deductible expenditure as specified in Rule 6-D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was upheld.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIndian Income-tax Rules, 1962, Rule 6-D\n•\nSection 37(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.456 of 1995, decision dated: 8-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian with P.S. Jetley and T.U. Khatri for the Commissioner. Arun Sathe for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAOROW INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 448 = 1999 SLD 448 = 1999 PTD 3112 = (1998) 229 ITR 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductibility of Payments under Section 40-A(3)\nConclusion: For the assessment year 1987-88, the Assessing Officer disallowed payments totaling Rs.1,56,253 under Section 40-A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming the assessee had intentionally split transactions into smaller amounts below Rs.2,500 to circumvent the provision. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance. However, the Tribunal observed no evidence of intentional splitting and noted that all transactions were real and the payees identifiable. The Tribunal also highlighted the absence of positive proof that any single payment exceeded Rs.2,500 before splitting and argued that strict compliance with Section 40-A(3) was impractical. It thus deleted the disallowance. The High Court, upon the Revenue's application under Section 256(2), ruled that the question of law, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,56,253 contrary to Section 40-A(3) of the Act, warranted a reference.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 40-A(3) & 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No.500 of 1994, decision dated: 16-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nP. SHASALI CLOTH STORES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 449 = 1999 SLD 449 = 1999 PTD 3116 = (1998) 229 ITR 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Contingent Liabilities\nConclusion: The assessee, engaged in textile manufacturing, received show-cause notices for excise duty liability totaling Rs.46,86,431 for assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1978-79. Despite denying the liability and making no provision in its accounts, the assessee claimed the amount as a deduction in the assessment year 1979-80. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, stating that contingent liabilities do not qualify as deductible expenditure. The Tribunal upheld this, emphasizing that no actual liability had accrued during the year. The High Court concurred, distinguishing between contingent and actual liabilities. It stated that a liability must be present and actionable during the relevant assessment year for deductibility, as mere contingent liabilities do not constitute expenditure under Section 37 of the Act.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37; Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); Pope the King Match Factory v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 495 (Mad.); Indian Molasses Co. (Private) Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 66 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.95 of 1990, decision dated: 21st March, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND B. H. MARLAPALLE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.B. Andhyarujina for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian with P.S. Jetiey instructed by H.D. Rathod for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "STANDARD MILLS CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 450 = 1999 SLD 450 = 1999 PTD 3121 = (1998) 229 ITR 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Constitutional Validity of Sections 44-AC & 206-C\nConclusion: Sections 44-AC and 206-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were challenged as unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld their validity, citing the practical necessity of facilitating tax collection in trades where identifying taxpayers was challenging. The Court reasoned that the presumptive tax basis aligned with legislative intent and did not violate Article 14's equality principle.\nTopic (b): Processing of Tendu Leaves as Manufacturing Activity\nConclusion: Petitioners argued that the processing of tendu leaves constituted manufacturing, impacting their tax treatment. The Court remanded the matter for consideration by the Commissioner of Income-tax, specifying that the petitioners could seek alternative remedies under the Act if aggrieved by the outcome.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 44-AC & 206-C; Constitution of India, Arts. 14 & 226; Union of India v. A. Sanyasi Rao (1996) 219 ITR 330 (SC); CST v. Bombay Mercantile Corporation (1975) 35 STC 505 (Bom); CST v. Jugal Kishore Badriprasad (1979) 43 STC 501 (MP); Delhi Cold Storage Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 656 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "UNION OF INDIA and others Writ Petition No.2458 of 1988, decision dated: 3rd October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. B. SHAH, C.J. AND S. B. MHASE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Manohar, V.R. Manohar and L.S. Dewani for Petitioner. P.N. Chandurkar, S.P. Chandurkar and Smt. S.S. Wandile for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. P.M. Gundawar for Respondent No. 5. S.B. Dewle for Respondents Nos.6 and 7", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 451 = 1999 SLD 451 = 1999 PTD 3124 = (1998) 229 ITR 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment of Income from Undisclosed Sources\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer's findings regarding the cost of building construction and the source of funds, rejecting the assessee's claims of having sufficient funds. The High Court affirmed that these were findings of fact and outside its purview for interference, even though it had initially directed a reference. It clarified that judicial review could not overturn factually substantiated conclusions.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference N o.32 of 1990, decision dated: 27-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair, M.A Firoz and Dale P. Kurien for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "K.M. MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 451 = 1999 SLD 451 = 1999 PTD 3127 = (1998) 229 ITR 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Tax Exemption on Leave Salary on Retirement\nConclusion: The Court ruled that the term retirement under Section 10(10-AA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, includes resignation, thereby qualifying the assessee for exemption on cash equivalent leave salary received. The judgment clarified that retirement covers superannuation and other voluntary exits, such as resignations.\nTopic (b): Definition of Retirement \nConclusion: Resignation is a voluntary act terminating employment and constitutes a mode of retirement. The Court emphasized the broad interpretation of retirement to include all career-ending separations.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.10(10-AA); CIT v. Shahney (R.J.) (1986) 159 ITR 160 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.64 of 1994, decision dated: 28-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. BP. SARAF AND DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian, Senior Advocate with T.U. Khatri and J.P. Deodhar instructed by H.D. Rathod for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nD.P. MALHOTRA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 452 = 1999 SLD 452 = 1999 PTD 3132 = (1998) 229 ITR 641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Accrual of Income and Government-Imposed Restrictions\nConclusion: The assessee collected storage charges at a contractual rate but was mandated by court order to deposit the excess over the government-fixed rate into a separate account under the District Magistrate's control. The Tribunal and High Court ruled that the excess amount was not assessable as income since the assessee lacked access or control over the funds during the assessment year.\nCitations: CIT v. Jahanganj Cold Storage (1989) 178 ITR 490 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 95 of 1981, decision dated: 9-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHREE AMRIT COLD STORAGE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 453 = 1999 SLD 453 = 1999 PTD 3135 = (1998) 229 ITR 644", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Amortization Deductions for Film Distribution Rights\nConclusion: The assessee purchased the distribution rights for the balance of a five-year period after acknowledging the original agreement's liabilities and paying an additional amount. The Tribunal found the assessee fulfilled the requirements for claiming deductions under Rule 9-B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, R.9-B.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=R-9B ", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 128 of 1991, decision dated: 4-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair M.A Firoz Dale P Kurien and M.C Madhavan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKRISHNA TALKIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 454 = 1999 SLD 454 = 1999 PTD 3138 = (1999) 236 ITR 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable Trust's Tax Exemption\nConclusion: The Supreme Court reversed prior rulings against the trust, determining that the original partnership deed from 1941 irrevocably established a charitable trust. The subsequent 1944 declaration, which included non-charitable clauses, was deemed invalid and non-binding. The trust was held to qualify as a public charitable entity entitled to exemptions under relevant provisions.\nCitations: Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S.4(3)(i); Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.11 & 13; CIT v. Shri Agastyar Trust (1984) 149 ITR 609 (Mad.) reversed; East India Industries (Madras) (Private) Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 611 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=11,13 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1846 of 1863 with 1864 of 1988, decision dated: 5th February 1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish-N. Salve, Senior Advocate for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "Sri AGASTHAYAR TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 455 = 1999 SLD 455 = 1999 PTD 3148 = (1999) 236 ITR 35 = (1999) 80 TAX 308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Computation of Capital Gains on Bonus Shares\nConclusion: The case involved a dispute over the computation of capital gains concerning bonus shares based on the principles established by the Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981). The High Court was required to answer the legal questions:\n1.\nWhether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to recompute capital gains as per the Supreme Court's decision.\n2.\nWhether the Tribunal rightly held that the method of ascertaining the value of original and bonus shares made no difference when aligned with the principles from B.C. Srinivasa Setty.\nThe High Court confirmed that these were questions of law, warranting reference.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.45 & 256; CIT v. Sakarlal Balabhai & Co. Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 486 (SC); CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2291 and 2292 of 1996, decision dated: 19-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL, K. VENKATASWAMI AND A. P. MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nN. KISHORE SETTLEMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 456 = 1999 SLD 456 = 1999 PTD 3150 = (1999) 236 ITR 37 = (1999) 80 TAX 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxation of Discretionary Trusts\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that income credited to beneficiaries’ accounts in a discretionary trust should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries rather than the trustee. The High Court confirmed this interpretation, stating there is no legal principle restricting assessment only to the trustee when income is actually received by beneficiaries.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.161 & 164; CIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 437 and 438 of 1986, decision dated: 22-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "MOTI TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 457 = 1999 SLD 457 = 1999 PTD 3151 = (1999) 236 ITR 42 = (1999) 80 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Conversion of Proprietary Business into a Partnership\nConclusion: When a proprietary business converts into a partnership, there is a transfer of the proprietor’s interest to other partners. However, since no consideration is received for the transfer, no profits or gains arise under Section 48. Thus, such a transaction does not attract capital gains tax under Section 45.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.45; Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3644 of 1983, decision dated: 12th February 1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND A. P. MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nH. RAJAN AND H. KANNAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 458 = 1999 SLD 458 = 1999 PTD 3153 = (1999) 236 ITR 45 = (1999) 80 TAX 269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital or Revenue Expenditure on Trademark and Goodwill\nConclusion: The Tribunal determined that payments made by a company to co-owners of a trademark and partners of an erstwhile firm for the use of trademark and goodwill constituted revenue expenditure. The High Court recognized this as a legal question and referred it for consideration.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37 & 256.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2693 arising out of S.L.P. (C.) No.94 of 1998, decision dated: 12-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKHEMCHAND MOTILAL JAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 459 = 1999 SLD 459 = 1999 PTD 3154 = (1999) 236 ITR 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withdrawal of Development Rebate Upon Firm Dissolution\nConclusion: A firm with three partners dissolved due to the amalgamation of partner companies. The Income-tax Officer withdrew the development rebate under Section 155(5), considering the amalgamation as a transfer. The Tribunal and High Court ruled that the transaction did not qualify as a transfer, making the rectification order invalid. The Supreme Court upheld this decision.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.154 & 155(5); Additional CIT v. Dalmia Magnesite Corporation (1979) 117 ITR 930.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=154,155(5) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1064, 1065, 1066 and 1067 of 1982, decision dated: 20-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, C. Radhakrishna and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellants.\nHari Harlal and R. K. Maheshwari, Advocates for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nDALMIA MAGNESITE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 460 = 1999 SLD 460 = 1999 PTD 3159 = (1999) 236 ITR 305 = (1999) 80 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maintainability of Writ Petition for Challenging Reassessment\nConclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act must be challenged through statutory provisions. A writ petition was not maintainable as an alternative remedy was available under the Act.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.147, 148 & 256; Constitution of India, Art.226.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 812 of 1978, decision dated: 6-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran, an, Senior Advocate (Arvind Minocha, Advocate with him) for Appellant. J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and S. N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "BHAGWANT KISHORE SUD\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 461 = 1999 SLD 461 = 1999 PTD 3162 = (1999) 236 ITR 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductibility of Payments for Technical Know-How\nConclusion: Payments made to a foreign company for research and technical collaboration were found deductible. The agreement provided non-exclusive and non-transferable rights, ruling out a sale of technical know-how. The High Court upheld this view.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37; CIT v. Wavin India Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 281.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. Nos.4912 of 1992 with 240 to 242 of 1986, decision dated: 3rd September, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, B. K. Prasad, Nagpal and P. Parmeshwaran, Advocates for Appellant. Ms. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nWAVIN (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 462 = 1999 SLD 462 = 1999 PTD 3163 = (1999) 236 ITR 304 = (1999) 80 TAX 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Loss Arising from Foreign Exchange Remittance\nConclusion: The High Court determined that whether loss incurred during foreign exchange remittance was allowable under Section 57(i) was a legal question, necessitating a reference.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.57 & 256.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No 642 of 1979, decision dated: 6-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S. N. Terdol and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Appellant. H. S. Parihar for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nALLIED CHEMICALS CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 463 = 1999 SLD 463 = 1999 PTD 3165 = (1999) 236 ITR 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Reassessment – Failure to Disclose Material Facts\nKey Issue: Whether a decision in another assessee's case, available at the time of the original assessment, qualifies as information for reopening the assessment under Section 147(b).\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee, Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., had been assessed based on full disclosure of information.\n•\nThe Income-Tax Officer issued a reassessment notice under Section 147(a), citing a decision by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) in a similar case involving another tea company.\n•\nThe AAC and Tribunal initially allowed reassessment, but the High Court ruled it invalid.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that:\n1.\nNo new information was obtained after the original assessment; the AAC's decision in another case was already available.\n2.\nSection 147(a) could not apply since there was no failure or omission by the assessee to disclose material facts.\n3.\nThe AAC’s decision did not constitute “information” as defined under Section 147(b).\nReference: Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 12 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2544 and 2545 with 642 to 648 of 1989, decision dated: 18-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G. B. PATTANAIK,., Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, S. Rajappa (K. N. Nagpal), Advocates for B. K. Prasad, Advocate for Appellant. S. Ganesh, K. J. John and Ms. Manju Mishra, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBOKARO STEEL LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 464 = 1999 SLD 464 = 1999 PTD 3176 = (1999) 236 ITR 471 = (1999) 80 TAX 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Capital Gains – Retirement from Firm\nKey Issue: Taxability of payments made to a retiring partner for goodwill, assets, and accrued profits.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee retired from a partnership firm and was paid:\no\n₹50,000 for goodwill.\no\n₹4,77,941 towards firm assets.\no\n₹1,00,000 as profit share.\n•\nThe assessee claimed that only ₹1,00,000 was taxable as income, excluding goodwill and assets.\n•\nThe High Court taxed both goodwill and assets; the assessee appealed.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held:\n1.\n₹50,000 for goodwill was not taxable as capital gains, following CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294.\n2.\nPayments towards firm assets (₹4,77,941) fell under Section 47(ii) and were exempt from capital gains tax.\n3.\nActual profits accrued, even exceeding ₹1,00,000, were taxable as income.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Tribhuvandas G. Patel (1978) 115 ITR 95 partly affirmed and reversed.\n•\nCIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No.3428 of 1991, decision dated: 3rd February, 1999", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN AND U. C. BANERJEE., Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Rajappa, Advocate for B. K. Prasad, Advocate for Appellant. Anil Kumar Jha Advocate (NP) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASSOCIATED FIBRE AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 465 = 1999 SLD 465 = 1999 PTD 3177 = (1999) 236 ITR 469 = (1999) 80 TAX 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Revision-Doctrine of merger-Powers of CIT under S.263-Issues not dealt with by CIT (Appeals) in his appellate order -CIT has power to initiate revision proceeding in respect of such issues-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.263.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Reference-High Court declining to direct -reference of question of law-¬Supreme Court deeming that a direct reference had been made to itself-¬Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 136 & 256.\n \nThe Commissioner of Income-tax has jurisdiction and powers to initiate proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of issues not touched by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in his appellate order.\n \nCIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC) fol\n \nHeld, that the questions regarding the jurisdiction and power of. the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 were questions of law and the High Court ought to have called for a reference thereof, but having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50, had dealt with the question, this would-be deemed to be a reference to the Supreme Court.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=263,136,256 ", + "Case #": "C: A. No. 16671 of 1996, decision dated: 13-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and S. N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellants.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAYKUMAR B. PATIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 466 = 1999 SLD 466 = 1999 PTD 3179 = (1998) 229 ITR 647", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reference-Association of - persons-Finding that there was no association of persons-Finding of fact-No question of law arose-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2).\n \nThere should be definite acts of management on the part of members to hold that there was an association of persons liable to assessment.\n \nHeld, dismissing the application to direct reference, that a conclusion based on appreciation of facts does not give rise to any question of law. In the instant case, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence for formation of an association of persons and. therefore, it was not correct to assess in the hands of association of persons. The Tribunal also noticed that one of the members of the alleged association of persons was already assessed to tax and, therefore, the income was not liable to be assessed again in the status of association of persons. The conclusion of the Tribunal was a pure finding of fact. No question of law arose from it. .\n \nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC); CIT v. Banno E. Cowasji (Mrs.) (1984) 147 ITR 744 (MP); CIT v. Indira Balkrishna (1960) 39 ITR 546 (SC) arid CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy & Sons (1971) 79 ITR 499 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2) ", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No.287 of 1995, decision dated: 18-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S.B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.M. Mathur and A.K. Shrivastava for Appellant. B. K. Joshi for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHARADAPRASAD MOTILAL & BROS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 467 = 1999 SLD 467 = 1999 PTD 3182 = (1998) 229 ITR 651", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Powers of Appellate Tribunal-Review-Tribunal has no power to review its order or to sit in appeal over its earlier order-Order passed by Tribunal on reappraisal of material facts and circumstances and on fresh application of legal position- Order does not amount to an amendment of an earlier order with a view to rectify mistake apparent on record-Order passed by Tribunal to be set aside-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.254(1), (2).\n \nSection 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Tribunal to amend any order passed by it under subsection (1) with a view to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record however, section 254(2) does not authorise the Tribunal to review its order or to sit in appeal over its earlier order.\n \nDuring the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee-firm encashed one hundred high denomination notes of Rs.1,000 denomination. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee took the stand that the notes were received by it in the course of its business transactions and they were recorded in the Batsari account. The assessee also explained that the notes were not deposited in the State Bank of India as the notes were sent to other places for making purchases of food grains, etc., on behalf of the firm. The assessee-firm further stated that it had given a sum of Rs.51,151 to one R and a further sum of Rs..51,051 to one B for making purchases of foodgrains, oil seeds, etc., on its behalf. from outside the State. The Income-tax Officer found that R was a petty employee, of the firm working on a monthly salary of Rs.300 and it was, therefore, unlikely that he would be entrusted with such a large sum and would be sent to other States for making purchases on behalf of the firm. The Income-tax Officer also did not accept the story of money having been given to B who was neither a partner nor an employee of the assessee-firm for making purchases for the firm. The Income-tax Officer examined a number of persons having business dealings with the assessee¬ firm as witnesses who denied having given any 1,000 rupee notes to the assessee-firm in the course of their business transactions. As regards the Batsari account, the Income-tax Officer noted that a special survey of the asses see-firms business premises was conducted in the course of which the assessee had not produced the Batsari account before the officer visiting the shop. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, added a sum of Rs.l lakh in the assessees total income holding it to be income from unexplained sources. The Commissioner (Appeals), to whom the assessee appealed, held that the Income-tax Officer wag not justified in rejecting the assessees explanation as to its possession of high denomination notes and directed deletion of the amount of Rs.l lakh as income from unexplained sources. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restored the order of the income-tax Officer. Thereafter, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal and made a prayer to correct the mistake in the order of the Tribunal and to pass consequential orders. The Tribunal allowing the assessees prayer, by order, dated November 11, 1985, observed that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the source of the high denomination notes by showing that they came out of the cash balance available with the firm. The Tribunal held that its predecessor Tribunal had passed the order in contravention of the principles of law laid down in Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) and hence that order had to- be recalled and had to be heard again. On a writ petition filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, dated November 11, 1985:\n \nHeld, allowing the writ petition, that the Tribunal had sat in appeal over the order passed by the predecessor members of the Tribunal and had exceeded its jurisdiction. The order did not amount to an amendment of an earlier order with a view to rectify a mistake apparent from the record but it was an order passed on a reappraisal of the material facts and circumstances and on a fresh application of the legal position. The order passed by the Tribunal was, therefore, liable to be set aside as unsustainable in law and in excess of its jurisdiction.\n \nCIT v. Krishna Rana (Dr.) (Mrs.) (1987) 167 ITR 652 (Pat.) fol.\n \nLakshmi Rice Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=254,254(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "C.W.J.C. No. 1498 of 1986, decision dated: 23rd August, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA C.J. AND AFTAB ALAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 468 = 1999 SLD 468 = 1999 PTD 3188 = (1998) 229 ITR 667", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Income from undisclosed sources-Penalty-Concealment of income-Firm-Partner-Voluntary disclosure by firm-Explanation of partner that amount given as a gift by him was from amount voluntarily disclosed by firm accepted by Tribunal-Amount of gift not assessable as income in his hands-Cancellation of penalty justified-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271(1)(c).\n \n The assessee who was a partner in a firm had filed a return showing income of Rs.1,85,805 for the assessment year 1967-68. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was revealed that the assessee had given an amount of Rs.50,000 to his son-in-law. The amount of Rs.50,000 was not traceable in the accounts of the firm in which the assessee was a partner. The Income-tax Officer added this amount of Rs.50,000 and since no explanation was offered, proceedings for levy of penalty were also simultaneously initiated and penalty was levied. It was contended before the Tribunal that when the statutory appeal was pending, the firm had applied to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for settlement of the situation, inter alia, contending that this amount of Rs.50,000 was included in the amount declared under the scheme of voluntary disclosure of income and wealth. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the appellate authority. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the material, especially the copy of the voluntary disclosure petition which disclosed that the firm had unaccounted profits to the extent of Rs. one crore in the assessment years prior to and including the assessment year 1959-60. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the amount of Rs.50,000 was not covered by the voluntary disclosure. However, the Tribunal found the explanation offered by the assessee satisfactory and acceptable. It cancelled the penalty. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the Tribunal had considered the facts and accepted the explanation of the assessee. This was a question of fact. The Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.50.000 The Tribunal was also right in cancelling the penalty levied under section 27-1(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. -\n \nKishori Lal Makundi Lal, In re: (1941) 9 ITR 193 (All.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.35 and 36 of 1990, decision dated: 5-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED., Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Nair and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, M.A. Firoze and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK.P. VAROO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 469 = 1999 SLD 469 = 1999 PTD 3191 = (1998) 229 ITR 721", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-\n \n-Rectification of mistake-Notice of demand-Is not an order which can be rectified-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 154 & 156. .\n \n(b) Income-tax-Appeal-Appeal to Appellate Assistant Commissioner-Interest-Notice of demand for interest under S.220(2)-Not appealable -Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 156, 220(2) & 246.\n \nBy an order of the Commissioner, dated August 29, 1963, .the assessee got its assessments for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1958-59 settled and a scheme fixing the income for each of the years and for payment of taxes and penalties was also agreed to between the Department and the assessee. According to the settlement, the assessee was permitted to pay the taxes in instalments as stipulated in the settlement order. The assessee completed the payments on April 19, 1972. By a demand notice under section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated January 31, 1973, the assessee was asked to pay interest under section 220(2) of the Act, amounting to Rs.68,954. This was served on the assessee or February 1, 1973. Subsequently, it was found that the interest was not charged in accordance with section 220(2) of the Act, as the rate of interest had been varied and enhanced from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent., 9 per cent. and 12 per cent. by the subsequent Finance Acts. According to the Income-tax Officer, since this was a mistake apparent from the records, a notice under section 154 of the Act, dated January 20, 1975, was served on the assessee on January 21, 1975. After hearing the objections raised by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer passed an order rectifying the mistake committed in the original demand notice issued by him, by altering the figures from Rs.68,954 to Rs.96,894. A fresh notice of demand was served alongwith the rectification order. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the order of rectification. The Tribunal, on further appeal, upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a reference:\n \nHeld, (i) that a notice of demand issued under section 156 could not be considered to be an order so as to enable the Assessing Officer to correct any mistake occurring in the said notice. If at all there was any mistake in the original notice issued by the Assessing Officer, it could be corrected by an administrative order. Therefore, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 154 was to be deemed to be non est in the eye of law\n \n(ii) that the Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 156 of the Act, demanding interest under section 220(2) of the Act at the higher rate. As against the demand made by the Income-tax Officer in the notice issued under section 156 of the Act demanding interest under section 220(2) of the Act, no appeal lay to the first Appellate Authority.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=156,220(2),246 ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases (References) Nos.753 to 759 of 1982, decision dated: 4-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSURESH GOKULDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 470 = 1999 SLD 470 = 1999 PTD 3197 = (1998) 229 ITR 735", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Non-resident-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty Meaning of \"\"royalty \"\"-Assessee engaged in manufacture of porcelain articles-Lump sum payment to non-resident for construction/installation of kiln-Not income by way of royalty within the meaning of S.9(1)(vi)-¬Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.9.\n \n(b) Words and phrases-\n \n-Royalty\"\"-Meaning.\n \nA plain reading of section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, shows that any amount paid by a person who is a resident by way of royalty will fall within the phrase \"\"income deemed to accrue or arise in India\"\". The expression \"\"royalty\"\" is defined in Explanation 2 of the clause. The Explanation defines \"\"royalty\"\" to mean consideration including any lump sum consideration paid for imparting any information Concerning the working of or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property and also the imparting of any information concerning technical, industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill. A lump sum consideration paid which is in the nature of income chargeable under the head \"\"Capital gains\"\", is excluded from the meaning of royalty.\n \nThe assessee entered into agreements with a German company which provided for three types of works. Under one of the agreements titled \"\"Kerabedarfs _ Order No.32911 \"\" which was the second type of works, consideration was paid for construction/installation of a kiln. The amount paid under that memorandum by the Indian company to the non-resident company as payment for technical drawings towards engineering for the kiln was treated by the Income-tax Officer as royalty within the meaning of Explanation (ii) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, treating it as taxable remuneration in the hands of the non-resident company. The Tribunal, however, held that the payment did not constitute royalty. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the Tribunal on construing the relevant, portion of the agreement recorded the finding that this was a case of a foreign company undertaking to supply, erect and commission a kiln in India, the only service rendered in India being that of supervision by an expert deputed by the foreign company. The amount was not paid for imparting any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property falling under clause (ii) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) or for imparting of any information concerning technical, industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill within the meaning of clause (iv) of Explanation 2. A close reading of the second type of work as well as the other items of the memorandum showed that the consideration was paid for construction/installation of the kiln. Therefore, the payment of DM 1,62;450 made by the assessee to the non-resident company did not constitute \"\"income\"\" by way of royalty of the non-resident company, within the meaning of the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=9 ", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 100 of 1988, decision dated: 9-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKLAYMAN PORCELAINS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 471 = 1999 SLD 471 = 1999 PTD 3201 = (1998) 229 ITR 745", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Capital gains-Year in which assessable-Acquisition of land-¬Notification published on 31-12-1970 for acquiring land-Award granting compensation made by Collector 17-9-1971 and possession of land taken by Government in September, 1971-Government not required to take tip; possession of land immediately on expiry of 15 days of publication of notice under S.9(1)-Capital gain assessable in assessment year 1972-73-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.45-Indian Land Acquisition Act. 1894, Ss.4, 5-A, 9(l), 11, 16 & 17.\n \nUnder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vesting of land in the Government takes place (a) when possession is taken consequent upon the passing of the award under section 16; or (b) when possession is taken consequent upon the direction made under section 17(1) or where possession is taken as contemplated under section 17.\n \nWhenever the urgency provisions of section 17 .of the Act are invoked, the procedure given under sections 5-A, 11 and 16 is dispensed with. On a declaration issued by the appropriate Government, the Collector without making an award, after 15 days of the publication of the notice under section 9, can take possession and thereafter, the land vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. The Government is not required to take possession immediately on the expiry of 15 days of the publication of notice under section 9(1) but may do so thereafter, at and time and the land would vest in the Government after taking possession. Section 17 does not provide that the Land Acquisition Collector should take possession of the land immediately after expiry of 15 days of the notice under section 9(1).\n \nLand belonging to the assessee which was purchased by the assessee in the year 1957 for Rs.8,000 was acquired by the Government under sections 4 and 6 read with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the notification acquiring the land was published in the Gazette on December 31, 1970. The notification mentioned that as the urgent, provisions of the Act of 1894 had been invoked, the provisions of the Act would not apply in regard to the notification. The assessee as a consequence of the acquisition received from the Government a compensation of Rs.54,014 by the Collectors award, dated September 17, 1971. The Income¬tax Officer worked out the capital gain at Rs.26,650 and held that the gain was liable to be assessed in the assessment year 1972-73 since from the award of the Collector, dated September 17, 1971, the title to the land had vested in the Government. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee rejecting the contention of the assessee that the transfer of the land was effected in the year 1970 on the publication of the notification under sections 4 and 6 read with section 17 of the Act. The Tribunal took the view that capital gain arose on the transfer of the title to the land in the year 1970 relevant to the assessment year 1971-72 and not in the assessment year 1972-73 when the award was given and consideration received. The Tribunal, therefore, deleted the addition of Rs.26,650 made in the assessment year 1972-73. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that possession of the land was taken in September, 1971, which fell in the assessment year 1972-73 relevant to the financial year April 1, 1971, to March 31, 1972. Under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, tax on capital gains arises from a transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year.. Transfer of the capital asset,-in the present case took place in September, 1971, after the compensation -was paid and possession taken by the Government which fell in the assessment year 1972-73. Therefore, the transfer took place in the year 1972-73 and the land would be deemed to have vested in the Government in that year. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in holding that transfer of the land took place in the year 1971-72 in which year the notifications under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act of 1894. were issued:", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=45 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.85 of 1983, decision dated: 23rd April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND 1QBAL SINGH, Justice(s),", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner. B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHIV CHAND SATNAM PAUL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 472 = 1999 SLD 472 = 1999 PTD 3206 = (1998) 229 ITR 750", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reference-Capital gains-Transfer-Lease of premises-Lessee giving sworn statement that he paid Rs.10 lakhs unaccounted money to lessor apart from security deposit-Lessee not cross-examined-Whether Tribunal right in holding that there was no transfer and no capital gains arose without remitting matter to Assessing Officer to give opportunity to assessee to cross ¬examine lessee-Are questions of law to be referred-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss1(47)(v) & 256(2). \n \n The assessee gave on lease certain premises and received a security deposit. The lessee gave an affidavit that he paid Rs.10 lakhs of unaccounted money to the lessor and also offered it for assessment. The amount was assessed in the hands of the lessor by the Assessing Officer without giving him an opportunity to cross-examine the lessee. The Tribunal. held that there was no transfer and the affidavit could not be acted upon in the circumstances. On a reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961:\n \nHeld, that (i) Whether, in view of the sworn statement of the lessee that he paid Rs.10 lakhs to the assessee (lessor), the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no material on record to show that the assessee hid received Rs.10 lakhs; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in not including the sum of Rs.10 lakhs in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the lessee was not put to cross-examination by the assessee; (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in not remitting the case to the assessing authority to complete the assessment afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the lessee; and (iv) Whether, as possession was admittedly handed over and in view of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no transfer under the impugned agreement and so levy of capital gains could not be sustained, were questions of law to be referred.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=1(47)(v),256(2) ", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 15794 of 1995-S, decision dated: 10-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Mellon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. V.V. Asokan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nC.F. JOHNSON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 473 = 1999 SLD 473 = 1999 PTD 3208 = (1998) 229 ITR 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Exemption-Income of institution executing housing schemes undertaker, for promotion of members of Scheduled Castes-Is exempt from tax¬ Income from housing schemes for promotion of backward classes and other categories-Not ,exempt from tax-Indian Income Tax Act,, 1961.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Depreciation-\"\"Plant, meaning of-Functional test is the main test-¬Assessee engaged in activity of building construction-Without shuttering no building can be erected-Is an essential part of construction work-¬Shuttering material is plant-Entitled to depreciation-Indian -Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32.r .\n \n(c) Income-tax-\n \n-Business loss-Theft and pilferage-Loss genuine and real-Loss detected in accounting period-No possibility of recovery despite notices issued to some of employees-Finding of Tribunal is a finding of fact-\n \nDeduction allowable.\n \nFor the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, the income of the institution executing housing schemes undertaken for the promotion of members of the Scheduled Castes alone is exempt from tax under section 10(26-B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The income of the institution from housing schemes for promotion of backward classes and other categories is not exempt from tax under section 10(26-B).\n \nCIT v. Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam (1997) 226 ITR 69E (All.) fol.\n \nUnder section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, \"\"plant\"\" include; ships; vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment used for the purposes of the business or profession but does not include tea bushes o livestock. The word \"\"plant\"\" in its ordinary meaning is a word of wide import and it must be broadly construed having regard to the fact that articles like books and surgical equipment are expressly included in the definition c plant in section 43(3) of the Act. It includes any article or object, fixed movable, live or dead, used by a businessman for carrying on his business is not necessarily confined to an apparatus which is used for mechanic operation or processing or is employed in mechanical or industrial business It. however, does not cover the stock-in-trade or an article which is merely part of the premises in which business is carried on. To reach a correct conclusion whether a given item is plant or not, the inquiry which must made is as to the operation the apparatus performs in the assessees business; The relevant test to be applied is does it fulfil the functions of plant in assessees trading activities? is it the tool of the taxpayers trade? If it is, then it is plant. No matter that it is not very long-lasting or does not contain working parts such as a machine does and plays merely a passive role in the accomplishment of the trading purpose. So, the main test is whether a given item is such that without it business cannot be carried on. \n \nThe Tribunal found that shuttering material was normally used to support the roof when concrete was being laid on it, that these were not items of consumable stores, for they were retrieved after the roof had been laid, and used again elsewhere, that it was like any other tool with the help of which construction was done, say Karni Tasla Kudal or Spade, that therefore, shuttering material was plant or machinery just as a concrete mixer or any other, tool with which the Kari gars and masons work and that, therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section 32,â-ž,of the Act one shuttering material. On a reference:\n \n Held, affirming the decision of the Tribunal, that where the assessee was engaged in the activity of building construction, it could be said with certainty that without shuttering material no building could be erected and, therefore, the shuttering material was an essential part for carrying on the construction work by the assessee. Therefore, shuttering material being plant, the assessee would be entitled to depreciation on them under section 32 of the Act.\n \nThe assessee had written off losses aggregating to Rs.5,68,849 on account of theft, pilferage etc., by its employees and claimed deduction of the same as business loss. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the assessees claim on the ground that the losses did not occur in the assessment year in question, that the possibility of recovery from the employees had not been exhausted and that the losses themselves were noticed at the end of the accounting year and hence its write off was premature. The Tribunal found that the loss was genuine and real and it had taken place and had also been detected in the accounting period under consideration, that there was no possibility of its recovery, merely on the ground that notices to that effect had been issued to some of its employees, that if any recovery were subsequently made, it could be brought to tax under section 41(2) and hence allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of the loss as business loss.\n \nOn a reference:\n \nHeld, that the finding of the Tribunal was a finding of fact and no question of law arose from it. The Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of the loss on account of theft, pilferage etc , as business loss.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=32 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 180 of 1990, decision dated: 13-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND M. KATJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma for the Assessee. Standing Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 474 = 1999 SLD 474 = 1999 PTD 3215 = (1998) 229 ITR 789", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Income from other sources-Interest-Actual cost-Borrowings for plant and machinery placed in short-term deposit with Banks till machinery installed and payment required to be made therefor-Interest on deposit not taxable as income from other sources-To go to reduce actual cost of plant and machinery-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.57(iii).\n \nWhere sums borrowed by the assessee from the Industrial Development Bank of India for purchase of plant and machinery were kept in short-term deposit with banks and used in bill discounting until the plant and machinery were installed and payment for the plant and machinery was to be made:\n \nHeld, that the interest earned on the deposits and from the bill discounting was not assessable to tax in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources, but would go to reduce the actual cost of the plant and machinery.\n \nChallapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC) applied.\n \nCIT (Addl.) v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 139 (Mad.); CIT v. Cap Steel Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 533 (Kar.); CIT v. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 375 (AP); CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 465 (MP); CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. (1988) 171 ITR 663 (AP); CIT v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 1005 (Cal.); Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 503 (Ker.) and Madhya Pradesh State Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 69 ITR 824 (MP) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=57 ", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 103 of 1991, decision dated: 10-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, M.C. Madhavan and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAUTOKAST LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 475 = 1999 SLD 475 = 1999 PTD 3226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.80-D-Minimum tax on income of certain companies end registered firms for the assessment- year 1.992-93-Registered firm-Levy of minimum tax by the Assessing Officer-Validity-Amendment in S.80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by Finance Act, 1992 was a substantive amendment and in the absence of specific approval of retrospective applicability by the Legislature, the charge of tax under S.80-D on the declared turnover .of the registered firm would be effectively :applicable from the assessment year 1993-94 and was not applicable to the assessment year 1992-93-Demand created under S.80-D of \"\"the Income Tax Ordinance,, 1979, for the assessment year 1992-93 was deleted by Tribunal.\n \n (1998) SC 183; 1989 ,PTD 221; 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1113 and 1998 PTD 2769 ref. \n Imran Afzal, F.C.A. for Appellant.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 2781/L.B of 1998; decided on 8-06-1999, hearing DATE : 2-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MOHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Afzal, F.C.A. for Appellant. Mrs. Riffat Shaheen Qazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 476 = 1999 SLD 476 = 1999 PTD 3229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordnance (XXXI of 1979)-S.66-A-Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioners order-Concept of finality of assessment-Quality of assessment-Vested right -Revisional jurisdiction-Mere poor quality of assessment order shall not ,provide sufficient justification for exercising revisional jurisdiction under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-¬With the completion of .assessment a vested right was created in favour of assessee and .the concept of finality of assessment came into operation-¬Assessee was not to be lightly deprived of his vested rights under the law until and unless the conditions prescribed by law in that behalf were strictly fulfilled.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.66-A-Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioners order-Possibilities and probabilities-Findings, objective in nature and findings, subjective in nature-Exercise of jurisdiction-¬Justification-.Mere possibilities and probabilities of .coming to some other conclusion, had the desired enquiries been held would not provide sufficient justification for exercise of jurisdiction under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Findings .required to be given under S.66-A have to be. objective in nature-Findings subjective in nature were not allowed to be reached in proceedings tinder S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and such proceedings were bound to become wanton in nature which could never be the intention of Legislature while conferring jurisdiction under 8.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.66-A-Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to revise Deputy Commissioners order-Findings of the Additional .Commissioner of Income-tar were not specific as to how the-assessment order was erroneous-¬Findings were merely charge-sheet of the Assessing Officer showing his in competency and inefficiency with the direction to finalize the assessment afresh-Validity-Additional Commissioner of Income-tax in circumstances, had failed to make out case for exercise of jurisdiction under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Order of Additional Commissioner was cancelled by Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "A. No: 611/ICB of 1.997-98, decision dated: 15-03-1999, hearing DATE : 13-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Udha Ram Rajput for Appellant. Abdul Aziz Memon, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 477 = 1999 SLD 477 = 1999 PTD 3234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.13(1)(d)-Income Tax Rules, 1982, R.207-A-Addition-Valuation-Assessee declared value of shop higher than the rate fixed by the Collector of the District-Addition was made by the Assessing Officer adopting the value of the shop for the purpose of addition under S.13(1)(d) of the Income .Tax Ordinance, 1979 higher than the value adopted for the wealth tax assessment according to Collectors rate-Validity-Department had itself adopted the value of shop according to Collectors rate for wealth tax assessment and, thus, there was no question to adopt ,a different value for income-tax assessment-Department having accepted the principle that the valuation of immovable property should be adopted as per Collectors Table by introducing 8.207-A in the Income Tax Rules, 1982, Tribunal directed that the declared value should be accepted in circumstances.\n \nI.T.As. Nos. 1138/KB of 1997-98 and 1053/KB of 1996-97 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) Income Tax Rules, 1982=207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2108/LB and 2900/113 of 1998, decision dated: 1st June, 1999, hearing DATE : 27-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal Qazi, I.T.P. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2108/LB of 1998)\nMrs. Riffat Shaheen Qazi, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2108/LB of 1998).\nMrs. Riffat Shaheen Qazi, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2900/LB of 1998).\nJaved Iqbal Qazi, I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2900/LB of 1998)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 478 = 1999 SLD 478 = 1999 PTD 3236 = (1999) 236 ITR 432 = (1999) 80 TAX 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Income from business or income from other sources -Assessee-company leasing its colliery to managing contractor -Assessee to be paid profit at a certain rate on amount of coal raised-Income arose out of a contractual relationship between principal and agent-Principal (assessee) carried on business through its agent (managing contractor)- -Managing contractor carried on business under effective control and guidance of assessee-Income received under agreement to be assessed as \"\"income from business\"\"-[CIT v. S. K. Sahana & Sons Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 617 reversed].\n \nThe assessee-company which owned a colliery, entered into an agreement with another company under which the latter was to carry on the coal business of the assessee and to pay to the assessee profit at a certain rate on the amount of coal and coke raised subject to a guaranteed minimum. The Income-tax Officer assessed the income received by the assessee as \"\"income from other sources\"\" for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the income received by it from its managing contractor was income from business since it arose out of a contract between a principal and an agent and that the assessee (principal) was still carrying on business through its agent (managing contractor). The Tribunal found that the legal relationship created between the assessee and the managing contractor was clearly one of principal and agent and the managing contractor was working only as an agent of the assessee and not even a lease was executed in favour of the managing contractor. The Tribunal further found that the managing contractor was carrying on the colliery business under the effective control and guidance of the assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the income derived by the assessee was, income from business and not income from other sources. On a reference, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the income derived by the assessee was \"\"income from business\"\". When the very same question came up for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, a Full Bench of the High Court was constituted to examine the question afresh. The Full Bench held that the income derived by the assessee was \"\"income from other sources\"\". On appeal to the Supreme Court:\n \nHeld, reversing the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court, that the Tribunal had categorically found that the managing contractor was carrying on the colliery business under the effective control and guidance of the assessee, that the relationship between the contractor and the assessee was not of lessor and lessee and that the assessee was carrying on its business through its agent, the managing contractor. Therefore, the income received by the assessee was to be assessed as \"\"income from business\"\".\n \n[CIT v. S. K. Sahana & Sons Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 617 reversed].\n \nCIT v. S. K. Sahana & Sons Ltd. (1976) 102 ITR 437 (Pat.); CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 597 (SC); CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 829 (All.) and New Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 74 ITR 7 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos.3285 to 3287 of 1988, decision dated: 12-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, Justice(s).", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranjit Kumar and Chander, Advocates for Appellant. Ranbir Chandra, Advocate (K. R. Nagpal and B. K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "S. K. SAHANA & SONS LTD. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 479 = 1999 SLD 479 = 1999 PTD 3241 = (1999) 236 ITR 237 = (1999) 80 TAX 296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Dividend-Deemed dividend-Loan to shareholder to extent to which company possesses accumulated profits-Payment of deemed dividend must be considered as adjusted against companys accumulated profits-Advances to. be reduced when computing accumulated profits-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.2(22)(e).\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Capital gains-Dividend-Deemed dividend-Reduction of capital by company-Face value of shares reduced-Amounts distributed to shareholders as a result of reduction has two components (1) distribution attributable to accumulated profits, and (ii) distribution attributable to capital-Part attributable to accumulated profits is assessable as dividends-¬Balance subject to capital gains tax-Matter,, remanded-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.2(22) & 45.\n \nAny legal fiction will have to be carried to its logical conclusion. If the payment under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is treated as a deemed dividend and is required to be so treated to the extent that the company possesses accumulated profits, the logical conclusion is that this payment must be considered as adjusted against the companys accumulated profits to the extent that it is treated as deemed dividend while calculating accumulated profits of the company. Whenever accumulated profits of the company, are required to be determined, such an adjustment will have to be made.\n \nUnder section 2(22) only the distribution of the accumulated profits can be deemed to be dividend in the hands of the shareholders. By using the expression \"\"whether capitalised or not\"\", the legislative intent clearly is that the profits which are deemed to be dividend would be those which are capable of being accumulated and which would also be capable 6f-being capitalised. This would clearly exclude return of a part of the capital by the company from section 2(22), as the same cannot be regarded as profits capable of being capitalised, the return being of the capital itself. Thus, the amount distributed by a company on reduction of its share capital has two components-distribution attributable to accumulated profits and distribution attributable to capital (except capitalised profits). To the extent of the accumulated profits whether such accumulated profits are capitalised or not, the return to the shareholder on the reduction of his share capital, is a return of such accumulated profits. This part would be taxable as dividend. The balance may be subject to tax as capital gains if they accrue.\n \nThe assessee was a shareholder in a private company. During the accounting, period relevant to the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee held 70 shares in the company. The face value of each share was Rs.1,000. During the accounting period, the company passed a resolution to reduce its capital. The procedure prescribed under the Companies Act for the reduction of share capital was undergone. An appropriate order was obtained from the Court. The reduction was given effect on and from May 26, 1962. As a result, the face value of the shares in the company was reduced from Rs.1,000 each to Rs.210 each. As a result of this reduction, there was a pro¬-rata distribution of some properties of the company and payment of money to the shareholders, including the assessee. In the income-tax proceedings connected with the property/amounts so received by the assessee on reduction of his share capital in the said company, the Tribunal was. required to consider whether any capital gains accrued to the assessee. The Tribunal held that no capital gains accrued to the assessee.\n \nThe company in the previous year had advanced to four of its shareholders sums of Rs.48,250. Rs.14,667, Rs.1,400 and Rs.200. Thus, the total advances to the shareholders by the company were to the tune of Rs.64,517. The High Court held that the sum of Rs.74,517 trust be taken to have come out of accumulated profits. On appeal to the Supreme Court:\n \nHeld, (i) that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that when section 2(22)(e) is read with the language of section 194 which provides for deduction of tax on such \"\"dividend\"\", as also the statutory restriction under the Companies Act on payment of dividend out of any capital assets, it would be reasonable to come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs.64,517 must be taken to have come out of the accumulated profits. It must, therefore, be treated as dividend for all purposes, and would go to reduce the accumulated profits of the company whether capitalised or not, whenever such accumulated profits are required to be determined.\n \nCIT v. G. Narasimhan (1979) 118 ITR 60 affirmed on this point.\n \n(ii) that the assessee in the present case had been paid not merely cash but had also been given a property for the reduction in the value of his shares from Rs.1,000 to Rs.210. Out of the total amounts so received including the value of the property so received, the portion attributable to accumulated profits had to be deleted. Only the balance amount could be treated as a capital receipt. Thereafter, looking to the cost of acquisition of that portion of the share which had been diminished, capital gains would have to be determined. The Tribunal, while computing capital gains, would have to decide how this property should be valued for the purpose of deciding what the assessee had received on reduction in the value of his shares, and whether any capital gains had accrued to the assessee or not. This question was not required to be considered by the Tribunal because the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there being no transfer of any capital asset, the question of capital gains did not arise. But the question would now have to be considered and decided by the Tribunal when the matter went back before it for the determination of capital gains.\n \nAnarkali Sarabhai Ltd., v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 422 (SC); CIT v. Urmila Ramesh (1998) 230 ITR 422 (SC) and Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR f63 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2(22)(e),45 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No-6799 of 1983, decision dated: 14-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND A. P. MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra (C. V. S. Rao, Rajiv Nanda) Advocates for B. K Prasad, Advocate for Appellant. A.T.M. Sampath, S. Rajappa and V. Balaji, Advocates for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG. NARASIMHAN and others through Legal Heirs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 480 = 1999 SLD 480 = 1999 PTD 3248 = (1999) 236 ITR 477 = (1999) 80 TAX 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Reassessment – Failure to Disclose Material Facts\nKey Issue: Whether a decision in another assessee's case, available at the time of the original assessment, qualifies as information for reopening the assessment under Section 147(b).\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee, Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., had been assessed based on full disclosure of information.\n•\nThe Income-Tax Officer issued a reassessment notice under Section 147(a), citing a decision by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) in a similar case involving another tea company.\n•\nThe AAC and Tribunal initially allowed reassessment, but the High Court ruled it invalid.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that:\n1.\nNo new information was obtained after the original assessment; the AAC's decision in another case was already available.\n2.\nSection 147(a) could not apply since there was no failure or omission by the assessee to disclose material facts.\n3.\nThe AAC’s decision did not constitute “information” as defined under Section 147(b).\nReference: Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 12 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 1941 of 1993, decision dated: 4-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN AND U. C. BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior. Advocate (Rajiv Nanda, P. Parmeswaran and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant.\nVijay Hansaria, Sunil Kumar Jain and Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTARAJAN TEA CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 481 = 1999 SLD 481 = 1999 PTD 3252 = (1999) 236 ITR 515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Capital Gains – Retirement from Firm\nKey Issue: Taxability of payments made to a retiring partner for goodwill, assets, and accrued profits.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee retired from a partnership firm and was paid:\no\n₹50,000 for goodwill.\no\n₹4,77,941 towards firm assets.\no\n₹1,00,000 as profit share.\n•\nThe assessee claimed that only ₹1,00,000 was taxable as income, excluding goodwill and assets.\n•\nThe High Court taxed both goodwill and assets; the assessee appealed.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held:\n1.\n₹50,000 for goodwill was not taxable as capital gains, following CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294.\n2.\nPayments towards firm assets (₹4,77,941) fell under Section 47(ii) and were exempt from capital gains tax.\n3.\nActual profits accrued, even exceeding ₹1,00,000, were taxable as income.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Tribhuvandas G. Patel (1978) 115 ITR 95 partly affirmed and reversed.\n•\nCIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A: No. 2053 of f979, decision dated: 14-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh and S. S. Fazl Advocates with him) for Appellant. A. Raghbir, Senior Advocate (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and S. N. Terdol Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "TRIBHUVANDAS G. PATEL\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 482 = 1999 SLD 482 = 1999 PTD 3255 = (1999) 236 ITR 518", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Remission of Liability – Applicability of Section 41(1)\nKey Issue: Whether a unilateral accounting entry by an assessee constitutes remission or cessation of liability under Section 41(1).\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee made a unilateral transfer entry in its accounts, removing certain liabilities.\n•\nThe Revenue sought to apply Section 41(1), claiming a remission of liability.\n•\nThe assessee contended that no benefit had been obtained, and the liabilities were not extinguished.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court ruled that:\n1.\nSection 41(1) requires the assessee to obtain a benefit (cash or otherwise) from the remission or cessation of liability.\n2.\nA unilateral accounting entry does not suffice to apply Section 41(1).\n3.\nMere expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish debt but bars the creditor’s remedy, and no benefit accrues to the debtor.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 286 affirmed.\n•\nCIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 1021 (Bom.) disapproved.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2344 of 1992, decision dated: 4-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN AND U. C. BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, Rajiv Nanda, P. Parameswaran and B. K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 483 = 1999 SLD 483 = 1999 PTD 3261 = (1999) 236 ITR 788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Validity of Trust – Contributions by Minors\nKey Issues:\n1.\nCan a trust be created with contributions made by minors without prior court sanction under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882?\n2.\nWhether the validity of a trust is a question of law or fact.\nFacts:\n•\nA trust deed stated that minors contributed ₹3 lakhs each to create the trust.\n•\nThe Revenue rejected the claim that the trust was valid, citing Section 7 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which requires court approval for minors to create a trust.\n•\nThe Tribunal referred to external documents to validate the trust, but the High Court restricted its analysis to the trust deed.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding:\n1.\nThe validity of the trust is a question of law and must be determined based on the trust deed.\n2.\nThe trust deed clearly indicated contributions were made on behalf of minors, violating Section 7 of the Indian Trusts Act.\n3.\nThe trust was invalid in law.\nReference: CIT v. T.A.V. Trust (1987) 166 ITR 348 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos.5958 to 5961, 5947 and 5954 to 5957 of 1994, decision dated: 25-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA, M. B. SHAH AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Narayana Rao and S. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. Neera Gupta and B.K Prasad, Advocates, with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "T. A. V. TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 484 = 1999 SLD 484 = 1999 PTD 3266 = (1999) 236 ITR 977", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Penalty for Concealment of Income\nKey Issue: Burden of proof under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c).\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee's income disclosed was less than 80% of the assessed income.\n•\nThe Revenue imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), citing concealment.\n•\nThe assessee argued that there was no deliberate concealment.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the penalty, stating:\n1.\nExplanation to Section 271(1)(c) shifts the burden to the assessee to prove no concealment occurred if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income.\n2.\nThe assessee failed to discharge this burden, and the penalty was validly imposed.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. K.R. Sadayappan (1990) 185 ITR 49 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 1515 to 1517 of 1985, decision dated: 22-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Janaki Ramchandran, Advocate for Appellant. Harish Chandra (K.N. Nagpal and B. K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "B. A. BALASUBRAMANIAM & BROS. CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 485 = 1999 SLD 485 = 1999 PTD 3270 = (1999) 236 ITR 903 = (2000) 81 TAX 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Capital vs. Revenue Receipt – Loss of Source of Income\nKey Issue: Compensation for relinquishment of purchase rights treated as capital receipt.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee managed a hotel with an agreement granting the first option to purchase the property.\n•\nThe agreement was terminated, and compensation of ₹29,47,500 was paid to the assessee for giving up its rights.\n•\nThe Revenue treated this amount as business income.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held that the compensation was a capital receipt:\n1.\nThe payment compensated for the loss of a source of income (purchase/management rights), not trading profits.\n2.\nIt did not result from trading operations but from injury to the assessee’s capital structure.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 209 ITR 732 (Cal.) reversed.\n•\nKettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "C. A. No.7418 of 1994, decision dated: 10-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA, M. B. SHAH AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ravinder Nath, Advocate for Rajinder Narain & Co Advocates for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "OBEROI HOTEL (PVT.) LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 486 = 1999 SLD 486 = 1999 PTD 3280 = (1999) 236 ITR 696 = (1999) 80 TAX 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Reassessment – Agricultural Land and Subsequent Reversal of Law\nKey Issue: Validity of reassessment notice under Section 147(a) based on a law subsequently reversed.\nFacts:\n•\nLand acquired by the assessee was deemed agricultural based on the prevailing Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.\n•\nAfter the decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, the Income-Tax Officer issued a reassessment notice.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court invalidated the reassessment, stating:\n1.\nThe reassessment must be based on the law prevailing at the time of reopening, not subsequent changes.\n2.\nThe officer had no valid basis to claim the land was non-agricultural when the Full Bench decision was binding.\nReferences:\n•\nCWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC).\nt valid-Indian Income Tax Act 1961, S.147(a)\n \n(b) Appeal to Supreme Court-\n \n-Point not raised before Income-tax Authorities or High Court cannot be considered by Supreme Court.\n \nThe appellant owned certain lands in a village near H. The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. A sum of Rs.25,240 was awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, on November 20, 1965. On a reference at the instance of the appellant, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,72,136 including solarium and interest. The same was affirmed on appeal by the High Court on October 16, 1970. The appellant filed a return under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 disclosing the interest on belated payment of compensation as her income. The said return was rejected as invalid by the Income-tax Officer under section 139(4) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 147(a) of the Act for the year ending March 31, 1965, in March, 1973 and issued a notice under section 148 on April 21, 1973. He sought the sanction of the Commissioner on the ground that the land acquired was not agricultural land as it had not been subjected to agricultural operations and the capital gains thereon were chargeable .to income-tax. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment raising a tax demand of Rs. 2,43,934 and initiated penalty proceedings. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelled the order under section 147(a) and this was confirmed by the Tribunal. The High Court, however, held that the reassessment was valid. On appeal by the assessee to the Supreme Court:\n \nHeld, reversing the decision of the High Court, that there was nothing on record to disclose the material on which the Income-tax Officer decided to reopen the assessment. He had made an assertion in the communication that the land in question was not subjected to agricultural operation and that he had reason to believe, that the income chargeable to tax had escaped for the assessment year 1965-66 by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a valid return. Even the assertion as such was a bare one without any reference to the materials on the basis of which he made the said assertion. The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) v. CWT (1969) 72 ITR 552 (AP) held that actual user of the land for agricultural purposes was not necessary for making it an agricultural land and it was sufficient if the land could have been put to agricultural use. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133. However, this was rendered only on August 6, 1976 long after the reopening of the assessment by the Income-tax Officer in the present case. Thus when he invoked section 147(a) of the Act, the aforesaid of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was holding the field. Hence, the Income-tax Officer could not have applied a test different from that laid down by the said Full Bench for determining whether the land in question in this case was an agricultural land. The High Court had while answering the reference completely ignored and overlooked the findings of fact rendered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal and proceeded to discuss the matter as if it was sitting in appeal over the order of the Tribunal. It had been contended on behalf of the Revenue that the interest accrued from year to year and the compensation paid to the assessee would have to .be brought to assessment on protective basis and the same was sufficient to reopen the assessment. There was no such argument before any of the authorities or .the High Court. In the circumstances, the order of tote High Court required to be reversed. The assessment was not valid.\n \nCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1991) 191 ITR 662 (SC); CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) (1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC) and Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) v. CWT (1969) 72 ITR 552 (AP) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No.4911 of 1993, decision dated: 18-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. WADHWA AND M. SRINIVASAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. V. Ratnam, Advocate for Appellant. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and B. K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "RAM BAI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 487 = 1999 SLD 487 = 1999 PTD 3286 = (1999) 236 ITR 461", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Wealth Tax – Misappropriated Funds – Question of Law\nKey Issue: Inclusion of misappropriated funds as part of net wealth.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee was accused of embezzling ₹55 lakhs but had not been found guilty in any proceedings.\n•\nThe Wealth Tax Officer added the amount to the assessee’s net wealth.\n•\nThe Tribunal deleted the addition, stating there was no evidence the funds were retained by the assessee.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, ruling:\n1.\nNo evidence showed the assessee possessed the funds on the valuation date.\n2.\nMisappropriated amounts cannot be assumed as wealth without factual proof.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Khemchand Ramdas (1938) 6 ITR 414 (PC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. P. Nos. 296 to 302 of 1996, decision dated: 31st March, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nVs\nM. RAJAGOPAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 488 = 1999 SLD 488 = 1999 PTD 3316 = (1998) 229 ITR 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Guest House and Memento Import Duty\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAllowability of guest house maintenance expenses under Section 37(4).\n2.\nDeduction of import duty for a memento sent by a foreign collaborator.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee incurred expenses for repairing a guest house and claimed deduction.\n•\nSeparately, import duty was paid for a plaque gifted by a collaborator.\nConclusion:\n1.\nGuest house maintenance expenses are disallowed under Section 37(4).\n2.\nImport duty was allowed as a business expense as it fostered business relations.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 124 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 85 and 88 of 1994, decision dated: 9-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K.K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.N. Ramachandran Nair for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "UNITED CATALYSTS INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 489 = 1999 SLD 489 = 1999 PTD 3322 = (1998) 229 ITR 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Entertainment Expenses and Capital/Revenue Expenditure\nKey Issues:\n1.\nEntertainment expenses under Explanation 2 to Section 37(2-A).\n2.\nInterest on loans for machinery as revenue expenditure.\nConclusion:\n1.\nMess expenses incurred for employees/customers were treated as entertainment expenses and disallowed after 1976.\n2.\nInterest on loans for machinery was allowed as revenue expenditure.\nReferences:\n•\nSivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 211 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases, Nos. 1828 to 1833 of 1984 (References Nos. 1323 to 1328 of 1984), decided our 13-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A THANIKKACHALAM AND N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramanaim and C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Vaitheeswaran for P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSOUTH INDIA VISCOSE LTD. (N0.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 490 = 1999 SLD 490 = 1999 PTD 3327 = (1998) 229 ITR 801", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Deduction of Interest on Borrowed Funds\nKey Issue: Whether interest paid on loans taken against fixed deposits is deductible.\nConclusion:\n1.\nInterest on loans taken against fixed deposits is deductible, and the net interest (difference) is taxable.\n2.\nThe nexus between the deposit and loan is key to this deduction.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Andhra Farm Chemicals Corporation (1988) 171 ITR 600 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 39 and 120 of 1992, decision dated: 11-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. N. Subramaniam and M.S. Narayanan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDr. V.P. GOPINATHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 491 = 1999 SLD 491 = 1999 PTD 3338 = (1998) 230 ITR 693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Loss – Smuggling and Gold Seizure\nKey Issue: Treatment of gold confiscation as capital loss.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider whether confiscated gold should be treated as a capital or revenue loss.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 40 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No.318 of 1993, decision dated: 29-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Tankha for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRATANCHAND JAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 492 = 1999 SLD 492 = 1999 PTD 3340 = (1998) 230 ITR 683", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Business expenditure-Sales tax-Deduction only on actual payment-¬Unpaid sales tax liability paid before due date for filing return under S.139(1)-Deductible and cannot be disallowed-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.43 .13 & 139(1).\n \nIf unpaid sales tax liability is paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no addition could be made invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act.\n \nAllied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC) and CIT v. Chandulal Venichand, (1994) 209 ITR 7 (Guj.) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=43,139 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.295 of 1994, decision dated: 3rd February, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHOKSHI TRADERS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 493 = 1999 SLD 493 = 1999 PTD 3343 = (1998) 230 ITR 679", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Income-Additions to income-Purchase and sale of shares-¬Understatement of consideration -Assessee holding shares of B group of Cos.-Shares held in B group of Cos. sold by assessee to V Co. at book value which was less than market value -Assessee receiving shares of V Co. as sale consideration-No evidence that assessee received difference between book value and market value of shares sold-Difference between market value and price at which shares sold not assessable as income.\n \nThe assessee held some shares in B group of companies and the quoted price of those shares was to the tune of Rs.20,67,876. The assessee sold the shares which she held in B group of companies to V Co. as per book value at Rs.13,34,392. As on the valuation date relevant to the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee was holding, after the transfer of the aforesaid shares of B group of companies in favour of V Co., 1,33,410 shares of Rs.10 each valued at Rs.13,34,100 in V Co. The assessee, therefore, as on that date was not holding any shares in B group of companies. The Assessing Officer found that in the transaction of sale of shares, no money had actually passed from V Co. to the assessee and that by the sale of the shares of B group of companies to V Co., the assessee had received 1,33,410 ordinary shares of V Co. at the value of Rs. 10 each per share. The Assessing Officer further found that, out of the total paid-up capital of Rs.13,34,200 of V. Co., the assessee was owning shares worth Rs.13,34,100 and, therefore, the assessee had the absolute control over the said company. On the ground that the market value of the shares transferred by the assessee was Rs.20,67,876, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee regarding the transfer of the shares and added the difference between the amount of Rs.13,34,392 and Rs.20,67,876 and held that the assessee had earned an income of Rs.7,57,382. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no case for substituting the disclosed value of consideration on transfer of the shares and he accordingly deleted the addition made on that account in the income of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares between the assessee and V Co. had not been doubted by the Department. This was not a case where any understatement of value or misstatement of value of the shares sold was made by the, assessee. This was a case where the assessee had sold the shares at a value admittedly lower than the market price. There was no evidence direct or inferential, nor was there any finding by any income-tax authority that the assessee received the difference between the book value and market value of shares sold. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs.7,57,076 on account of transfer of shares made by the assessee to V Co.\n \nCIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) and India Finance and Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Panda (B.N.), Deputy CIT (1993) 200 ITR 710 (Bom.) fol.-", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=143 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 192 of 1992, decision dated: 17-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " VINOD KUMAR GUPTA AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. NANDINI NOPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 494 = 1999 SLD 494 = 1999 PTD 3346 = (1998) 230 ITR 675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax -\n \n-Penalty-Concealment of income-Tribunal upholding addition in assessment proceedings-In penalty proceedings Tribunal limiting penalty in respect of addition to only two items-Tribunal recording finding that it is not possible to say that assessee unable to substantiate its contention-¬Commissioner (Appeals) finding that no evidence before Department to prove that credits represented concealed income-Tribunal declining to refer questions-Justified-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.256(1), (2) & 271(1)(c).\n \nThe assessee-firm carried on business in timber and bamboo. The Income-tax Officer found that there were certain cash credits in the books of the assessee amounting to Rs.1,21,000 and interest of Rs.8,131. The Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs.2,11,246 as the income of the assessee. But on appeal the amount was reduced to Rs.1,74,350. It was further reduced to Rs.1,50,000 by the Tribunal. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings and came to the conclusion that the credits represented the assessees concealed income and levied a penalty of Rs.99,430. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal, set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer imposing penalty. On further appeal, the Tribunal sustained the penalty in respect of two credit amounts of Rs.25,000 each and interest of Rs.1,350. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner filed an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the Tribunal. On an application filed by the Revenue under section 256(2), it contended that once the addition had been upheld by the Tribunal in the assessment proceedings, to the penalty proceedings the Tribunal was not justified in limiting the penalty to only two items of Rs.25,000 each:\n \nHeld, that from a perusal of clause (B) of Explanation 1 and the proviso thereto of section 271(1) of the Act, it is evident that if the explanation offered by any person has not been substantiated by him, the items of cash credit added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed to, represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed for purposes of clause (c) of the subsection (1) of section 271. The proviso which controls clause (B) says that the provisions of clause (B) shall not apply to a case when the amount added or disallowed is as a result of rejection of any explanation offered by such person provided the satisfied two requirements. viz, (i) that the explanation is bona fide, and (ii) that he has disclosed all the facts relating to the same and which are material to the computation of his total income. It was only when clause (B) was attracted; viz., where a person had offered an explanation and he had not been able to substantiate that explanation that further enquiry into the presence of the requirements of the proviso had to be made, But if in a given case, as in the instant case the Tribunal expressed the opinion that no finding that the assessee had not been able to substantiate the explanation, could be recorded, the amount added or disallowed could not be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars had been concealed for purposes of clause (c) of subsection (1) section 271. In such a situation there was no need to look to the requirements of the said proviso to the Explanation. The Tribunal recorded the finding that it was also not possible to say that the assessee was unable to substantiate its contention. The Tribunal had also adverted to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence before the Department to prove that the credits represented the concealed income of the assessee, which was accepted by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in declining to refer the questions.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),(2),271(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 135 of 1990, decision dated: 22-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSRI VENKATESWARA TIMBER DEPOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 495 = 1999 SLD 495 = 1999 PTD 3350 = (1998) 230 ITR 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Income-tax Authorities-Have to function within the powers and duties assigned to them under Income-tax Act -Cannot claim to exercise any inherent power-Power to issue clarifications of ambiguous statutory provisions can be exercised by delegate under specified conditions-In the absence of such delegation, such exercise of power will be a nullity and will not bind any one-Clarification of Deputy CIT that deductions to be made from payments to five star hotels for certain facilities-Liable to be quashed-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 116, 119, 194C & 298.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Income-tax Authorities-Discharge of quasi judicial functions having bearing on rights and obligations of taxpayers under Income-tax Act-View taken in a particular case cannot partake of colour of law of general application so as to bind a class of taxpayers.\n \nIt is basic that the authorities created under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to function within the four corners of the powers and duties assigned to them under the Act. They cannot claim to themselves any inherent power, howsoever, benevolent or plausible the purpose it. is intended to serve. The power to issue clarifications of purportedly ambiguous statutory provisions lies only with the Legislature or its delegate under specified conditions. In the absence of any such delegation such a power cannot be exercised by any person and if it is so exercised then it will be nothing but a nullity.\n \nThe Income-tax. Authorities while discharging their quasi judicial functions having bearing on the rights and obligations of the taxpayers under the provisions of the Act may take such, views on the interpretation of a particular statutory provision as may be permissible which will be always subject to the statutory remedies under the Act. But the view so taken in the particular case cannot partake of the colour of a law of general application, so as to bind a whole class of taxpayers and provide them a cause of action for coming before the Court seeking interference under the writ jurisdiction.\n \nThe first petitioner owned and operated a chain of five star hotels. The petitioners offered a number of facilities and amenities to patrons such as a select restaurant, and a banquet hall for special private gatherings and entertainments and similar such other facilities. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, and the Commissioner in an interface held by the corporate persons with the officers of the Income-tax Department, gave certain answers on the provisions pertaining to deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 196-1. These answers were communicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, the first respondent, to the people of the industry, which gave the impression that the interpretation so given of the statutory provisions contained under the Act, statutorily bound the, persons who were to abide by those provisions. The Tata Information Systems Ltd. (Tatas) being one of the companies who had availed of the banquet facilities provided by the first petitioner had deducted tax at source under section 194C on the payments made by it, rejecting the objections of the first petitioner, to such deduction at source, resting its stand on the clarification given by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax in his communication to the Tata. The question that arose in the writ petitions filed by the two petitioners was, whether the replies/clarifications/instructions given by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax or given by any of the Income-tax Authorities referred to in section 116 of the Act had any, statutory sanction so as to bind the persons governed by the provisions of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax in his statement of objections had stated that the Chief Commissioner and the Commissioners being heads of the Department are responsible for the administration of the Act and are, therefore, duty bound to periodically meet the various trade associations as well as associations of professionals to redress their grievances and also to explain the departmental point of view whenever new provisions or procedures are sought to be introduced. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax had also made certain statements having far-reaching implications on the powers and functions of the Income-tax Authorities and the rights and obligations of the taxpayers to the effect: \"\"It is necessary to add that any such clarifications which are in favour of the taxpayers are binding on the officers of the Department.- However, where such clarifications are against the taxpayer, he is entitled to challenge the view expressed therein in appropriate proceedings either before normal appellate forums under the Act or the High Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be. . . The answer so given to the query does not partake of the character of any statutory order but only an expression of the Departments view\"\".\n \nHeld, allowing the writ petitions, (i) that the statement of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax disclosed the manner in which the Income-tax Authorities under the Act had construed their powers and functions as virtually attributing to themselves certain legislative functions/powers of issuing clarifications binding both the Revenue as also the taxpayers, though Parliament under the Act has not entrusted any such powers or functions to them. The entertainment of such concept on the part of the Income-tax Authorities was not only misconceived and unwarranted but was also indicative of a menacing trend.\n \n(ii) That a provision authorising the Central Government to provide by order for removal of doubts or difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the Act amounts to delegation of legislative power. Under section 298 of Act, such a power has been specifically conferred upon the Central Government subject to various limitations.\n \n \n(iii) That, similarly under section 119 of the Act a power has been reserved in favour of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to issue instructions to subordinate Income-tax Authorities for proper administration of the Act and who are required to observe and follow such instructions. Nonetheless, such instructions, which may even pertain to interpretation of a statutory provision under the Act, cannot bind the taxpayers requiring to seek any remedy against the said instructions/clarifications either statutory or Constitutional.\n \n(The communication/clarification of the Deputy Commissioner of income-tax was quashed reserving liberty to the parties to. exercise their rights and discharge their obligations in accordance with the provisions of the Act,-subject to judicial pronouncements and clarifications/instructions issued by the Board.)\n \nJalan Trading Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha (1966) 36 Comp. Cas. 901; (1965-66) 29 FJR 463 and AIR 1967 SC 691 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=116,119,194C,298 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.24457 add 24458 of 1996, decision dated: 28-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. BHARUKA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dastur and K. Kasturi for Petitioners. Indra Kumar for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. and another\nVs\nC. R. SHEKHAR REDDY and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 496 = 1999 SLD 496 = 1999 PTD 3357 = (1999) 80 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Notice-Non-compliance-Date of order-Cognizance was taken of assessees failure to comply notice on due date by the Assessing-Officer and order was passed the very next day-Validity-Natural assumption was that the Assessing Officer must have waited on due date till the close of office hours-Passing of order next day was no violation of any criterion laid down for the purpose-Absence of words \"\"reserved for orders\"\" though desirable but not fatal to the proceedings.\n \n1981 PTD 210 and PLD 1975 Lah. 1317 ref.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.52, 86 & 63-Provisions of Ss.52, 86 & 63-Distinction-¬Proceedings raising demand under S.52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on assessees failure to deduct tax under S.50 of the Ordinance were different from ex parte order under S.63 for assessees failure to comply with statutory notice under Ss.56, 58 & 61 etc. of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Default of such notices may not only result in ex parte orders but also imposition of penalties and prosecution under various sections in Chaps. XII & XIII, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.52 & 86-Liability of person failing to deduct or pay tax-Creation of demand-Assessment order-Contention was that orders under 5.52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 resulted in demand and were therefore, essentially assessment orders-Validity-Orders raising demand under S.52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were not \"\"assessment orders\"\" though such orders did result in raising of tax demand-Assessment orders quantify the real or notional earning of the assessee and tax demand thereon-Orders under S.52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, .1979 were in respect of statutory obligation of payers to withhold taxes from payment to others when they default-Additional tax for such defaults were calculated as per provisions of S.86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and that was not for default of taxpayers own tax liabilities but only for their delinquency in matters of observing or fulfilling their statutory obligations.\n \nPLD 1989 Lah. 121 ref.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.52/86, 61, 62 & 63-Liability of person failing to deduct or pay tax-¬Additional tax-Production of accounts-Limitation-Time limits prescribed .for assessment under Ss.62 & 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were not applicable to order passed under S.52/86 by the Assessing Officer-¬Period of three years prescribed under law for the purpose of enforcing production of accounts was also only for the restricted purpose of notice under S.61 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and nothing else-Notice under S.61 may be issued for earlier years also and time limit of three; years for enforcing production of accounts will then apply to period of three years preceding the year for which assessment/re-assessment proceedings were being conducted, -limit for action under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was five years-Assessing Officer may call old accounts up, to eight years.\n \n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.52/86 & 156-Liability of person failing to- deduct or pay tax-¬Additional tax-Limitation-Assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97-Orders under S.52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were passed for six years Le. Assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97 by the Assessing Officer-¬Validity-Orders under S.52/86 of the Income Tax Ordinance; 1979 be passed within time limit of four years prescribed under S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Orders for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, being beyond such time-were void while orders for the other three years being within time were sustained by Tribunal.\n \n1996 PTD (Trib.) 65 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,52,56,58&61,86,63,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.445/KB to 449/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 19-05-1999, hearing DATE : 14-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi and,Ms. Lubna Pervez for Appellant. Ali Akbar Deepar. D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 497 = 1999 SLD 497 = 1999 PTD 3362 = (1999) 80 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.80-AA, 22(c) & 12(5)-Tax on income of non-residents from fee for technical service-Tax on tax -Assessee a non-resident received \"\"fee for technical services\"\" and tax was duly charged Q 15 %-Tax was paid by the client on behalf of the assessee in pursuance of contractual obligation-¬Assessing Officer found that tax paid by the client/owner on behalf of the assessee was real income against which no expenses were incurred and the income was assessable under cl. (c) of S.22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as value of benefit or perquisites -Validity-Assessee had not provided any services other than the technical services, and the payment of tax by the client was for the same consideration for which \"\"fee for technical services\"\" had been paid i.e. rendering of managerial, technical and consultancy service-Tax: paid on, behalf of the assessee by the client on \"\"fee for technical services\"\" paid to the assessee fell within the purview of \"\"fee for technical services\"\" as defined in the Explanation to subsection (5) of S.12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1 979 and was out of purview of income under S.22(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Demand created in respect of income allegedly falling under S.22(c) while exercising jurisdiction to make assessment under S.80-AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was without jurisdiction and void- Assessee had rightly grossed up the sum paid to the assessee as \"\"fee from technical services\"\" and the taxes paid thereon and the tax on tax was rightly computed and worked out.\n \n(1976) 33 Tax 1 (Trib.); Messrs Shukus v. CIT, Zone B (1986) 158 ITR 420 (AP) and North British Railway Company v. Scott VIII TC 332 ref.\n \n(1976) 33 Tax 1 (Trib.) and 1994 PTD 1171 rel.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 80-AA-Tax on income of non-resident from fee for-technical services-Presumptive tax regime-Normal income-tax regime-¬Jurisdiction-Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make any assessment at the same time in respect of any income under normal law under S.80AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-If at the time of completing assessment under S.80-AA the Assessing Officer formed opinion that income did not fall within the purview of presumptive tax regime governed under S.80-AA, he shall simply make an observation in that behalf and exclude any such normal income from the income determined under S.80-AA-Assessing Officer shall then serve a notice on the assessee calling upon him to file a return of total income and thereafter he will acquire jurisdiction to complete assessment under the normal law, reason being that the normal income-tax regime and the presumptive tax regime were totally different in their nature, scope, application, procedure and jurisdiction and had nothing in common to each other in their genens.\n \n1997 PTD 1380 and 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1201 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80AA,22(c)&12(5),22,22(c),12 ", + "Case #": "As. Nos. 1613/KB and 1614/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 14-06-1999, hearing DATE : 8th June,", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahfoozur Rehman Pasha, D.R. for Appellant. 1. N. Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 498 = 1999 SLD 498 = 1999 PTD 3376 = (1998) 230 ITR 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Penalty-Concealment of income-Penalty proceedings for assessment year 1979-80-Addition of Rs.32,707 made to income of assessee and penalty proceedings initiated-Failure to obtain prior approval of I.A.C.-¬Procedural defect which could be cured-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 251 & 271(1)(c).\n \nA procedural irregularity not involving the question of jurisdiction can be cured. .\n \nIn the assessment, order for the assessment year 1979-80, the Income-tax Officer made additions amounting to Rs.32,707 to the income of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the assessment order, there was no specific mention of the items of income, which were treated as concealed income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted Rs.9,107 out of the addition. The assessee raised an objection that the penalty order was invalid in law since the penalty was levied without the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax when the amount of income in respect of which the particulars were, alleged as inaccurate or concealed, was Rs.32,707, i.e. to say, in excess of Rs.25,000. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) construed the assessment order as if the Income-tax Officer had initiated penalty proceedings in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.23,600 only. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), thus, confirmed the addition. The Tribunal reached the conclusion that from the assessment order it could not be inferred that the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer as to the concealment of income by the assessee was restricted to Rs.23,600 only. The Tribunal, therefore, held the penalty order illegal, having been passed without the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the levy of penalty by the Income-tax Officer without previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was illegal. But it was a defect, which could be cured. Therefore, the case had to go back to the Assessing Authority. While curing the defect by obtaining the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, he was bound to take into consideration the fact that the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) had to be restricted to the addition of Rs.23,600 out of the entire addition of Rs.32,707. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner while according approval and the Income-tax Officer while imposing penalty should keep in mind this factual position.\n \nPrabhudayal Amichand v. CIT (1989) 180 ITR 84 (MP) and CIT v. Sardarilal Bhasin (1989) 179 ITR 307 (MP) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=251,271(1)(c). ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.347 of 1991, decision dated: 27-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND N. K., JAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Vyas for the Commissioner. G. M. Chaphekar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVIJAY DAL MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 499 = 1999 SLD 499 = 1999 PTD 3380 = (1998) 230 ITR 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Capital gains or business income -Assessee-company purchasing lands from one a lied concern and retaining them for more than a decade-¬Assessee selling the lands to other allied concerns, one of them being holding company of assessee-company-Lands surrendered to allied concerns to settle financial accounts-Only sale made to an outsider worth only a negligible amount for rounding off land with factories-Some lands sold to comply with restrictions on owning urban lands-Transactions were between parent company and subsidiary-No evidence that lands transferred at market value-Assessee was not dealer in land-Transfer was only of capital asset or investment and not stock-in-trade-Gains arising from sale of land to be assessed as capital gains and not as business income-Transfer by subsidiary to holding company exempt-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.45 & 47(v).\n \nIn a transaction between a parent company and a subsidiary company, transfer of asset could be made at any price without damaging the finances of either the parent company or the subsidiary company. It would only increase or decrease the value of shares of either. It is an unrealistic transfer, virtually transferring the asset from the books of one company to the other, the latter acquiring a notional- increase in share value or extra shares. In a transaction between a parent company and a subsidiary company, the nature of the transaction and the value of the transferred asset cannot be treated as the same as in the case of transfer at arms length between two different persons or entities. Mostly this is only a book adjustment appearing as profit on the one hand and loss on the other.\n \nThe assessee acquired 1,773 grounds and 1,741 sq. ft. from a group company on April. 30, 1957. Portions of these lands were sold to the various units of the group. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, there were certain sales of lands by the assessee to the other companies. The total gains on the sale of these lands came to Rs.32,12,184. The assessee had claimed that the gains of Rs.3,15,716 arising consequent to the sale of lands by the assessee to S Co., which was the holding company of the assessee-company, was exempt under section 47(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The balance sum of Rs.28,96,468 was offered by the assessee under the head \"\"Capital gains\"\". The Income-tax Officer for the reasons stated in the assessment order for the year 1973-i4, held that the sum of Rs.32,12,184 being the surplus realised on the sale of land in this year i.e., 1975-76 should be assessed under the head \"\"business\"\". On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following his order for the assessment year 1973-74, held that the profits arising on sale of lands were assessable only as capital gains. Regarding the profit on sale of lands to the holding company amounting to Rs.3,15,716, he held that the same was exempt under section 47(v) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that so far as the lands were concerned, the assessee had purchased them from an allied concern and sold them also to allied concerns. After purchase of the land, the assessee retained it for more than a decade. Even when a portion of the land was surrendered to one or other of the allied concerns, that was done in order to settle some financial accounts. The only sale to an outsider was of 1-I/2 acres of land, worth only a negligible amount of Rs.10,000. This was done for the purpose of rounding off the land with the factories. The sale to the holding company was also a sale to an allied concern. From the conduct of the assessee, it was clear, that the purchase of land had not been intended for business, but only for transfers to allied concerns, the financial effect of which would depend more on the overall finance of the concerns rather than the individual transfer of the land. Land owners holding large quantities of land always feared that legislation would come curtailing their right to hold large extents of land. The price at which the lands were sold was not the market value. These facts would go to show that the assessee was not a dealer in lend and the transfer in the present case was only of a capital asset. The transaction in the present case was between a parent company and its subsidiary. Therefore, the gains arising from the sale of the land had to be assessed under the head \"\"Capital gains\"\", since what was sold was only investment and not stock-in-trade. The sum of Rs.3,15,716 representing gain on the transfer to the holding company was exempt under section 47(v).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=45,47(v) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 496 of 1983 (Reference No.249 of 1983), decision dated: 28-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. FHANIKKACHALAM AND SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. H. Aravindh Pandian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSIMPSON GENERAL FINANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 500 = 1999 SLD 500 = 1999 PTD 3387 = (1998) 230 ITR 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund with Interest – Assessee in Default\nKey Issue: Entitlement of interest under Sections 244(1A) and 244A for amounts recovered as defaulting assessee.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court directed interest to be paid to the Delhi Development Authority for the wrongful recovery, as the initial demand lacked statutory backing.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Khemchand Ramdas (1938) 6 ITR 414 (PC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. M. No .4990 of 1995 in C. W. P. No. 2996 of 1995, decision dated: 31st July 1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate, Anoop Sharma and Rajan Malik for Petitioner. Ms. Premlata Bansal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 501 = 1999 SLD 501 = 1999 PTD 3394 = (1998) 230 ITR 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Succession – Firm Converted into Company\nKey Issue: Assessment liability for the period before succession.\nFacts:\n•\nA firm of three partners was reconstituted with seven partners before converting into a company.\n•\nThe firm filed a nil income return for the full year, while the company filed returns post-conversion.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer ruled the firm was taxable until succession, and the Tribunal held only the income up to October 16, 1972, was taxable in the firm’s hands.\nConclusion:\nThe Court affirmed that a firm is assessable for income up to the date of its succession by a company. Profits till the date of succession can be determined without actual closure of accounts.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. A.W. Figgies & Co. (1953) 24 ITR 405 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=170 ", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 107 of 1980, decision dated: 9-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "MOTOR SALES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 502 = 1999 SLD 502 = 1999 PTD 3397 = (1998) 230 ITR 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Excise Duty – Contingent Liability\nKey Issue: Deduction of provision for excise duty.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee created a provision for excise duty based on show-cause notices without admitting liability.\n•\nExcise authorities later dropped proceedings.\n•\nThe Tribunal allowed the deduction, but the High Court reversed it.\nConclusion:\nA contingent liability arising from a show-cause notice is not allowable as a deduction since it does not constitute an actual liability.\nReferences:\n•\nStandards Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 366 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 26 of 1987, decision dated: 5-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND SMT. RANJANA DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. U. Khatri with J. P. Deodhar instructed by K. C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner. S. J. Mehta with S. E. Dastur and P.R. Toprani instructed by R. H. Toprani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIAN SMELTING AND REFINING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 503 = 1999 SLD 503 = 1999 PTD 3403 = (1998) 230 ITR 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Firm Dissolution on Partner's Death\nKey Issue: Separate assessments post-dissolution.\nFacts:\n•\nA firm dissolved upon the death of a partner as there was no agreement to continue.\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled for two separate assessments before and after the dissolution.\nConclusion:\nThe dissolution of a firm on a partner's death mandates separate assessments for periods before and after the event.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.77 of 1981, decision dated: 14-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND P.K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nvs\nKALYAN DAS MADAM MOHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 504 = 1999 SLD 504 = 1999 PTD 3405 = (1998) 230 ITR 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment – Search and Seizure\nKey Issue: Validity of canceling a penalty in cases of estimated additions.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee admitted discrepancies post-seizure, but the Tribunal ruled the penalty invalid, stating additions were estimates.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court directed questions of law on whether penalties in such cases should rely on estimates.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 14917 of 1995-S, decision dated: 15-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MUHAMMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, M.A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nR. BHARATHAN (No. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 505 = 1999 SLD 505 = 1999 PTD 3407 = (1998) 230 ITR 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: High Court's Writ Powers – Investigation and Monitoring\nKey Issues:\n1.\nMandamus for tax investigations.\n2.\nHigh Court's role in monitoring investigations.\nConclusion:\nHigh Courts can compel tax investigations if statutory duties are ignored but cannot micromanage or monitor investigations.\nReferences:\n•\nHirday Narain (L.) v. ITO (1970) 78 ITR 26 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=226 ", + "Case #": "Special Civil Applications Nos. 7417 with 9390 of 1996, decision dated: 18-06-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R.A. MEHTA, ACTG. C.J. AND R.K. ABICHANDANI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.A. Puj for Petitioner (in S.C.A. No. 7417 of 1996).\nY.N. Oza for Petitioner (in S.C.A. No. 9390 of 1996).\nS. N. Shelat, Additional Advocate-General with Manish R. Bhatt for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in S.C A. No. 7417 of 1996 and for Respondent No. 5 (in S. C. A. No. 9390 of 1996).\nH.M. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Avni S. Mehta for Respondent No. 3 (in S.C.A. No. 7417 of 1996).\nS.B. Vakil with R.S. Sanjanwala for Respondent No. 4 (in S.C.A. No. 7417 of 1996) and for Respondent No. 3 (in S.C.A. No. 9390 of 1996).\nH.M. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Ketan A. Dave for Respondent No. 1 (in S.C. A. No. 9390 of 1996).\nAmit J. Shah for Respondent No. 2 (in S.C.A. No. 9390 of 1996).", + "Party Name:": "JAYAMAL JAYANTILAL THAKORE and another\nVs\nCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 506 = 1999 SLD 506 = 1999 PTD 3419 = (1998) 230 ITR 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes – Limitation\nKey Issue: Starting point for limitation under Section 154.\nFacts:\n•\nThe rectification order relied on revised assessment orders rather than original orders.\nConclusion:\nThe rectification period under Section 154 starts from the latest revised order, making the rectification within limitation.\nReferences:\n•\nHind Wire Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 212 ITR 639 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.377 and 378 of 1984 (References Nos.326 and 327 of 1984), decision dated: 12-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SALEM COOPERATIVE SPG. MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 507 = 1999 SLD 507 = 1999 PTD 3421 = (1998) 230 ITR 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable Purpose – Profit from Activities\nKey Issue: Eligibility for exemption despite earning profits.\nConclusion:\nCharitable institutions earning incidental profits retain their exemption under Section 11 if the predominant objective remains charitable.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 202 of 1991, decision dated: 21st November, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " VINOD KUMAR GUPTA AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Khaitan for the Assessee. R.C. Prasad and P.K. Bhowmick for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DIRECTOR OF Income Tax (EXEMPTION)\nVs\nSHILPAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 508 = 1999 SLD 508 = 1999 PTD 3429 = (1998) 230 ITR 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains – Property as a Capital Asset\nKey Issue: Assessment criteria for property transformations.\nConclusion:\nProperty must be a capital asset on the transfer date to attract capital gains tax, regardless of its acquisition nature.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka (1962) 46 ITR 86 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1719 and 1720 of 1989, decision dated: 6-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Janakiraman for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "M. NACHIAPPAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 509 = 1999 SLD 509 = 1999 PTD 3438 = (1998) 230 ITR 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Development Rebate – Conditions for Eligibility\nKey Issue: Contract dates for machinery installation.\nConclusion:\nMachinery contracts after December 1, 1973, disqualify development rebate claims for installations post-May 1974.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 182 of 1995, decision dated: 5-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.N. Sharma for the Commissioner. S.S. Samvatsar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVIPPY SOLVEX PRODUCTS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 510 = 1999 SLD 510 = 1999 PTD 3441 = (1998) 230 ITR 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment Based on Audit Notes\nKey Issue: Validity of audit notes as information. \nConclusion:\nAudit party notes do not constitute information for reassessment under Section 147(b).\nReferences:\n•\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1074 and 1075 of 1983 (References Nos.532 and 523 of 1983), decision dated: 7-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Aravind Pandian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nE.I.D. PARRY (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 511 = 1999 SLD 511 = 1999 PTD 3447 = (1998) 230 ITR 601", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Salary Perquisites – Valuation of Rent-Free Accommodation\nKey Issue: Determination of fair rental value. \nConclusion:\nFair rental value cannot exceed the standard rent under applicable Rent Control Acts.\nReferences:\n•\nDewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. NDMC (1980) 122 ITR 700 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.68 of 1986, decision dated: 17-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Kaka instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian with P.S. Jetley and J.P. Deodhar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "M.A.E. PAES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 512 = 1999 SLD 512 = 1999 PTD 3456 = (1999) 80 TAX 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interpretation of Statutes – Mandatory Provisions\nKey Issue: Filing deadlines under statutory rules.\nConclusion:\nPenalties for non-compliance are valid unless reasonable causes are proven.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=144(a),(b),(c),51,139,141,142,143,143A & 143B,108(b),139,142 & 165(2)(e)-S.R.O.No.1116(1)/95 Income Tax Rules, 1982=61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A s. Nos.628/KB and 629/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 26-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, S.M. SIBTAIN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOH ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Irfan Ahmed, I.T.P. for Appellant. M. Mahfooz-ur-Rehman Pasha, D. R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 513 = 1999 SLD 513 = 1999 PTD 3464 = (1999) 80 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Turnover Tax – Exemption and Minimum Tax\nKey Issue: Conflict between exemption clauses and turnover tax provisions.\nConclusion:\nTurnover tax provisions override exemptions not explicitly protected by subsequent laws.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D & SecondSched,cl.(118A),2(i)(b) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1920/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 22-07-1999, hearing DATE : 21st July, 1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Riaz-ud-Din, D. R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 514 = 1999 SLD 514 = 1999 PTD 3470 = (1998) 230 ITR 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment – Failure to Disclose Material Facts\nKey Issue: Validity of reassessment for concealed facts.\nConclusion:\nReassessment is valid if material facts like asset sales and capital gains were undisclosed.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.66 of 1991, decision dated: 15-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KERALA INDUSTRIAL POLYMERS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 515 = 1999 SLD 515 = 1999 PTD 3474 = (1998) 230 ITR 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Inadvertent Mistakes\nKey Issue: Justification for penalty cancellation.\nConclusion:\nGenuine inadvertent errors do not justify penalties.\nReferences:\n•\nHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.7 of 1997, decision dated: 16-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.U. Khatri with J.P. Deodhar for Applicant. K.B. Bhujle with S.H. Inamdar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASK ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 516 = 1999 SLD 516 = 1999 PTD 3476 = (1998) 230 ITR 695", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision of Assessments – Jurisdiction\nKey Issue: CIT powers under Section 263.\nConclusion:\nCIT cannot revise orders merely for further verification unless a clear error is identified.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.810 of 1984 (Reference No.725 of 1984), decision dated: 27-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. D. VALLIAMMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 517 = 1999 SLD 517 = 1999 PTD 3481 = (1998) 230 ITR 700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Leasehold Property\nKey Issue: Deemed ownership for income assessment.\nConclusion:\nLessee is not deemed owner unless new construction is made and income is derived from it.\nReferences:\n•\nBallygunge Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 14 ITR 409 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 170 of 1991, decision dated: 28-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " VINOD KUMAR GUPTA AND D. P. KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.C. Moitra and S.K. Mukherjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUPREME CREDIT CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 518 = 1999 SLD 518 = 1999 PTD 3483 = (1998) 230 ITR 703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Business Expenditure\nKey Issue: Deductibility of VRS payments.\nConclusion:\nVRS payments are deductible if incurred on grounds of commercial expediency.\nReferences:\n•\nSassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.267 of 1983 (Reference No.98 of 1983), decision dated: 10th June,1983", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSIMPSON & CO. LTD. (N0.1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 519 = 1999 SLD 519 = 1999 PTD 3485 = (1998) 230 ITR 511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Service Charges – Income Accrual\nTopic: Taxability of service charges accrued to the assessee.\nKey Issue: Inclusion of receivables in the assessee’s taxable income.\nConclusion:\nThe disallowance of a deduction in the payer's assessment is irrelevant to deciding whether income accrued to the assessee. The service charges receivable during the relevant assessment year are taxable in the assessee's hands.\n(b) Investment Allowance – Construction Business\nKey Issue: Eligibility of construction businesses and dumpers for investment allowance.\nConclusion:\nThe construction business is not an industrial undertaking and is ineligible for investment allowance under Section 32-A. Dumpers used in civil engineering contracts qualify as road transport vehicles and are similarly ineligible.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No: 8 of 1991, decided or, 31st July, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanium, Senior Advocate with J.P. Deodhar, instructed by H.D. Rathod for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHAH CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 520 = 1999 SLD 520 = 1999 PTD 3489 = (1998) 230 ITR 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax – Stay of Demand\nKey Issue: Requirement for a reasoned order in rejecting stay applications.\nConclusion:\nRejection of a stay application must be by a speaking order with reasons. In this case, failure to consider relevant facts, such as credit for TDS, invalidates the rejection.\nReference:\n•\nConstitution of India, Art. 226.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W. No.3104 of 1997, decision dated: 5-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHORE AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S. Syali and Satyen Sethi for Petitioner. R.D. Jolly and Ajay Jha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOMESAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 521 = 1999 SLD 521 = 1999 PTD 3492 = (1998) 230 ITR 717", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Prima Facie Adjustments – Writ Not Maintainable\nKey Issue: Validity of writ petitions against prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1)(a).\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner must seek remedies under statutory provisions, such as rectification or appeal. A writ petition bypassing these remedies is not maintainable.\n(b) Existence of Alternate Remedy\nKey Issue: Applicability of writ jurisdiction when alternate remedies exist.\nConclusion:\nWrits are generally not entertained where alternate remedies under the Income-Tax Act are available.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No.9316 of 1994, decision dated: 22-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. BALI AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NAHA SPINNING MILLS LTD\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 522 = 1999 SLD 522 = 1999 PTD 3498 = (1998) 230 ITR 762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interest – Part of Assessment\nKey Issue: Dispute over levied interest under Sections 139(8) and 215.\nConclusion:\nInterest levied under these provisions is appealable if the assessee disputes its applicability, not its calculation.\n(b) Additions to Closing Stock\nKey Issue: Whether additions to the closing stock inventory were justified.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's findings that inventory was accurately taken and no duplication occurred are factual and not open to interference.\nReference:\n•\nCentral Provinces and Manganese Ore-Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T. R. No. 195 of 1988, decision dated: 24-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. G. BALAKRISHNAN AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair and K.M.V. Pandalai for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "T. ABDUL MAJEED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 523 = 1999 SLD 523 = 1999 PTD 3502 = (1998) 230 ITR 766", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment – Non-Disclosure of Interest\nKey Issue: Validity of penalty for failing to disclose interest income.\nConclusion:\nThe penalty was justified as non-disclosure was deemed willful. Subsequent developments (e.g., setting aside interest award) are irrelevant to the Tribunal's order.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No.81 of 1977, decision dated: 1st March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " .D.P. WADHWA, C.J. AND S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Jan, Senior Advocate for Applicant. L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PADAM KUMAR JAIN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 524 = 1999 SLD 524 = 1999 PTD 3507 = (1998) 230 ITR 771", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Undisclosed Sources\nKey Issue: Ownership of undisclosed pawned ornaments.\nConclusion:\nFindings that the undisclosed income belonged to the assessee-firm were based on evidence. Affidavits and explanations provided by the partner were unconvincing.\nReference:\n•\nMehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No. 102 of 1992, decision dated: 9-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GARIBDAS CHANDRIKA PRASAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 675 = 1999 SLD 675 = 1999 PTD 3510 = (1998) 230 ITR 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Mutual Concern – Rent Receipts from Members\nKey Issue: Taxability of rent receipts from members.\nConclusion:\nRent receipts from members of a mutual concern, along with other facilities, are not taxable.\n(b) Income Classification – Swimming Pool and Stadium\nKey Issue: Whether income is taxable under business or house property. \nConclusion:\nIncome from facilities without an element of rent is taxable as business income and not as income from house property. \nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.282 and 283 of 1979, decision dated: 7-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K., MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly and Premlata Bansal for the Commissioner. S.K. Aggarwal and Vinay Vaish for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNATIONAL SPORTS CLUB OF INDIA (NO. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 526 = 1999 SLD 526 = 1999 PTD 3516 = (1999) 80 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Refunds\nKey Issue: Calculation of interest for delayed refunds.\nConclusion:\nInterest under Section 102 is payable on refunds created after allowing full credit of advance tax. The Tribunal modified the interest start date to three months after the refund order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102,53 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.658/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 7-07-1999, hearing DATE : 25-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mehfooz-ur-Rehman Pasha, D.R. for Appellant. Akbar G. Marchant, F.C.A. and Miss Yasmin Ajani, F.C.A. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 527 = 1999 SLD 527 = 1999 PTD 3518 = (2000) 81 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Definition of Food – Rebate in Super-Tax\nKey Issue: Whether soft drinks with sugar qualify as food for tax rebate purposes.\nConclusion:\nSoft drinks prepared with sugar qualify as food under relevant tax provisions and are eligible for rebates in super-tax.\n(b) Proviso Interpretation\nKey Issue: Function and strict construction of provisos.\nConclusion:\nProvisos operate as exceptions to main enactments and must be strictly construed within the substantive provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=FirstSched.,PartIIA ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 13 of 1987, decision dated: 28-04-1999, hearing DATE : 26-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND CH. IJAZ AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHI BOTTLERS LIMITED, LAHORE\nVs\nTHE C.I.T., CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 528 = 1999 SLD 528 = 1999 PTD 3527 = (1998) 230 ITR 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Loss – Deficit Stock\nKey Issue: Deductibility of losses due to stock deficits.\nConclusion:\nLosses for deficit stock are not deductible unless actually written off. Reserves for deficit stock do not qualify for deduction.\nReference:\n•\nNorth Arcot District Cooperative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 623 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.243 and 244 of 1981 (References Nos.95 and 96 of 1981), decision dated: 9-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S.M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.S. Sivaraman for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NORTH ARCOT DISTRICT COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING SOCIETY LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 529 = 1999 SLD 529 = 1999 PTD 3537 = (1998) 230 ITR 780", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Mutual Concern – Rent Receipts\nKey Issue: Taxability of rent receipts from members.\nConclusion:\nRent receipts from members of a mutual concern are not taxable.\n(b) Business Income vs. Property Income\nKey Issue: Classification of income from facilities like swimming pools.\nConclusion:\nIncome from swimming pools and stadiums with no rental element is taxable as business income. \nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.249 of 1982 and 191 of 1983, decision dated: 8-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly and Premlata Barisal for the Commissioner. S.K. Aggarwal and Vinay Vaish for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNATIONAL SPORTS CLUB OF INDIA (N0.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 530 = 1999 SLD 530 = 1999 PTD 3539 = (1998) 230 ITR 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment and Finality of Exemption Decisions\nKey Issue: Whether a reassessment under Section 147 can reconsider exemptions under Section 11 previously decided with finality by the Supreme Court.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal's direction to reconsider exemption under Section 11 in reassessment proceedings was not justified, as the Supreme Court had already decided the exemption claim for the years in question. The finality of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court precludes reconsideration during reassessment proceedings.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 796 (SC).\n•\nAddl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 99 to 101 of 1991, decision dated: 31st July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair and M.C. Madhavan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 531 = 1999 SLD 531 = 1999 PTD 3548 = (1998) 230 ITR 791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Undisclosed Income – Additions Justified\nKey Issue: Addition of income based on the assessee's admission.\nConclusion:\nThe addition of income based on the assessee's admission regarding katcha bills was justified. The Tribunal's findings were factual and supported by evidence.\n(b) Reference on Questions of Fact\nKey Issue: Whether questions of fact can be referred under Section 256.\nConclusion:\nOnly questions of law can be referred to the High Court. Questions of fact, even if involving natural justice, cannot be referred.", + "Court Name:": "Himachal Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No, 2 of 1987, decision dated: 29-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. AND A.L. VAIDYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. Inder Singh with M.M. Khanna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HIRA SINGH & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 532 = 2000 SLD 532 = 2000 PTD 2076 = (1999) 235 ITR 732", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Peak Credit Theory and Additions\nKey Issue: Application of the peak credit theory in computing income from cash credits.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s findings based on facts were conclusive, and no question of law arose regarding the application of the peak credit theory. The High Court dismissed the application for reference.\nReferences:\n•\nKale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax application No.2 of 1995, decision dated: 1st April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " M. G. MUKHERJI, C.J. AND BHAGWATI PRASAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vineet Kothari and Anjai Kothari for the Assessee. Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SWAROOP CHAND KOJURAM\nVs\nIISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 533 = 1999 SLD 533 = 1999 PTD 3554 = (1998) 230 ITR 798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtQTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Limitation – Rectification and Erroneous Description\nKey Issue: Validity of orders passed beyond limitation due to erroneous descriptions.\nConclusion:\nThe Income-tax Officer's orders, though captioned under Section 154, were effectively passed under Section 143. Erroneous descriptions do not invalidate such orders.\n(b) Jurisdiction of Erroneously Captioned Orders\nKey Issue: Whether jurisdiction is affected by an incorrect statutory reference.\nConclusion:\nAn order's real nature, not its description, determines jurisdiction. Orders implementing appellate directions are valid irrespective of incorrect captions.\nReferences:\n•\nModi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.55 to 57 of 1993, decision dated: 27-06-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K. K. USHA AND K. A. MOHAMED SHAFT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.C. Sen for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "K.P. PAULOSE & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 534 = 1999 SLD 534 = 1999 PTD 3560 = (1998) 230 ITR 813", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Bad Debt Deduction\nKey Issue: Deductibility of written-off debt under Section 36.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that the transaction was genuine, and the assessee acted prudently in writing off the debt. The High Court affirmed that this was a finding of fact, not open for reappreciation.\nReferences:\n•\nBank of Bihar Ltd. v. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 427 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.325 of 1990, decision dated: 15-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSANTOSH RICE MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 535 = 1999 SLD 535 = 1999 PTD 3563 = (1998) 230 ITR 817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Rule 6-D – Aggregation of Expenses\nKey Issue: Aggregation of travel expenses for disallowance under Rule 6-D.\nConclusion:\nThe question was deemed a matter of law and fit for reference to the High Court.\n(b) Accrual of Income in the Mercantile System\nKey Issue: Unilateral entries in books without debtor consent.\nConclusion:\nMere entries in the books without acceptance by the debtor do not amount to accrual of income.\nReferences:\n•\nGodhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "MODI RUBBER LTD. (NO. 1) T.C. No.55 of 1995, decision dated: 16-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D. Jolly and Ms. Premlata Barisal for Petitioner. G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate and Santosh Aggarwal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 536 = 1999 SLD 536 = 1999 PTD 3567 = (1998) 230 ITR 820", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Valuation of Stock – Change in Method\nKey Issue: Tribunal’s acceptance of the assessee’s scientific method of stock valuation.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s findings were factual, and no question of law arose for reference.\n(b) Guarantee Commission Deductibility\nKey Issue: Deduction of guarantee commission as a business expense.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court's decision settled the matter, and no further reference was necessary.\nReferences:\n•\nAddl. CIT v. Akkamamba Textiles Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 464 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Cs. Nos.40, 48 and 57 of 1995, decision dated: 16-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Bansal for Petitioner. G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Santosh K. Aggarwal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMODI RUBBER LTD. (N0.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 537 = 1999 SLD 537 = 1999 PTD 3576 = (1998) 230 ITR 855", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Voluntary Disclosure and Penalty Waiver\nKey Issue: Whether disclosure post-search qualifies as voluntary.\nConclusion:\nDisclosure is voluntary if made without compulsion or incriminating evidence. Partial disclosures involving non-seized items can qualify for waiver.\nReferences:\n•\nTribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri v. Union of India (1993) 204 ITR 368 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions Nos.1502 of 1991 and 322 of 1994, decision dated: 17-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. MOHAPATRA C.J., R.A. SHARMA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajesh Tandon for Petitioner. Standing Counsel for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BHAIRAV LAL VERMA and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 538 = 1999 SLD 538 = 1999 PTD 3584 = (1998) 230 ITR 864", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Mortgage as Capital Asset and Charitable Trust Exemption\nKey Issue: Eligibility for exemption under Section 11(1-A) upon acquisition of an English mortgage.\nConclusion:\nA mortgage is a capital asset. Partial utilization of net consideration qualifies for proportional exemption.\nReferences:\n•\nArunachalam (RM) v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 222 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.80 of 1985, decision dated: 24-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.E. Dastur with R. Murlidharan instructed by M/s. Eastley Lam & Co. for the Assessee. Dr. V Balasubramanian, Senior Advocate and J. P. Deodhar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BAFNA CHARITABLE TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 539 = 1999 SLD 539 = 1999 PTD 3595 = (1998) 230 ITR 875", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Repeated Writ Petitions\nKey Issue: Second writ petition on identical grounds.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court cannot overrule its earlier decision. Subsequent writs on the same grounds are impermissible.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.83 of 1998, decision dated: 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. GULATI AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "HARDEVA\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 540 = 1999 SLD 540 = 1999 PTD 3597 = (1998) 230 ITR 877", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Death of a Partner and Firm Dissolution\nKey Issue: Separate assessments upon dissolution of a firm due to partner’s death.\nConclusion:\nThe firm dissolved upon a partner's death, requiring separate assessments.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Empire Estate (1996) 218 ITR 355 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No-.990 of 1984 (Reference No.886 of 1984), decision dated: 22nd, July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMADHAVDAS LALCHAND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 541 = 1999 SLD 541 = 1999 PTD 3599 = (1998) 230 ITR 885", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: High Court's Discretion in Reference Applications\nKey Issue: Reference of decided questions of law.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court can refuse to call for reference on questions settled by precedent unless grounds for reconsideration are evident.\nReferences:\n•\nLakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO (1986) 162 ITR 240 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.66 of 1997, decision dated: 13-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir J. Thakore, Senior Advocate for Manish R. Bhatt for Petitioner. Mukesh M. Patel for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCADILA CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 542 = 1999 SLD 542 = 1999 PTD 3605 = (1998) 230 ITR 912", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdiction of References\nKey Issue: Appropriate High Court for references when territorial overlap exists.\nConclusion:\nReferences should be made to the High Court exercising jurisdiction over the situs of the Assessing Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 153 of 1993, decision dated: 5-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.N. Sawhney for Appellant. Sanjiv Khanna and Ajay Jha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SURESH DESAI & ASSOCIATES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 543 = 1999 SLD 543 = 1999 PTD 3611 = (1998) 230 ITR 918", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains – Rights to Debentures\nKey Issue: Taxability of proceeds from the transfer of debenture rights.\nConclusion:\nProceeds from debenture rights are not taxable as capital gains if the aggregate value of shares and debentures is less than the initial cost of shares.\nReferences:\n•\nMiss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.P. No-83 of 1997, decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " Y. R. MEENA AND BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTUSHAR COMMERCIAL CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 544 = 1999 SLD 544 = 1999 PTD 3614 = (1998) 230 ITR 958", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Advance Tax – Interest Payable by Government\nConclusion:\nIf the assessee makes payments before the financial year's close and receives credit as advance tax, those amounts are eligible for interest under Section 214 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (1989) 179 ITR 88 (P & H)\n•\nCIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India (P.) Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 639 (P & H)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 66 and 67 of 1984, decision dated: 28-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate, and S.K. Sharma for the Commissioner. S.K. Mukhi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAGRAWAL METAL WORKS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 545 = 1999 SLD 545 = 1999 PTD 3617 = (1998) 230 ITR 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference by Assessing Officer – Audit Directions and Limitation\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Assessing Officer can issue directions under Section 142(2A) only when proceedings are pending.\n2.\nAssessment after audit must adhere to the limitation under Section 153(3). Questions regarding such directions and limitations are legal in nature.\nCitations:\n•\nPooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. Nos. 11369 and 18247 of 1995-S, decision dated: 16-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. C. Kochunni Nair, M. A. Firoz and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nN. C. JOHN & SONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 546 = 1999 SLD 546 = 1999 PTD 3619 = (1998) 230 ITR 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision by Commissioner – Allowance for Foreign Exchange Income\nConclusion:\nAllowance under Section 80-O is restricted to income actually received in India in convertible foreign exchange. The Commissioner was correct in revising the ITO's order for including amounts not received in convertible foreign exchange.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (1964) 52 ITR 567 (SC)\n•\nEscorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 509 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 135 of 1992, decision dated: 26-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " VINOD KUMAR GUPTA AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. C. Moitra and S. K. Mukherjee for the Commissioner. S. Bagchi and R. K. De for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDUS SERVICES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 547 = 1999 SLD 547 = 1999 PTD 3623 = (1998) 230 ITR 353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains – Valuation of Bonus Shares\nConclusion:\nFor shares obtained before January 1, 1954, and bonus shares acquired later, the fair market value as of January 1, 1954, is divided among all shares (original and bonus) for capital gains calculation.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (1964) 52 ITR 567 (SC)\n•\nShekhawati General Traders Ltd. v. ITO (1971) 82 ITR 788 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.249 of 1980 (Reference No. 160 of 1980), decision dated: 12-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Balasubramaniam for the Assessee. S.V. Subramanian and C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "S. RAM\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 548 = 1999 SLD 548 = 1999 PTD 3630 = (1998) 230 ITR 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income – Accrual of Interest on Enhanced Compensation\nConclusion:\nInterest on enhanced compensation accrues year by year from the date of possession till the court's order, not entirely in the year of receipt.\nCitations:\n•\nRama Bai v. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Sankari Manickyamma (Smt.) (1976) 105 ITR 172 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 162 of 1980, decision dated: 31st July, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly and Ms. Premlata Barisal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJ. C. MALHOTRA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 549 = 1999 SLD 549 = 1999 PTD 3632 = (1998) 230 ITR 439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gratuity Payment – Business Expenditure\nConclusion:\nActual payment to an approved gratuity fund is deductible as business expenditure, even if it exceeds actuarial liability.\nCitations:\n•\nTriplicane Permanent Fund Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 179 ITR 492 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Referred Case No.237 of 1990, decision dated: 9-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Major MUHAMMAD AHSANUDDIN HUSSAIN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 550 = 1999 SLD 550 = 1999 PTD 3634 = (1998) 230 ITR 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gratuity Payment – Business Expenditure\nConclusion:\nActual payment to an approved gratuity fund is deductible as business expenditure, even if it exceeds actuarial liability.\nCitations:\n•\nTriplicane Permanent Fund Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 179 ITR 492 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.85 of 1984 (Reference No.35 of 1984), decision dated: 14-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. V. Subramanian for the Commissioner. K. Vaitheeswaran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAYALASEEMA PASSENGER AND GOODS TRANSPORTS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 551 = 1999 SLD 551 = 1999 PTD 3637 = (1998) 230 ITR 495 = (1999) 80 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal and Limitation in Assessment\nConclusion:\n1.\nDistinction exists between annulment and setting aside of assessment orders.\n2.\nWhen annulled, the assessment becomes null, and no extended time limit applies for reassessment.\nCitations:\n•\nSonai River Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1990) 182 ITR 162 (Gauhati)\n•\nPanchamahal Steel Ltd. v. U.A. Joshi, ITO (1997) 225 ITR 458 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.54 of 1987, decision dated: 30-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. U. Khatri with J. P. Deodhar instructed by H. D. Rathod for the Commissioner. Andhyarujina for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMrs. RATANBAI N. K. DUBHASH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 552 = 1999 SLD 552 = 1999 PTD 3651 = (1998) 230 ITR 385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revisionary Powers – Material Subsequent to Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Commissioner can rely on materials discovered after assessment but before exercising revisional power under Section 263(1).\nCitations:\n•\nSouth India Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 654 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R. C. No. 206 of 1991, decision dated: 23rd September, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND, J. CHELAMESWAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. V. Prasad for the Commissioner. C. Kodanda Ram for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK. C. RANGAIAH & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 553 = 1999 SLD 553 = 1999 PTD 3659 = (1998) 230 ITR 510", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Works Contracts – Deduction of Material Costs\nConclusion:\nCost of materials supplied by the department in works contracts is deductible from the contract value for tax computation.\nCitations:\n•\nBrij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "D.B.T. Reference No.33 of 1985, decision dated: 25-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND M.A. A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. M. Mehta, Senior Advocate and Mrs. Sonal Mehta for the Assessee. G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GIRDHARILAL & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 554 = 1999 SLD 554 = 1999 PTD 3667 = (1998) 230 ITR 530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Remission of Liability – Sales Tax Refund\nConclusion:\nRefunded sales tax is not taxable under Section 41(1) if liability exists due to subsequent ordinance validation.\nCitations:\n•\nCommorin Match Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 102 STC 1 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.545 of 1983 (Reference No.285 of 1983), decision dated: 7-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S. M. ABDUL WAHAB, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Janakiraman for the Assessee. S. V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMORIN MATCH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 555 = 1999 SLD 555 = 1999 PTD 3671 = (1998) 230 ITR 560", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Advance Tax – Reassessment\nConclusion:\nInterest under Section 215(3) cannot be levied on reassessment if the original assessment did not impose interest under Section 215(1).\nCitations:\n•\nModi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tai Reference No. 195 of 1992, decision dated: 18-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " Y. R. MEENA AND BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHARIPADA KHATUA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 556 = 1999 SLD 556 = 1999 PTD 3673 = (1998) 230 ITR 587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Irrecoverable Advance and Notional Interest\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessee converted an irrecoverable loan of ₹2,00,900 into shares and later sold the shares at a capital loss of ₹1,72,219.\n•\nClaim for deduction of notional interest (₹75,118) on the advance was rejected as the debt was utilized for acquiring shares, eliminating the scope for considering it as bad debt.\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that once the loan was converted into shares, there was no basis for any notional interest deduction.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.50 of 1995, decision dated: 12-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K. K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. N. Ramchandran Nair for the Assessee. P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASPINWALL & CO. TRAVANCORE LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 557 = 1999 SLD 557 = 1999 PTD 3675 = (1998) 230 ITR 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Loss and Deduction of Interest – Reference to Law\nConclusion:\n•\nQuestions of law regarding trading loss of ₹15,53,504 and interest deduction of ₹1,42,369 were referred for clarity.\n•\nThe Tribunal’s decision to allow deductions despite disputes on liabilities and absence of accrued liability required further judicial interpretation.\nCitation: CIT v. Phalton Sugar Works Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 622 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. C, No. 134 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd September, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjiv IChanna with Ms. Premlata Barisal and A. K. Jha for Appellant. G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Anoop Sharma and R. K. Raghavan and Tarun Dua for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDO JAVA & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 558 = 1999 SLD 558 = 1999 PTD 3677 = (1998) 230 ITR 591", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision and Jurisdiction of Commissioner – Validity of Notice\nConclusion:\n•\nA telegraphic notice sent by the Commissioner under Section 263 was invalid as it lacked reasons, signature, and official seal.\n•\nRevisional jurisdiction requires proper notice outlining reasons for revision. The Commissioner’s order without a proper hearing was quashed.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. General Trade Agencies (1973) TLR 1383 (Cal.).\n•\nRampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.79 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd June, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. B. L of the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSATTANDAS MOHANDAS SIDHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 559 = 1999 SLD 559 = 1999 PTD 3680 = (1998) 230 ITR 595", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Additional Sales Tax – Mercantile Accounting\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessee claimed sales tax liability from earlier years (1961–62 to 1965–66 and 1975–76) during the AY 1978–79.\n•\nLiability, determined and paid in 1978–79, was allowed as deduction since it was only ascertainable during that year.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 118 of 1991, decision dated: 26-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " VINOD KUMAR GUPTA AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. C. Moitra for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNEW GUJARAT COTTON MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 560 = 1999 SLD 560 = 1999 PTD 3683 = (1998) 230 ITR 598", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Writ Jurisdiction – Tribunal Functionality and Interim Relief\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court intervened due to prolonged non-functioning of the Jaipur Tribunal Bench, issuing directions to appoint a Judicial Member and constitute a temporary Bench twice a month.\n•\nStay on coercive tax recovery for three months was granted.\nCitations:\n•\nHi Life Tapes (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1986) 26 ELT 935 (Mad.).\n•\nVargltese (P.V.) v. CEGAT, Madras (1989) 41 ELT 625 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1814 of 1997, decision dated: 31st March, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " ANSHUMAN SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Paras Kuhad for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "MODerN THREADS (INDIA) LTD\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 561 = 1999 SLD 561 = 1999 PTD 3690 = (1998) 231 ITR 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation on Buildings Treated as Plant\nConclusion:\n•\nHotel and theater buildings specially designed for business purposes qualify as plant under Section 43(3), eligible for higher depreciation.\n•\nThe functionality of the building in business operations determines its classification.\nCitations:\n•\nScientific Engineering House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (P.) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 561 (Raj.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos.44 of 1994, 54 and 55 of 1995, decision dated: 11-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C.J., J. B. KOSHY AND S. MARIMUTHU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. M. Pathrose Mathai and Mariam Mathai for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHOTEL LUCIYA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 562 = 1999 SLD 562 = 1999 PTD 3698 = (1998) 231 ITR 906", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax – Attachment of Stock Exchange Membership Rights\nConclusion:\n•\nMembership rights of stock exchanges, including the right of nomination, were considered attachable properties under Section 281B.\n•\nLegal representatives’ rights and dues were subjected to the Stock Exchange rules and lawful tax recovery processes.\nCitation: Beharilal Ramcharan v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 129 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 9089 of 1995; decided on 17-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. H. Kaji for Petitioner. M. J. Thakore, Senior Advocate with Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "STOCK EXCHANGE, AHMEDABAD\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 563 = 1999 SLD 563 = 1999 PTD 3719 = (1998) 231 ITR 950", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Studio as Plant – Question of Law\nConclusion:\n•\nDetermining whether a studio qualifies as plant for depreciation purposes is a valid question of law for reference.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O. P. No. 14702 of 1996, decision dated: 14-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for Petitioner. V. Seetharam and K. R. Prasad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. MANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 564 = 1999 SLD 564 = 1999 PTD 3720 = (1998) 231 ITR 81 = (1999) 79 TAX 296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Change in Accounting Method – Valuation of Stock\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessee’s change in accounting method to exclude unquantifiable alloy from closing stock valuation was valid as it was bona fide and reflected true profits.\nCitations:\n•\nChainrup Sampatram v. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 892 of 1984 (Reference No.788 of 1984), decision dated: 9-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V..Rajan for the Commissioner. T. N. Seetharaman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nANDHRA PRABHA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 565 = 1999 SLD 565 = 1999 PTD 3726 = (1998) 231 ITR 510", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Doctrine of Merger – Jurisdiction of Commissioner\nConclusion:\n•\nCommissioner wrongly rejected jurisdiction under Section 264 for a claim not part of the original assessment under appeal. Matter remanded for reconsideration.\nCitation: Mount Senai Hospital v. ITO (1992) 193 ITR 772 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. A. No. 934 of 1991, decision dated: 21st January, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C.J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. M. Kurian for Appellant. P. K. R. Menon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MOUNT SENAI HOSPITAL\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 566 = 1999 SLD 566 = 1999 PTD 3730 = (1999) 237 ITR 574", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Cooperative Societies – Definition of Member \nConclusion:\n•\nSection 80P deductions apply only to primary societies extending credit directly to their members, not federations.\nCitation: Assam Cooperative Apex Marketing Society v. Addl. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 338 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1883 (N. T.) with C. A. No. 1890 of 1979, decision dated: 30-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tripurai Rai, Advocate for the Assessee. Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "U. P. COOPERATIVE CANE UNION FEDERATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 567 = 1999 SLD 567 = 1999 PTD 3765 = (1999) 237 ITR 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Valuation of Unquoted Shares\nConclusion:\n•\nAdvance tax shown in balance sheets must be deducted when determining excess provisions for taxation in wealth tax assessments.\nCitation: Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No.1 of 1998 converted from Income-tax Reference No.317 of 1993, decision dated: 16-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir Joshi and Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUDAYAN L. GAJJAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 568 = 2000 SLD 568 = 2000 PTD 3388 = (2000) 82 TAX 52 = (2001) 83 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Cooperative Societies as Companies\nConclusion:\n•\nCooperative societies, not directly created under a statute, do not qualify as companies under Section 2(16)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitation: Harihar Prasad v. Bansi Missir AIR 1931 Pat. 321.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(16)(a) & (b),80B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.433 of 1998, decision dated: 29-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Appellant. Zia H. Rizvi, Syed Ibrar Hussain Naqvi, M. Iqbal Hussain and Khawaja Ibrar Majal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX\nVs\nMessrs ENGINEERING COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 569 = 1999 SLD 569 = 1999 PTD 3809 = (1999) 237 ITR 13 = (2000) 81 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment Based on Audit Findings\nConclusion:\n•\nReopening of assessments under Section 147(b) was valid as the audit party highlighted factual errors related to expired charitable trust recognition.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1564 and 1565 of 1987, decided on, 1st October, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. S. Ahuja, Ms. Sashi Kiran, C. N. Radha Krishnan and B. K. Prasad for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nP. V. S. BEEDIES (PVT LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 570 = 1999 SLD 570 = 1999 PTD 3815 = (1999) 237 ITR 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes\nConclusion:\n•\nRectification requires mistakes apparent from records. External references or interpretative issues are not grounds for Section 154 rectifications.\nCitation: CIT v. Keshri Metal (Pvt.) Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 785.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 1708 of 1998, decision dated: 18-03-1999. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated 25-09-1997, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in I.T.R. No.78 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND R. C. LAHOTI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and B. K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant. O.P. Dua, Senior Advocate (Vijay Kumar, Abhijit Puri, Sanjeev Sabarwal and V. Mohana, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKESHRI METAL (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 571 = 1999 SLD 571 = 1999 PTD 3817 = (1999) 237 ITR 454 = (2000) 81 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Lease Income – Business or Property\nConclusion:\n•\nLeasing assets as a temporary measure is business income. Permanent cessation of business with no revival intention converts such income into property income.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Universal Plast Ltd. (1992) 197 ITR 1.\n•\nNarain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. CEPT (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,28 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1995 with Civil Appeals Nos. 1685 to 1687 and 1700 of 1999, decision dated: 23rd March, 1999. Civil Appeals Nos. 1685 to 1687 and 1700 of 1999", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R. C. LAHOTI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Ms. Purnima Singh and Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocates with him) for Appellant. K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Ms. Neera Gupta and B. K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 572 = 1999 SLD 572 = 1999 PTD 3828 = (1999) 237 ITR 570 = (2000) 81 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Discretion in Unexplained Investments under Section 69\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 69 allows discretion to the Income Tax Officer to treat unexplained investments as income, considering individual case circumstances.\nCitation: CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjehan (1980) 123 ITR 3.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 3323 and 3324 of 1983, decision dated: 15-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, Rajeev Sharma and B. K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant. T. L. Vishwanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (V.B. Saharya, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. P. K. NOORJAHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 573 = 1999 SLD 573 = 1999 PTD 3831 = (1999) 237 ITR 872", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxation of Judges’ Salaries\nConclusion:\n•\nJudges’ salaries are taxable as income under the salaries head, irrespective of Constitutional functionary status.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.411 of 1982, decision dated: 4-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA, B. N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND M. B. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Satish Chandra, Senior Advocate (P. P. Singh and S. R. Sethia, Advocates with him) for Appellant.\nV. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate and F. S. Nariman, Senior Advocate. Amicus curiae (S. Rajappa, S. K. Dwivedi, S.W. A. Quadri, P. Parameshwaran and G. B. Sathe, Advocates with them) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Justice DEOKI NANDAN AGARWALA\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 574 = 1999 SLD 574 = 1999 PTD 3834 = (1998) 232 ITR 83 = (1999) 79 TAX 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Surtax – Computation of Capital\nConclusion:\n•\nDeclared dividends are deducted from capital when computing surtax assessments.\nCitation: Indian Tube Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 102 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.306 and 307 of 1982 (References Nos.206 and 20? of 1982), decision dated: 29-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTRICHY STEEL ROLLING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 575 = 1999 SLD 575 = 1999 PTD 3836 = (1998) 232 ITR 35 = (1999) 79 TAX 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Penalty for Concealment of Income – Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c)\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessee filed a return showing a loss of ₹5,930, claimed expenses without proper vouchers, and failed to substantiate cash credits in partners' names.\n•\nDespite objecting to the draft assessment, the assessee accepted the proposed additions and requested no penalty be imposed.\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalty, as the assessee failed to offer a valid explanation or substantiate claims under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c).\n•\nClause (A) was applied due to false or no explanation provided, and the deeming provisions concluded that income had been concealed.\nCitation: CIT (Addl.) v. Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No.69 of 1992, decision dated: 20-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. M. Kurian for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ANAND LIQUORS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 576 = 1999 SLD 576 = 1999 PTD 3851 = (1998) 231 ITR 106 = (1999) 79 TAX 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Premium on Sale of Import Entitlements\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Finance Act, 1990, retrospectively amended Section 28(iiia) and Section 2(24)(va) from April 1, 1962, bringing proceeds from the sale of import entitlements under Profits and Gains of Business. \n•\nThe premium earned on the sale of import entitlements for AY 1974-75 was deemed taxable as business income under the amended provisions.\nReferences: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 2(24)(va) and 28(iiia).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.74 of 1984, decision dated: 9-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. R. D. Jolly, Ms. Prem Lata Barisal, Sanjeev Khanna and j ay.11, for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RAUNAQ INTERNATIONAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 577 = 1999 SLD 577 = 1999 PTD 3853 = (1998) 231 ITR 529 = (1999) 79 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Special Deduction on Dividend Income – Trusts and Beneficiaries\nConclusion:\n•\nDividend income attributable to profits of a new industrial undertaking received by a discretionary trust retains its character when passed to beneficiaries.\n•\nSection 80K deductions are allowable to the beneficiary directly if the Department opts to assess them instead of the trustee.\n•\nThe deduction remains consistent, irrespective of whether the trustee or beneficiary is assessed.\nCitation: CIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.216 and 268.of 1977, decision dated: 26-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. H. Joshi for Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. D. A. Mehta, R. K. Patel and D. B. Karia for K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDr. ANAND SARABHAI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 578 = 1999 SLD 578 = 1999 PTD 3861 = (1998) 231 ITR 108 = (1999) 79 TAX 352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains and Losses – Distributions on Liquidation under Section 46\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 46(2) deems distributions on liquidation as a transfer for taxing capital gains.\n•\nShareholder losses incurred from asset distributions during liquidation are treated as capital losses and can be set off or carried forward under the Act's provisions.\n•\nThe term on liquidation refers to the final stage when assets are distributed, not the commencement of liquidation proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Amin (R.M.) (1977) 106 ITR 368 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Madura Mills Co. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 45 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4,45,46(1),(2),48,55(2)(b)(iii),71,74. ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.29 of 1984, decision dated: 14-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. J. Thakore for Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. S. N. Soparkar and D. A. Mehta, Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAYKRISHNA HARIVALLABHDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 579 = 1999 SLD 579 = 1999 PTD 3876 = (1998) 232 ITR 84 = (1999) 79 TAX 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Prosecution for Tax Evasion – Revised Returns under Section 139(5)\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessee detected an omission in income after filing the original return and rectified it by filing a revised return within the prescribed period under Section 139(5).\n•\nTax and interest were paid before detection by authorities.\n•\nThe Court quashed the prosecution, ruling there was no deliberate concealment of income or willful evasion.\nReferences: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 139(5), 276(c), and 277.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12502 of 1992, decision dated: 21st August, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " DHARMPAL SINHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Agrawal, A. K. Jain and K. C. K. Sinha for Petitioner. S.K. Sharan for Respondent No. 2", + "Party Name:": "DHARAM CHAND JAIN\nVs\nSTATE OF BIHAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 580 = 1999 SLD 580 = 1999 PTD 3878 = (1998) 231 ITR 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitutional Validity of Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997\nConclusion:\n•\nThe scheme introduced under Chapter IV of the Finance Act, 1997, was upheld as constitutionally valid.\n•\nThe provisions did not violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.\nCitation: All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India (1997) 228 ITR 68 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.L.P. (C) No.1,8856 of 1997, decision dated: 20-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dinesh Vyas, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh, Krishan Mahajan and Sarneer Parekh, Advocates with him) for Petitioner\nAshok H. Desai, Attorney-General for India, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor-General of. India (B.K. Prasad, C. Radha Krishna, A.M. Khanwilkar and Krishnan Venugopal, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 581 = 1999 SLD 581 = 1999 PTD 3880 = (1999) 79 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Presumptive Tax Regime – Allocation of Export and Local Sales Expenses\nConclusion:\n•\nExpenses exclusively related to exports under Section 80CC could not be claimed against income assessed under normal law.\n•\nExport income under presumptive tax regime and local income under normal law were treated as separate income blocks.\n•\nExpenses must be directly attributable to their respective income sources. Proration principles apply only when expenses cannot be distinctly allocated.\nReferences:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 80C and 80CC(1).\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 12 of 1991, C.B.R. Circular No. 14 of 1993.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C & 80CC(l),50(5A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.332/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 21st November, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Shaista Abbas, D. R, for Appellant. Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 582 = 1999 SLD 582 = 1999 PTD 3892 = (1999) 79 TAX 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Notice and Additions Without Confrontation\nLegal Issue: Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) without confronting the assessee about the defects in the books of accounts are valid under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nDetails: The AO added discrepancies found in the trading and profit and loss accounts of the assessee’s books without serving a notice to explain the defects as required under the proviso to Section 62(1). This provision mandates that the assessee must be confronted with any defects found in their accounts before any adverse action is taken.\nThe Tribunal ruled that:\n•\nThe AO’s failure to provide notice before making such additions violated the principles of natural justice.\n•\nAdditions made without following the procedural requirement are deemed illegal and void.\nConclusion: The court declared the AO’s actions “ab initio” void and directed that the trading results submitted by the assessee should be accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nCollector, Sahiwal v. Muhammad Akhtar (1971 SCMR 681).\n•\n1991 PTD (Trib.) 531, 1993 PTD 392.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1485/KB and 1959/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 7-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Ahmed, D. R. for Appellant (in I.T.A.. No. 1485/KB. of 1997-98)\nJaved Zakaria for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1485/KB of 1997-98)\nJaved Zakaria for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1959/KB of 1997-98)\nSajjad Ahmed, D. R. for Respondent (in T.A. No.1959/KB of 1997-98)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 583 = 1999 SLD 583 = 1999 PTD 3896", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax – Capital Gains and Wealth Assessment\nLegal Issue 1: Determination of the appropriate valuation method for immovable property in wealth statements under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nLegal Issue 2: Classification of income from the sale of property as capital gains or trade income.\nDetails:\n1.\nValuation of Immovable Property:\no\nThe assessee declared the value of a property in their wealth statement based on its purchase deed.\no\nThe AO increased the property’s value arbitrarily without referencing the Collector’s table under Rule 207-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1982.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal found that no proper basis for the AO’s valuation existed and ruled the addition invalid.\n2.\nNature of Income from Property Sale:\no\nThe AO assessed the income from a solitary property sale as business income under Section 30 of the Ordinance.\no\nThe Tribunal determined the transaction was isolated, and thus, the income should be treated as a capital gain rather than business income.\nConclusion: The valuation of immovable property must follow statutory guidelines, and isolated property sales are considered capital gains unless proven otherwise.\nCitations:\n•\n1999 PTD (Trib.) 3234.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),30 Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1744/LB and 1746/LB of 1998, decision dated: 11-08-1999. DATE , of hearing: 6-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": " M. AFTAB AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A, No. 1.744/LB of 1998)\nMian Muhammad Javed for Respondent,.(in I.T.A., No. 61744/LB of 1998).\nMian Muhammad Javed for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1. , 746/LB of 199)\nMuhammad Asif; DA. for Respondent (in LT A. No. 1746/LB of 1998)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 584 = 1999 SLD 584 = 1999 PTD 3899 = (1999) 80 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction for Gratuity Payments\nLegal Issue: Admissibility of gratuity payments as a deductible expense under Sections 24(g) and 16 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessee claimed deductions for gratuity payments made to employees.\n•\nThe AO disallowed the deductions, citing discrepancies in certain payments and lack of complete supporting evidence.\n•\nOn appeal, the Tribunal noted that:\no\nGenuine payments made as per labor laws qualify as salary expenses.\no\nSection 24(g) relates to contributions to unrecognized funds, not actual payments.\n•\nThe Tribunal remanded the case to the AO for verification of discrepancies and instructed that genuine payments should be allowed.\nConclusion: Gratuity payments are deductible as salary expenses if adequately supported by evidence and comply with labor laws.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss. 24(g) and 16.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,16,24(g) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.6658/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 19-04-1999, hearing DATE : 17-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Javed Zakaria for Appellant. Uproar Farooq, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 585 = 1999 SLD 585 = 1999 PTD 3901 = (1999) 79 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment – Jurisdiction and Validity\nLegal Issue: Whether reopening of assessment based on incorrect or incomplete information is valid.\nDetails:\n•\nThe AO reopened the assessment under Section 65, citing discrepancies in the receipts declared for income tax versus wealth tax purposes.\n•\nThe Tribunal found the reopening to be invalid because:\no\nThe information relied upon by the AO was factually incorrect.\no\nThe AO’s action constituted a mere change of opinion, which does not justify reopening.\no\nThe correct recourse for errors is through rectification (Section 156) or revision by a higher authority (Section 66-A).\nConclusion: Reopening of assessment based on incorrect or incomplete information violates jurisdictional principles.\nCitations:\n•\nCentral Insurance Company v. C.B.R. (1993 PTD 766).\n________________________________________\nSLD #: 2752\nTopic: Development Rebate Reserve in Loss Years\nLegal Issue: Whether it is mandatory to create a development rebate reserve in years of loss.\nDetails:\n•\nUnder Section 34(3)(a), a development rebate reserve was deemed mandatory in years when machinery or plant was first used.\n•\nFollowing the Finance Act, 1990 amendment (retrospective from April 1, 1962), the reserve need not be created in years of loss.\n•\nThe reserve can instead be created in subsequent years when profits allow.\nConclusion: The amendment provides flexibility, allowing the reserve to be created in profitable years rather than mandating it during loss years.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 191 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,62,50(4),80C & 8pD ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 38/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 1st December, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Pasha for Appellant. Mrs. Shaista Abbas, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 586 = 1999 SLD 586 = 1999 PTD 3916 = (1998) 232 ITR 102 = (1999) 79 TAX 474", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Registration of Firms Without Formal Books of Account\nLegal Issue: Eligibility of a firm for registration when formal books of account are not maintained.\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessee applied for registration under Form No. 11 and submitted a partnership deed showing profit-sharing ratios.\n•\nThe AO rejected the application due to lack of evidence showing profits were distributed among partners.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that future profit-sharing declarations sufficed, provided they aligned with the partnership deed.\n•\nOral evidence and attached statements accompanying the return were accepted as sufficient proof.\nConclusion: Firms can obtain registration even without formal books if profit-sharing is established through other evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nRao & Sons v. CIT (1965) 58 ITR 685 (Orissa).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 12 of 1984, decision dated: 30-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney and S.K. Sharma for the Commissioner. M. S. Jrain, Senior.Advocate, Adarsh Jain, S.K. Hiraji and Ramesh Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBECO ENGINEERING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 587 = 1999 SLD 587 = 1999 PTD 3923 = (1998) 232 ITR 98 = (1999) 79 TAX 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Registration of Firms Without Formal Books of Account\nLegal Issue: Eligibility of a firm for registration when formal books of account are not maintained.\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessee applied for registration under Form No. 11 and submitted a partnership deed showing profit-sharing ratios.\n•\nThe AO rejected the application due to lack of evidence showing profits were distributed among partners.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that future profit-sharing declarations sufficed, provided they aligned with the partnership deed.\n•\nOral evidence and attached statements accompanying the return were accepted as sufficient proof.\nConclusion: Firms can obtain registration even without formal books if profit-sharing is established through other evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nRao & Sons v. CIT (1965) 58 ITR 685 (Orissa).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1490 of 1984 (Reference No. 1079 of 1984), decision dated: 12-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajah for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK. A. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 588 = 1999 SLD 588 = 1999 PTD 3927 = (1998) 232 ITR 11 = (1999) 79 TAX 372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable Trusts – Denial of Approval under Section 80G\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe petitioner trust initially received recognition under Section 80G of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, for charitable purposes from April 1, 1993, to March 31, 1996.\n2.\nUpon renewal application, the Commissioner examined the trust's activities and discovered that:\no\nDonations meant for charity were invested in securities to generate returns.\no\nThese returns were used for religious purposes, including temple construction, contrary to the trust's declared charitable objectives.\n3.\nThe inquiry extended beyond the ostensible purpose outlined in the trust deed, focusing on the actual activities and their alignment with charitable purposes.\n4.\nThe Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) denied the renewal, citing misuse of funds for non-charitable purposes, such as temple construction and religious activities.\n5.\nThe Court upheld this denial, emphasizing the Commissioner’s duty to examine the real purpose rather than the stated purpose in the trust deed. Trusts must comply strictly with charitable purposes to qualify under Section 80G.\nCitations:\n•\nMcDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC).\n•\nIRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) AC 1.\n•\nW.T. Ramsay Ltd. v. ITC (1982) AC 300.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. W. P. No.3884 of 1997, decision dated: 27-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. S. Aggarwal for Petitioner. R. D. Jolly, Sanjeev Khanna and Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "KIRTI CHAND TARAWATI CHARITABLE TRUST\nVs\nDIRECTOR OF Income Tax (EXEMPTION) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 589 = 1999 SLD 589 = 1999 PTD 3937 = (1999) 235 ITR 215 = (1999) 79 TAX 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference on Business Income vs. Income from Other Sources – Prima Facie Adjustments under Section 143(1)(a)\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe assessee treated interest income of ₹2,04,27,492 from short-term deposits and securities as business income and claimed deductions under Section 80HHC.\n2.\nThe Assessing Officer reclassified this income as income from other sources and restricted the deduction under Section 80HHC.\n3.\nThe Tribunal sided with the assessee, holding the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) impermissible.\n4.\nOn appeal:\no\nThe Court refused to consider new questions not raised before the Tribunal or in Section 256(2) applications.\no\nQuestions about prima facie adjustments and classification of non-trade investment income as business income were referred for clarity.\n5.\nThe Court emphasized that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) must be limited to apparent errors, and reclassification of income requires detailed examination.\nCitations:\n•\nApogee International Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 220 ITR 248 (Delhi).\n•\nCIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. C. No.22 of 1997, decision dated: 5-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " N. K. AGRAWAL AND G. C. GARG, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with S. K. Sharma.for the Commissioner. B. S. Gupta Senior Advocate with Sanjay Barisal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNAHAR SPINNING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 590 = 1999 SLD 590 = 1999 PTD 3941 = (1998) 232 ITR 50 = (1999) 79 TAX 380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income – Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c)\nConclusion:\n1.\nFacts:\no\nThe assessee filed a return in 1977 disclosing income of ₹85,200.\no\nA prior search (January 12, 1977) revealed discrepancies in the closing stock value, with the Department estimating it at ₹12,17,725 against the assessee's ₹10,36,384.\no\nDiscrepancies were attributed to duplication and damaged stock.\n2.\nProceedings:\no\nThe Department accepted part of the explanation but added ₹1,71,341 as concealed income.\no\nPenalty of ₹1,20,000 was imposed under Section 271(1)(c).\no\nOn appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal canceled the penalty, noting the lack of deliberate concealment or intent to file inaccurate particulars.\n3.\nRuling:\no\nThe Court upheld the Tribunal’s findings, emphasizing:\n\nThe Department had seized all stock records during the search, and the assessee relied on these for filing returns.\n\nThe explanation provided was bona fide, with partial acceptance by the Department (₹10,000 reduction for damaged goods).\n\nPenalty provisions under Section 271(1)(c) require deliberate intent, which was absent.\nCitations:\n•\nAnand Liquors v. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 35 (Ker.).\n•\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC).\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 108 of 1991, decision dated: 6-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYAUA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. K.M.V. Pandalai for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nT. ABDUL MAJEED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 591 = 1999 SLD 591 = 1999 PTD 3953 = (1998) 232 ITR 7 = (1999) 79 TAX 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Payments Not Deductible – Financial Companies\n1.\nKey Issue: Whether the assessee qualifies as a financial company under Section 40A(8) and if interest deductions on borrowings are permissible.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe assessee's main income stemmed from speculation in shares, and substantial assets were held as investments or loans.\no\nThese activities satisfied the conditions in Section 40A(8), Explanation (c), sub-clauses (ii) and (iv), classifying the assessee as a financial company.\no\nThe Tribunal affirmed this classification, holding it as a factual determination.\no\nThe entire interest on borrowed capital was deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), as loans were used for business purposes.\no\nRelief under Section 80M was applicable to the gross dividend income, not the net amount after deducting apportioned interest.\nLegal Principles:\n•\nClassification as a financial company depends on primary business and asset use (factual assessment).\n•\nSection 36(1)(iii): Deductibility hinges on loans serving business purposes, not on their application.\n•\nRelief under Section 80M is calculated on gross dividend income.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. J.K. Industries (P.) Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 218 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 559 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 177 of 1992, decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " YR. MEENA AND BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKANORIA INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 592 = 1999 SLD 592 = 1999 PTD 3958 = (1998) 232 ITR 19 = (1999) 79 TAX 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty Reduction or Waiver – Good Faith and Hardship\n1.\nKey Issue: Whether the Commissioner was justified in denying penalty waiver when the return filed showed a loss.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe assessee disclosed income fully and in good faith despite filing a loss return.\no\nThe Commissioner rejected the application for penalty reduction under Section 273A(4), citing alleged non-cooperation.\no\nThe Court found the Commissioner relied on irrelevant material and did not assess genuine hardship.\no\nAs no recovery proceedings were applicable for a loss return, the Commissioner's finding of non-cooperation was contrary to records.\no\nThe Court quashed the order and directed the matter to be reconsidered.\nLegal Principles:\n•\nSection 273A(4): Penalty reduction or waiver must consider genuine hardship.\n•\nDenying relief based on irrelevant or contradictory findings is invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. P. No. 3002 of 1985, decision dated: 20-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " R. S. GARG, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema and Aditya Sanghi for Petitioner. Vivak Tankha for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NAV NIRMAN (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 593 = 1999 SLD 593 = 1999 PTD 3962 = (1998) 232 ITR 339 = (1999) 79 TAX 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment Notice and Limitation\n1.\nKey Issue: Validity of notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2).\n2.\nFindings:\no\nFor AY 1990-91, the return was filed on March 31, 1992. Under the amended Section 143(2), the limitation for issuing a notice was 12 months from the end of the month of filing.\no\nThe notice issued on October 27, 1992, was well within this period.\no\nThe notice under Section 142(1) requesting records from earlier assessment years (1988-89 and 1989-90) was also valid, as it pertained to verifying income for AY 1990-91.\no\nThe petitioner’s claim of bias against the Assessing Officer was dismissed, as the request for prior records was justified.\nLegal Principles:\n•\nAmended Section 143(2): Notices must be issued within 12 months of return filing.\n•\nSection 142(1): Authority extends to requiring records from prior years if relevant to the assessment year.\n________________________________________\nI will continue with detailed summaries for SLD #2760 to SLD #2788 next. Let me know if you'd like any modifications or specific focus!\nYou said:\nSAME NEEDED\nChatGPT said:\nChatGPT\nI will continue preparing detailed, separate summaries for each SLD from #2760 to #2788, similar to the format provided earlier.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No.2596 of 1992, decision dated: 15-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. PATNAIK, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. F. G. Osmani, H. R. A. Choudhury and M.H. Rajbarbhuiya for Appellant. G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KRISHNA MOHAN BANIK\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 594 = 1999 SLD 594 = 1999 PTD 3971 = (1998) 232 ITR 320 = (1999) 79 TAX 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Search and Seizure – Requisition of Assets by Income-Tax Department\n1.\nKey Issue: Whether gold seized during a police raid could be requisitioned by the Income-Tax Department for investigation under Section 132A.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nGold biscuits and currency were seized in a police raid. The individuals could not produce ownership documents.\no\nThe Income-Tax Department requisitioned the seized assets, suspecting undisclosed income.\no\nUpon appeal, the lower court ordered the release of goods to the individuals, but the appellate court reversed the decision, directing release to the Income-Tax Department.\no\nThe High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, noting that the Department’s investigation into whether the seized assets represented undisclosed income was well-founded and justified.\nLegal Principles:\n•\nSection 132A: The Department can requisition assets if there's reason to suspect undisclosed income.\n•\nCourts can rely on statements and evidence gathered during investigations to determine the rightful custodian of assets.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Vindhya Metal Corporation (1997) 224 ITR 614 (SC)\n•\nUnion of India v. Judicial Magistrate (Eastern Railway) (1983) 140 ITR 553 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal R. P. No.571 of 1996 alongwith Criminal R.P. Nos.574 to 577 of 1996, decision dated: 5-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " P. V. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.T. Sankaran, Preethy Karunakaran and C. Raman for Petitioner\nP.K. Ravindranatha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent No. 2\nC.M. Suresh Babu, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 3", + "Party Name:": "IBRAHIM OTHAYOTH\nVs\nSUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 595 = 1999 SLD 595 = 1999 PTD 3974 = (1998) 231 ITR 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision Powers of Commissioner – Doctrine of Merger\n1.\nKey Issue: Whether the Commissioner of Income-Tax (CIT) could revise an assessment order when part of the matter was remanded by the CIT (Appeals).\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe CIT (Appeals) remanded certain issues to the Assessing Officer.\no\nAnother Assessing Officer passed a fresh order on the remanded issues, which the CIT sought to revise under Section 263.\no\nThe Tribunal held that the doctrine of merger did not apply because the CIT (Appeals) had not decided the issue but had remanded it.\no\nThe CIT was within jurisdiction to revise the fresh order under Section 263.\nLegal Principles:\n•\nSection 263: The CIT retains revision powers if the appellate authority has not conclusively decided an issue.\n•\nDoctrine of merger does not apply to remanded matters unless explicitly addressed.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Banwarilal (R.S.) (1983) 140 ITR 3 (MP)\n•\nJ.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 344 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No.72 of 1985, decision dated: 22-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " NARBADESHWAR PANDEY AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L. N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAQBOOL ALAM & COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 596 = 1999 SLD 596 = 1999 PTD 3979 = (1998) 231 ITR 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appellate Tribunal’s Power to Stay Recovery of Tax and Interest\n1.\nKey Issue: Whether the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to stay the recovery of interest under Section 220(2).\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe petitioner sought a writ to stay the recovery of interest levied under Section 220(2).\no\nThe High Court dismissed the writ petition as premature, directing the petitioner to first approach the Appellate Tribunal.\no\nThe Court clarified that the Tribunal’s power to stay recovery of tax also includes the power to stay interest recovery, as interest is consequential to tax.\nLegal Principles:\n•\nSection 220(2): Interest recovery is contingent upon the final determination of tax liability.\n•\nTribunals have ancillary powers to grant stays for interest recovery during pending appeals.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Bansi Dhar & Sons (1986) 157 ITR 665 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.30202 of 1997, decision dated: 18-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND KRISHNA SARAN SHRIVASTAV, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L. Venkateshwar Rao for Petitioner. J. V. Prasad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BHOJA REDDY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 597 = 1999 SLD 597 = 1999 PTD 3981 = (1998) 231 ITR 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable Purposes – Exemption Denied for Non-Charitable Use of Donations\n1.\nKey Issue: Whether a donation received for a non-charitable purpose disqualifies a charitable trust from exemption under Section 11.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nThe trust received a donation of ₹1,50,000 specifically to organize an agricultural rally ( Kisan Rally ).\no\nThe Income-Tax Officer and Tribunal denied exemption under Section 11, holding that the donation was not spent for charitable purposes aligned with the trust’s objectives.\no\nThe High Court upheld the decision, stating that funds used for non-charitable purposes cannot be exempted, even if received by a registered trust.\nLegal Principles:\n•\nSection 11: Exemption applies only when donations are utilized exclusively for charitable purposes.\n•\nSpecific-purpose donations are taxable if not aligned with the trust’s declared objectives.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.238 of 1994, decision dated: 27-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. L. Nema for the Assessee. Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KHEMRAJ NEMICHAND SHRISHRIMAL CHARITABLE TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 598 = 1999 SLD 598 = 1999 PTD 3984 = (1998) 231 ITR 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Contribution by Partner – Lack of Registration and Validity\n1.\nKey Issue: Whether a land contributed as capital by a partner becomes firm property without registration.\n2.\nFindings:\no\nA partner contributed land as capital to the firm. However, there was no registered transfer document under Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908.\no\nThe Tribunal erroneously held that the land became the property of the firm.\no\nThe High Court ruled that without registration, the land could not legally transfer to the firm, and the contribution was invalid.\nLegal Principles:\n•\nSection 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908: Property transfer must be registered to be valid.\n•\nCapital contributed by a partner in the form of immovable property requires proper documentation to vest ownership in the firm.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1997, decision dated: 4-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " M. RAMAKRISHNA, C.J. AND P. C. PHUKAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKASHIRAM RAMGOPAL (AGENCIES)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 599 = 1999 SLD 599 = 1999 PTD 3986 = (1998) 231 ITR 89 = (1999) 79 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Transfer of Income Without Transfer of Assets\nConclusion:\nThe transfer of actionable claims by the assessee via a deed of settlement in favor of trustees was deemed valid. The settlement executed before the accrual of income and after the retirement of the assessee resulted in the creation of an overriding title in favor of the trustee. Therefore, the income was not taxable in the hands of the assessee under Sections 60 and 176 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal correctly held that the amount of Rs. 49,890 was not liable for inclusion in the assessee's income.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Nandiniben Narottamdas (1983) 140 ITR 16 (Guj.)\n•\nJyotsnaben Narottamdas v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 91 (Guj.)\n•\nMurlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 323 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.378 of 1983, decision dated: 12-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir Joshi with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. K. H. Kaji for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANHARLAL GIRDHARLAL DOSHIT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 600 = 1999 SLD 600 = 1999 PTD 3994 = (1998) 231 ITR 102 = (1999) 79 TAX 302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation on Assessment\nConclusion:\n1.\nReturns filed voluntarily under Section 139(4) cannot be revised, and the limitation period under Section 153(1)(c) does not apply.\n2.\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) could not invoke the extended period under Section 153(1)(b) without recording findings of concealment under Section 271(1)(c).\nThe Tribunal was correct in annulling the assessment order as it was barred by limitation.\nCitations:\n•\nKumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 67 (SC)\n•\nDr. S. B. Bhargava v. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 559 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.73 of 1983, decision dated: 24th April 1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND IQBAL SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Sawhney and Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner. Hemant Kumar Gupta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. JYOTI DHILLON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 601 = 1999 SLD 601 = 1999 PTD 3998 = (1998) 231 ITR 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal Against Interest Levy\nConclusion:\nAppeals against interest levies under Sections 139(8) and 217(1)(a) are not maintainable unless they contest the jurisdiction to levy interest. If the contention is limited to waiver or reduction, the appropriate course of action is to apply to the assessing authority for relief, not to file an appeal.\nCitations:\n•\nAssociated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560 (SC)\n•\nCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 190 of 1978, decision dated: 7-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. R.D. Jolly, Sanjeev Khanna, Mrs. Prem Lata Barisal and Ajay Jha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASHOK KUMAR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 602 = 1999 SLD 602 = 1999 PTD 4003 = (1998) 231 ITR 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal to AAC on Liability to Pay Interest\nConclusion:\nWhen liability to pay interest is denied altogether, appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) are maintainable under Section 246(c). However, for disputes over waiver or reduction of interest, the remedy lies before the assessing authority. The distinction between denying liability and seeking reduction determines whether the appeal is valid.\nCitations:\n•\nAshok Kumar v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 140 (Delhi)\n•\nAssociated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 560 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 122, 123 and 124 of 1980, decision dated: 7-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND DALVEER BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. D. Jolly, Mrs. Prem Lata Barisal, Sanjeev Khanna and Ajay Jha for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. K. YASHWANT SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 603 = 1999 SLD 603 = 1999 PTD 4006 = (1998) 231 ITR 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes in Capital Base Computation\nConclusion:\nPreliminary and share issue expenses were rightly excluded from the capital base under Section 154 for the purpose of relief under Section 80J. The rectification was valid as these expenses were not assets as per Rule 19A. The inclusion of these expenses would constitute an apparent error, justifying rectification.\nCitations:\n•\nModella Woollens Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 726 (Bom.)\n•\nBalaram (T.S.), ITO v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Reference No. 38 of 1982, decision dated: 10-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. T. N. Seetharaman for C. V. Mahalingam, K. J. Rebello, R. Santhanakrishnan and R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTRICHY DISTILLERIES AND CHEMICALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 604 = 1999 SLD 604 = 1999 PTD 4013", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment Against a Deceased Assessee\nConclusion:\nThe assessment completed posthumously against a deceased assessee is void ab initio. Under Section 159(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is mandatory to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record and proceed from the stage where the assessment was left at the time of death. The Tribunal rightly set aside the assessment, observing that natural justice demanded the Income-tax Officer (ITO) give an opportunity to the legal representatives for stating their case. The ITO is entitled to proceed afresh, in compliance with the law, by giving a hearing to the legal heirs.\nCitations:\n•\nSection 159(2), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No.627 of 1989, decision dated: 15-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Adhikari for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRABHAWATI GUPTA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 605 = 1999 SLD 605 = 1999 PTD 4016 = (1999) 80 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Income Tax and Applicability of Amended Rates\nConclusion:\n1.\nIf importers deposited the full amount of advance tax at the rate of 2% prevailing before July 1, 1995, their liability for advance tax was deemed discharged. The amendment imposing a 4% rate under the Finance Ordinance, 1995, effective July 1, 1995, could not apply retroactively.\n2.\nThe liability for advance tax is calculated as per Section 50(5)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and recovery aligns with the Customs Act, 1969.\n3.\nMerely availing of deferred payment for customs duty under the rules does not alter the advance tax liability if the initial 2% advance tax was paid before the new rate came into effect.\nCitations:\n•\nSection 50(5)(a)(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5)(a)(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Customs Act, 1969=3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1104 to 1117 of 1996, decision dated: 8-03-1999, hearing DATE : 9-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, SH. IJAZ NISAR AND MAMOON KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Sayed, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Akhtar Ali Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court, A. Aziz Khan and K.A. Wahab, Advocates-on-Record for Appellants. Maulvi Anwarul Haq, Deputy Attorney-General and NasFtllah Awan. Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL SATTAR MOOR MUHAMMAD & CO. and others\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 606 = 1999 SLD 606 = 1999 PTD 4028 = (1999) 80 TAX 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Liability for Tax Deduction on the Sale of Capital Assets\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer erroneously treated the petitioner as an assessee in default under Section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for failing to deduct tax on a transaction involving the sale of land, building, and machinery. The High Court declared the assessment and additional tax as void ab initio, holding that the provision did not apply since the transaction did not involve goods or a supply within the meaning of the Ordinance. Additionally, the sale was not subject to income tax under any head enumerated in Section 15 of the Ordinance.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Hirjina & Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax Central (1971 SCMR 128)\n•\nNagina Silk Mill v. ITO (PLD 1963 SC 322)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,50(4),86 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12041 of 1999, decision dated: 19-08-1999, hearing DATE : 18-08-1999.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Hamid for Petitioner. Mian Subah Sadiq Kalason for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "KAWTHER GRAIN (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE taxI WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE1, COMPANIES ZONE, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 607 = 1999 SLD 607 = 1999 PTD 4034", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Assessment for Intangible Additions\nConclusion:\nRectification of assessment orders for allowing intangible additions is permissible only for apparent mistakes evident on the face of the record, not for debatable issues. The Tribunal vacated the First Appellate Authority's order, which directed credit for intangible additions, as the assessee had not raised the issue in the original or set-aside proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs National Food Laboratories case (1991 SSC 869)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,13(1)(aa),13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.203/KB to 206/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 29-06-1999, hearing DATE : 11-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Soomro, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 608 = 1999 SLD 608 = 1999 PTD 4037 = 2000 PTCL 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Deduction at Source and Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer\nConclusion:\n1.\nPetitioners contesting jurisdiction to deduct tax at a higher rate (8% instead of 4%) were upheld as the Assessing Officer acted beyond their jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under Sections 52 and 86 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n2.\nContracts involving deductions at reduced rates, as per an agreement with the Federal Government, are enforceable. The High Court declared orders to treat petitioners as assessees in default as void ab initio.\n3.\nFailure to challenge jurisdiction in initial proceedings does not confer jurisdiction where it does not exist.\nCitations:\n•\nMuhammad Afzal v. Board of Revenue (PLD 1967 SC 314)\n•\nAdamjee Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan (1993 SCMR 1798)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),proviso,52,86 & SecondSched.,c1.176-FirstSched.Part1,52,86,50(9),9,11,24(b),SecondSched.,cl.176 & FirstSched Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions. Nos.D-1335 and D-1336 of 1998, heard on 22-03-1999. dates of hearing: 11th, 12th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 22-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S. SAEED ASHHAD AND ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq Memon for Petitioners (in both Constitutional Petitions), Shaikh Haider for Respondents (in both Constitutional Petitions)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TAPAL ENERGY LTD. and others\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 609 = 1999 SLD 609 = 1999 PTD 4057", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Succession and Revision Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner\nConclusion:\nThe term succeed implies taking the place of another, and succession denotes following or coming into another's place. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner erred in revising an assessment order under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, treating the assessee as a successor to a dissolved firm when no business connection existed between the two. The Appellate Tribunal rightly canceled the revision order as the business was new, and the requirements for succession were unmet.\nCitations:\n•\n1983 PTD 201", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 4296/LB of 1998, decision dated: 4-03-1999, hearing DATE : 16-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S. NADEEM SAGLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Shahid Bashir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 610 = 1999 SLD 610 = 1999 PTD 4061 = (2000) 81 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Tax Payment and Appealability of Orders\nConclusion:\n1.\nAdvance Tax Demand: The Assessing Officer cannot demand defaulted advance tax under Section 53 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as the provision only allows imposing additional tax under Section 87. Any such demand is void ab initio.\n2.\nAppeals: Orders increasing an assessee's liability, even if not explicitly mentioned in Section 129, fall under its broad clause or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee and are therefore appealable.\n3.\nConstitutional Petitions: Such petitions are maintainable when orders are void due to lack of jurisdiction, despite the availability of alternate remedies.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1993 SC 257\n•\n1999 SCMR 1072", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,53(1) & 87,129 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-282 of 1999, decision dated: 5-07-1999, hearing DATE : 20-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": " DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD AND S. AHMED SARWANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Athar Saeed for Petitioner. Muhammad Farid for Respondents Nos.3 to 5", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAK SAUDI FERTILIZER LTD. through Managing Director\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 611 = 1999 SLD 611 = 1999 PTD 4078 = (1998) 231 ITR 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation on Hotel Buildings\nConclusion:\nA hotel building cannot be treated as a plant under Section 32 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. Depreciation must be calculated separately for buildings, machinery, and furniture, as the law does not permit treating the entire building as a plant for claiming higher depreciation.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.60 and 61 of 1992, decision dated: 6-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. Party appeared in person", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nC. T. JACOB (KELACHANDRA) & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 612 = 1999 SLD 612 = 1999 PTD 4080 = (1998) 231 ITR 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Standard Deduction on Salary from Multiple Employers\nConclusion:\nAn assessee receiving salaries from multiple employers during the same year is entitled to a single standard deduction computed on the aggregate salary, as clarified by the retrospective amendment to Section 16(i) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Kalani (P.S.) (1986) 159 ITR 681 (M.P.)\n•\nCIT v. Deora (SC) (1987) 167 ITR 682 (M.P.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.219 of 1982, decision dated: 10-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R., K. GULATI AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.K. Agarwal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nB. D. PANDEY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 613 = 1999 SLD 613 = 1999 PTD 4083 = (1998) 231 ITR 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest Deduction on Borrowed Capital\nConclusion:\nDeduction for interest on borrowed capital under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, requires a lender-borrower relationship. Liability to outgoing partners upon the dissolution of a firm does not qualify as borrowed capital, and interest on such liability is not deductible.\nCitations:\n•\nBombay Steam Navigation Co. v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(1)(vi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 107 of 1983, decision dated: 14-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND IQBAL SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nFOUR FIELDS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 614 = 1999 SLD 614 = 1999 PTD 4092 = (1998) 231 ITR 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Bar on Suits Against Revenue Recovery Proceedings\nConclusion:\nCivil suits challenging recovery proceedings under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are barred by Section 293. Issues of jurisdiction may, however, be raised during appellate proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nSection 293, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Letters Patent Appeal No.88 of 1988, decision dated: 2-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kishore Shrivastava for Appellants. Abhay Sapre for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BALCHAND MALAIYA and others\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 615 = 1999 SLD 615 = 1999 PTD 4096 = (1998) 231 ITR 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Clubbing of Income Earned by Spouse\nConclusion:\nInterest income earned by the wife of a Merchant Navy officer on funds remitted by the assessee for household expenses was assessable in the hands of the assessee under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, as the transfer was without adequate consideration.\nCitations:\n•\nSection 64(1)(iv), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 251 of 1982, decision dated: 11-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. GULATI AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "H. P. DANDIWALA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 616 = 1999 SLD 616 = 1999 PTD 4099 = (1998) 231 ITR 489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation on Cinema Theatre Buildings\nConclusion:\nA cinema theatre building does not constitute a plant and is not entitled to a higher depreciation rate under Section 32 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The statutory language clearly separates buildings from machinery, plant, and furniture for depreciation purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nS.K. Tulsi & Sons v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 685 (All.)\n•\nCIT v. Damodar Corporation (1997) 225 ITR 699 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. Nos.100, 101. 111 and 112 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAVANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. P. G. K. Wariyar and M. K. Kesavan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSASIDHARA SHENOY & BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 617 = 1999 SLD 617 = 1999 PTD 4102 = (1998) 231 ITR 65 = (1999) 79 TAX 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusion:\nNo penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be levied if the assessee has a bona fide belief that income is not taxable. In this case, the assessee changed its accounting method from mercantile to cash and believed no taxable income existed. The Tribunal rightly canceled the penalties, affirming that the Revenue failed to prove deliberate concealment of income.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271(1)(c)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 196 of 1991, decision dated: 20-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " Y. R. MEENA AND BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHOOLIE TEA CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 618 = 1999 SLD 618 = 1999 PTD 4106 = (1998) 231 ITR 761", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2784\nTopic: Reassessment and Information of Escaped Income\nConclusion:\nReopening assessments under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information already considered during the original assessment is invalid. In this case, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) reassessed a property depreciation issue despite previously reviewing it. The reassessment was without jurisdiction.\nCitations:\n•\nBankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC)\n•\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3T & 147(b) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.720 of 1982 (Reference No.458 of 1982), decision dated: 10-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. S. A. Batasubramanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 619 = 1999 SLD 619 = 1999 PTD 4120 = (2000) 81 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Wealth Tax Liability\nConclusion:\nWealth tax paid on income-yielding assets can be allowed as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. Preservation of income-generating assets is integral to the business, making such expenses allowable. The deduction affirmed by the Tribunal and High Court was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nTravancore Titanium Product Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 277\n•\nHarmone Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT 1988 PTD 84", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi),66A ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No. 128 of 1991, heard on 10-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND NASIM SIKANDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan alongwith Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Mian Subah Sadiq Masson for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nARIF LATIF" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 620 = 1999 SLD 620 = 1999 PTD 4138 = 2000 PTCL 404 = (2000) 81 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Income Tax on Export Proceeds\nConclusion:\nCotton yarn is not a textile made-up under Part I of Schedule VIII of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, but is instead classified under Part II. Deductions of income tax at source on export proceeds of cotton yarn were ruled unlawful. Fiscal statutes should be interpreted strictly, favoring taxpayers when ambiguous.\nCitations:\n•\nMehran Associates Ltd. v. CIT 1993 SCMR 274", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5A) & Sched.VIII,PartsI,II,III Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12594 of 1999, decision dated: 19-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omer Aziz Khan for Petitioner. Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "J. A. TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED through Company Secretary\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, Islamabad and 12 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 621 = 1999 SLD 621 = 1999 PTD 4158 = 2000 PTCL 308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appellate Tribunal's Scope and Right to Fair Hearing\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal cannot interfere with its own decisions on the same point. However, when the assessee’s grievances about arbitrary assessments and denial of adequate hearing are substantiated, the Supreme Court directed a fresh hearing to ensure principles of natural justice were upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nKamran Industries v. Collector of Customs PLD 1996 Kar. 68", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,138 & 135 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.741-L of 1997, heard on 13th. April, 1999. (On appeal from the order, dated 27-3-1997 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No.3865 of 1996)", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, C.J., MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA AND MAMOON KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. M. Ryas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam Chatha, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs WIMPY 19-RESTAURANT (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 622 = 1999 SLD 622 = 1999 PTD 4163 = 2000 PTCL 577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Reopening of Assessments\nConclusion:\nThe reopening of assessments under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, requires definite information of concealment of income. In this case, information about trade discounts and expenses was considered valid for reopening. The First Appellate Authority’s order was vacated, and the appeal was remanded for reassessment.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.65", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1502/KB of 1998-99, decision dated: 18-06-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Umar Farooq, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 623 = 1999 SLD 623 = 1999 PTD 4166 = (1998) 231 ITR 540 = (1999) 79 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Discretionary Trust and Taxation\nConclusion:\nA discretionary trust remains taxable under Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even if trustees pass a resolution allocating net income to a specific beneficiary. The trust's discretionary nature is determined by the trust deed, which does not define individual beneficiary shares. The trustees' discretion to allocate income does not change the trust's character. The Income-tax Officer was justified in taxing the trust at 65% under Section 164.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101 (SC)\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 161 & 164", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1997, decision dated: 26-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. B. Nayak and Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. R. K. Patel and D. A. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAMBALAL SARABHAI D. TRUST N0.5" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 1 = 1998 SLD 1 = 1998 PTD 781", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment and Definite Information\nConclusion:\nReopening an assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, requires definite information. In this case, reopening based on alleged understatement of property value was invalid, as the original assessment was completed after scrutiny and lacked new definitive information.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.O. v. Chappal Builders 1993 SCMR 1108\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.65", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65,13(1)(d),65(2),13, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.7623/LB of 1996, decision dated: 8-03-1997, hearing DATE : 6-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz-ul-Hassan for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 1 = 1997 SLD 1 = 1997 PTD 1 = (1996) 75 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision and Jurisdiction of Central Board of Revenue\nConclusion:\nThe Central Board of Revenue (CBR) lacks jurisdiction to revise an order under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, if the order is already under appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Any such revision order is void and non-existent in law.\nCitations:\n•\n1993 PTD Trib. 234", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,138 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 336(IB) of 1995-96, decision dated: 2-11-1996. DATE of hearing: 30-10-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Riaz, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 2 = 1997 SLD 2 = 1997 PTCL 12 = 1997 PTD 3 = (1996) 75 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Workers Welfare Fund Levy\nConclusion:\nThe expression as soon thereafter as may be in Section 4(4) of the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, imposes a reasonable time limit for the levy of the fund, generally within 90 days. Delayed levies violate principles of tax certainty and fairness.\nCitations:\n•\nWorkers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, S.4(4)\n•\n1990 PTD (Trib.) 1014", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=105 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 112(IB) to 117(IB) of 1994-95, decision dated: 16-10-1996, hearing DATE : 15-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Irshad, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 3 = 1997 SLD 3 = 1997 PTCL 10 = 1997 PTD 9 = (1996) 75 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Surcharge and Self-Assessment Scheme\nConclusion:\nThe term income-tax in the Self-Assessment Scheme (1993-94) excludes surcharge. For qualification under the scheme, the tax paid must be 10% higher than the previous year's income-tax component, not the total including surcharge.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, First Sched., Part III, Para. B, Cl. (c)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.PartIII,Para.B,Cl.(c),59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 213(113) of 1995-96, decision dated: 23rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Khawas Khan Niazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 4 = 1997 SLD 4 = (1995) 74 TAX 121 = 1996 TAX 121 = 1997 PTD 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Super-Tax Rebate and Tax Credit\nConclusion:\nAssessees involved in food preservation, like ice cream manufacturing, qualify for a 10% super-tax rebate under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Tax credits cannot be excluded from asset costs when calculating depreciation.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, First Sched., Part II, Para. A(l)(v)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartH,Para.A(l)(v),107 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 294/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 9-02-1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Appellant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 5 = 1997 SLD 5 = (1995) 74 TAX 21 = 1996 TAX 21 = 1997 PTD 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maintainability of Constitutional Petition\nConclusion:\nConstitutional petitions involving factual issues, like ownership of bank accounts, are inadmissible when alternative remedies under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are available. Double assessment on the same transaction is also impermissible.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.65", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,62,7 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7604 of 1995, heard on 2-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Javed for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZAM ZAM TRADERS\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 6 = 1997 SLD 6 = 1997 PTD 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure and Provident Fund Deductions\nConclusion:\nInterest paid on loans for business expansion is deductible as capital or revenue expenditure. Payments to unrecognized provident funds cannot be deducted, but any unspent sums cannot be added to the assessee's income.\nCitations:\n•\nState of Madras v. G.J. Coelho (1964) 53 ITR 186", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(l)(vii),24(g) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 470(IB) of 1994-95, decision dated: 9-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Khawas Niazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 7 = 1997 SLD 7 = 1997 PTD 47 = (1995) 74 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Conditions for Reassessment Notices\nConclusion:\nReopening assessments under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, requires clear grounds. Notices must detail reasons for reassessment; otherwise, they are defective and not curable.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.65", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),61,65,65(1) ", + "Case #": "W.P No. 4381 of 1996, decision dated: 05-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Moeen ud Din Qureshi\nRespondent(s) by: Fauzi Zafar for the Department", + "Party Name:": "BABY-OWN\nVS\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 8 = 1997 SLD 8 = (1995) 74 TAX 215 = 1997 PTD 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Accounts\nConclusion:\nRejection of accounts requires specific findings of suppression or errors. Unjustified additions to income without such findings are invalid. Revisional authorities must follow procedural fairness.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.59", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,59,61,62 & 63 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6744 of 1996, decision dated: 25-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fayyaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AYUB ICE FACTORY, SHEIKHUPURA\nVs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REGION, LAHORE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 9 = 1997 SLD 9 = 1997 PTD 71 = (1999) 79 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmtMTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessments for Insurance Companies\nConclusion:\nThe reopening of finalized assessments of insurance companies under Sections 65 and 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was contested. The High Court's interpretation of Section 26(a) and the tax rate structure applicable to dividend income was called into question. Leave to appeal was granted to ensure consistency in interpreting provisions related to reopening assessments based on definite information. \nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 26(a), 65, 66-A", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26(a),65,66A & FirstandFourthScheds Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Art.185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 201-K, 207-K, 210-K to 215-K and 223-K to 227-K of 1995, decision dated: 3rd July, 1995.hearing DATE : 3rd July, 1995.(On appeal from the common judgment, dated 7-2-1995 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in Constitution Petition No.D-1695 of 1993)", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN AND MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yawar Farooqi Advocate with Special Permission of the Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 201-K of 1995).\nShahenshah Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 207-K of 1995).\nNoor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court with Ahmadullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. Nos.210-K to 215-K of 1995).\nM. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 223-K to 227-K of 1995).\nSheikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 10 = 1997 SLD 10 = 1997 PTD 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Adventure in the Nature of Trade\nConclusion:\nThe mere hope of selling a purchased property at a profit does not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade. Unless a direct nexus is established between an individual's personal activities and the business activities of the company in which they are a director, no adverse inference can be drawn.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 2(11) & 22", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(11) & 22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 405/HQ of 1988-89, decision dated: 30-05-1996, hearing DATE : 11-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SYED SAFDAR HUSSAIN SHAH BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Frough Naseem for Appellant. Qamar-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 11 = 1997 SLD 11 = (1995) 74 TAX 227 = 1997 PTD 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Accounts\nConclusion:\nThe power of an Assessing Officer to reject accounts is a statutory duty, not a discretionary act. This power must be exercised judiciously. Adverse inferences can only be drawn if accounts are proven to be suppressed or defective. The Revisional Authorities' orders were set aside due to the lack of evidence supporting defects in the account books.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 32(3), 62, 138", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3),62,138 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ petition No. 6531 of 1996, heard on 3rd June, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.A. Anwar Aleemi for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AMIN BRICKS COMPANY , FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (PENSION) and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 12 = 1997 SLD 12 = (1995) 74 TAX 141 = 1996 TAX 141 = 1997 PTD 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: High Court Reference and Co-Ownership\nConclusion:\nA High Court reference is maintainable when findings are not based on evidence or material evidence is ignored. For co-owned property, the share of each partner must be computed separately, and the Income Tax Authorities lack jurisdiction to assess co-owners collectively as an AOP when shares are defined in the title deed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 21, 136(2)", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2),21 ", + "Case #": "Civil Revisions Nos. 20 and 21 of 1985, decision dated: 4-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILANI AND MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE FAROOQI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Muhammad Afzal for Petitioners. Muhammad Rafique Dar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Mst. FAZAL BI and 6 others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GOVERNMENT OF AJ7K COUNCIL, MUZAFFARABAD and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 13 = 1997 SLD 13 = 1997 PTD 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Set-off and Carry Forward of Losses\nConclusion:\nLosses incurred in a business can be set off against income under any head within the same year or carried forward for six years under Section 35. Speculation losses can only be set off against speculation gains. A restrictive interpretation of such business is unwarranted; businesses under the same management and control can qualify as such business for loss carry-forward purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 34, 35, 36", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,35,36,15,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 107/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 19-08-1993, hearing DATE : 26-07-1993", + "Judge Name:": " PER SYED KABIRUL HASSAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, CONTRAMUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AGREEING.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood A. Hashmi, A.R. for Appellant. Khalid Siddiqui, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 14 = 1997 SLD 14 = (1995) 74 TAX 212 = 1996 TAX 212 = 1997 PTD 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment and Powers of Survey\nConclusion:\nReopening assessments based on a change of opinion is invalid. Income Tax Inspectors are not authorized to exercise powers under Sections 144, 145, 146, or 148 unless specifically empowered by the CBR. The exercise of powers, such as recording statements or entering business premises, must follow strict procedural guidelines to prevent harassment.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 65, 59(1), 144, 145, 146, 148", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 & 59(1),144,145,146,148,149,75,148(1) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=75,78 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 678/HQ of 1988-89, decision dated: 1st August, 1996, hearing DATE : 24-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saulat Naseer Pasha, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 15 = 1997 SLD 15 = 1997 PTD 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Medical Expenses as Perquisites\nConclusion:\nExpenditure incurred by employers on the medical care of employees is a perquisite under Section 16(2)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. It is considered part of the admissible deduction under Section 24(i). The law distinguishes between perquisites' treatment in the employer's and the employee's hands. Medical expenses exempted for employees under Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982, are included in determining allowable expenses for the employer.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: 1979 PTD (Trib.) 35, Rule 17 of Income Tax Rules, 1982\n•\nCases: CIT v. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd., Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16(2)(b) & 24(i),24(1) Income Tax Rules, 1982=3,17,18 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 272/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 30-07-1996, hearing DATE : 26-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ather Saeed for Appellant. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 16 = 1997 SLD 16 = (1995) 74 TAX 135 = 1996 TAX 135 = 1997 PTD 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification, Reopening, and Valuation Methods\nConclusion:\n•\nFederal Government’s acquisition of majority shares under the Economic Reforms Order qualifies a company as a public limited company. \n•\nReopening/rectification of assessments due to a change in opinion is impermissible under Sections 156 and 66-A.\n•\nChange in stock valuation methods is allowed if bona fide and consistently applied.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Economic Reforms Order, 1972; Sections 156, 66-A, and 32 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nCases: Indo Commercial Bank Limited v. CIT, Rathna Tea Estate v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIV,para.B(2),156 & 65,32,66A Economic Reforms Order, 1972=7B,7D,7-E,3(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1872/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 25-06-1988, hearing DATE : 15-06-1988", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZUR-UL-HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akbar G. Merchant, C.A. for Appellant. Muhammad Farid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 17 = 1997 SLD 17 = (1995) 74 TAX 181 = 1996 TAX 181 = 1997 PTD 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Fiction of Law and Assessment of Profits\nConclusion:\nThe assessed income, whether actual or deemed, is considered real income due to the fiction of law. Tax authorities cannot apply inconsistent interpretations of profits or gains in levying taxes and allowing deductions. Additions made by authorities must also be treated as real income.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 26(b), Fifth Schedule, and 32(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nCases: Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. CIT, Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26(b) & FifthSched.,PartI,paras.3 & 4(1),32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 706/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 8th. July, 1996, hearing DATE : 20-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shabbar Zaidi, FAC for Appellant. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 18 = 1997 SLD 18 = (1995) 74 TAX 129 = 1996 TAX 129 = 1997 PTD 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additions and Concessional Tax Rates\nConclusion:\n•\nAdditions based on unverified receivables from public sector corporations were deemed unjustified.\n•\nDividend income calculated at concessional super-tax rates was justified if substantiated by declared sources.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: First Schedule, Part II, para. A(2)(a)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartII,para.A(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 255/LBII of 1988-89, 290/LBII of 1988-89, 664-A/LBI/DB of 1989-90, 664-B/LBI/DB of 1989-90, 664-C/LB/DB of 1989-90, 656/LBI/DB of 1989-90, 654/LBI/DB of 1989-90 and 655/LBI/DB of 1989-90, decision dated: 18-10-1995, hearing DATE : 5-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Rehman, D.R. and Shahbaz Butt, L.A. for Appellant. M. Iqbal Chughtai, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 19 = 1997 SLD 19 = (1995) 74 TAX 172 = 1996 TAX 172 = 1997 PTD 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Special Provisions\nConclusion:\nThe Self-Assessment Scheme constitutes a special provision, overriding general provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance. Any conflicts with general law yield to the Scheme's framework, which operates as a self-contained code.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 59, 62, 63 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nCases: Chanda Motors v. C.B.R., Central Insurance Co. v. C.B.R.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=165,62,63,59,2 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 248/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 12-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amin-ud-Din Ansari for Appellant. Qamar-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 20 = 1997 SLD 20 = 1997 PTCL 7 = 1997 PTD 180 = (1998) 77 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Stock of Shares and Capital Gains\nConclusion:\nThe stock of shares constitutes a capital asset under Section 2(12). Gains from their sale are capital gains and exempt from tax if other conditions in Clause 116, Second Schedule, are fulfilled.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 2(12), Second Schedule, Part I, Clause (116)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(12) & SecondSched.,Part1,Cl.(116) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 970/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 25-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " HAMIDULLAH MALIK ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Applicant. Shaheen Niazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 21 = 1997 SLD 21 = (1995) 74 TAX 164 = 1997 PTCL 8 = 1997 PTD 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Unexplained Credits and Deemed Income\nConclusion:\nUnexplained credits in a company's books cannot be taxed as its income if linked to identifiable shareholders or directors. Tax authorities should proceed against these individuals, not the company.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 13(1)(a), Second Schedule, Clause (119)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(a) & SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(119) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4658/KB and 4659/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 16-04-1996, hearing DATE :. 19-03-1995", + "Judge Name:": " HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Basharatullah, D.R. for Appellant. S.M. Tanuli for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 22 = 1997 SLD 22 = 1997 PTD 228 = (1996) 218 ITR 275 = (1996) 75 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitution of Special Benches\nConclusion:\nThe President of the Appellate Tribunal has the administrative power to constitute Special Benches to resolve conflicts among benches. This decision is not open to judicial interference unless shown to be mala fide.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.255\n•\nCases: Deputy CIT v. Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2039 to 41 of 1996, decision dated: 17-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A Subba Rao and A. D. N. Rao for Appellant. B. B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol, B. Sathish, P. Parmeswaran and B. S. Ahuja, Advocates with him) for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Vs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENTS) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 23 = 1997 SLD 23 = 1997 PTD 245 = (1996) 220 ITR 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Agricultural Land as Capital Asset\nConclusion:\nAgricultural land situated in urban areas and used commercially cannot be excluded as a capital asset based solely on interim agricultural use. Profits from its sale are taxable as capital gains.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.2(14), 45", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 6133 and 6134 of 1983, decision dated: 27-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for the Appellant. Aruneshwar Gupta and Manoj K. Das for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGEMINI PICTURES CIRCUIT PRIVATE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 24 = 1997 SLD 24 = 1997 PTD 251 = (1996) 220 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Export Incentives and Tax Exemptions\nConclusion:\nExports of de-oiled cakes do not qualify for concessional tax rates if the item falls under the excluded industries in Section 2(5)(c) of the Finance Act, 1966.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Indian Finance Act, 1966", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 452 and 453 of 1978, decision dated: 20-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K., S. PARIPOORAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Parekh for P.H. Parekh for Appellant. Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate, Anil Srivastava and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PRAKASH TRADING CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 25 = 1997 SLD 25 = 1997 PTD 257 = (1996) 220 ITR 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Sub-Partnerships in Prohibited Sectors\nConclusion:\nSub-partnerships violating state-specific business regulations may face registration denials. Larger bench decisions are recommended for authoritative clarity.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Andhra Pradesh Abkari Act, Section 14", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1209 of 1978, decision dated: 8-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurti, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol, Advocate with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nB.POSETTY & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 26 = 1997 SLD 26 = 1997 PTD 261 = (1996) 220 ITR 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment of Firm vs. Partners\nConclusion:\nUnder the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had the discretion to tax either the firm or its partners, but not both. In this case, the assessment of a partner's income provisionally did not constitute the exercise of the option under Section 3 of the 1922 Act. Thus, the subsequent assessment of the firm was valid. This highlights the principle that an option once exercised by the ITO is binding.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 3, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922\n•\nCases: ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC), Hindusthan Mill Stores Supply Co. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 681 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 187 (NT) of 1978, decision dated: 5-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Terdol for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANOHARLAL GUPTA & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 27 = 1997 SLD 27 = 1997 PTD 264 = (1996) 220 ITR 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Interest on Borrowed Capital\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court ruled that interest on borrowed capital used for constructing a cinema theatre remained deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, even after the discontinuation of the cinema business. The business was deemed composite (jewelry and cinema), and the loans were used for business purposes. The Tribunal's findings upheld the deduction, reversing the High Court's disallowance.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 36(1)(iii), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: C.I.T. v. Veecumsee (1985) 152 ITR 708 (reversed), B. R. Ltd. v. Gupta (1978) 113 ITR 647 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 7660 to 7662 of 1996, decision dated: 26-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Uttam Reddy, A. V. Rangam and A. Ranganathan, Advocates for appellants. Dr. G. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and S.. N Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VEECUMSEES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 28 = 1997 SLD 28 = 1997 PTD 276 = (1996) 75 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: C.B.R. Circulars and Statutory Validity\nConclusion:\nCirculars issued by the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) granting exemptions beyond statutory limits (e.g., loans not through crossed cheques) were held ultra vires under Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Directions conflicting with statutory provisions are invalid and non-binding on assessing officers.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 12(18), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nCases: Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan v. Noor Hussain PLD 1964 SC 657", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),8 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 221(PB) of 1994-95, decision dated: 18-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " FAZALUR REHMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUR REHMAN AFRIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Ghaffar Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Abdur Rauf Rohaila for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 29 = 1997 SLD 29 = 1997 PTD 286 = (1996) 75 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Rental Income and Revisions by I.A.C.\nConclusion:\n•\nTaxability of Mortgaged Property: Rental income from mortgaged property is taxable in the hands of the mortgagor (owner) as per Sections 19(2) and 83(1)(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nPowers of I.A.C.: Under Section 66-A, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner can revise erroneous assessments prejudicial to revenue, even if the exact loss isn't quantified.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 19(2), 66-A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19(2),20(1)(f) & 83(1)(3),66A & 59(1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882=58 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A; No, 29(PB) of 1996-97, decision dated: 28-08-1996, hearing DATE : 25-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " FAZALUR REHMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUR REHMAN AFRIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Malik Khan, I.T.P. for Appellant. Yousaf Ghaffar Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 30 = 1997 SLD 30 = 1997 PTD 301 = (1996) 75 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax on Non-Resident Operations and Workers Profit Participation Fund\nConclusion:\n•\nNon-Resident Shipping Operations: Tax on freight payments to non-residents is determined under Section 80 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Section 50(3) cannot be invoked unless the main charge on the non-resident is independently established.\n•\nWorkers Profit Participation Fund: Disallowance of interest expenses on identifiable sources of finance was unjustified when supported by documentation.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 80, 50(3), and 24(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nCases: 1996 PTD (Trib.) 1128", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,50(3),24(b),80(3),80(4)(5),80(2),50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1614/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 9-09-1996, hearing DATE : 22-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Faqir Muhammad for Appellant. Rahim-ud-Din Ghori, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 31 = 1997 SLD 31 = 1997 PTD 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment on Remand\nConclusion:\nAn Assessing Officer (AO) cannot assess a higher income upon remand without indicating the specific mistakes in the earlier assessment. Such an arbitrary increase in income was held unjustified.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 62 & 132, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 91(IB) of 1995-96, decision dated: 21st October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Muhammad Arshad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 32 = 1997 SLD 32 = 1997 PTD 333 = (1996) 219 ITR 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Validity of Tax Collection Provisions and Constitutionality\nConclusion:\n•\nParliamentary Competence: The Parliament was deemed competent to enact Sections 44-AC and 206-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which facilitate tax collection akin to advance tax.\n•\nNon-Violation of Article 14: These provisions do not violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they aim to address practical difficulties in tax collection from specific trades.\n•\nNon-Obstante Clause: However, the exclusion of Sections 28-43C under Section 44-AC was held unreasonable, as it denied relief to specific businesses without justification.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 44-AC, 206-C, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961; Article 14, Constitution of India", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appals Nos.4290 to 4394 of 1989 connected with S.L.P. (C) Nos.3944 to 4087 of 1992 are from the judgment and order, dated March 7, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " A. M. AHMADI, C.J.I., S. C. SEN AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve, Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Vijay Bahuguna, Joseph Vellapally, Dr. Debi Pal, Soli J. Sorabjee, K. Madhava Reddy and G. Sarangan, Senior Advocates, (Mohan Jain, B.S. Chahar, Ashok Mathur, N.M. Sakhardande, S. Rajappa, Ms. A. Subhashini, C.V.S. Rao, P. Parmeswaran, S.N. Terdol, D.K. Gary, O.C. Mathur, Ms. Meera Mathur, S. Sukumaran, Ramesh Babu, Ejaz Meqbool, M.D. Adkar, Priya Hingorani, Sanjit Kumar, R. Singh, Braj K. Mishra, A. Subba Rao, Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Ranjit Kumar, C. Mukund, Rundreshwar Singh, Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Pradeep Aggarwal, Sushil K. Jain, A.P. Dhamija, Vipin Gogia, P. Mahale, B. Parthasarthi, S. K. Mehta, Mahabir Singh, (S. J. Khaitan), Advocates, for Khaitan & Co., Aruneshwar Gupta, T.V.S.N. Chari, K. Ram Kumar, C. Balasubramaniam, P.R. Ramasesh, M. Veerappa, G. Narasimhulu, K.K. Mani, Ms. S. Bagga, V.G. Pragasam and A.K. Sanghi, Advocates with them) for the appearing Parties", + "Party Name:": "UNION OF INDIA and another\nVs\nA. SANYASI RAO and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 33 = 1997 SLD 33 = 1997 PTD 359 = (1996) 219 ITR 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Agricultural Income and Compensation\nConclusion:\nCompensation received for requisitioned agricultural land continues to qualify as agricultural income if the land remains used for agricultural purposes. The Supreme Court upheld this finding based on the fact that refugees cultivated the land post-requisition.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 2(1), Indian Income Tax Act, 1922\n•\nCases: CIT v. All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 545", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2136 of 1979, decision dated: 1st March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate with S.N. Terdol and Miss Luxmi Iyengar, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Amlan Ghosh, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nALL INDIA TEA AND TRADING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 34 = 1997 SLD 34 = 1997 PTD 364 = (1996) 219 ITR 478", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withdrawal of Development Rebate\nConclusion:\nMachinery given on hire was deemed otherwise transferred under Section 34(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, justifying the withdrawal of development rebate. The ownership and exclusive use of machinery for the assessee's business were essential conditions for availing the rebate.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 33, 34(3)(b), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Blue Bay Fisheries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 1 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 388 (NT) of 1978, decision dated: 28-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate with Manoj Arora and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for the Commissioner\nG. Janani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNARANG DAIRY PRODUCTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 35 = 1997 SLD 35 = 1997 PTD 371 = (1996) 219 ITR 515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption for Local Authorities\nConclusion:\nA State Road Transport Corporation does not qualify as a local authority under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it lacks the distinctive characteristics of entities like municipal committees or district boards, such as popular representation, autonomy, and the power of compulsion.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 10(20), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 922", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 592(NT) of 1978, decision dated: 29-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tapas Ray, Senior Advocate (with G.S. Chatterjee and Sukumar Bash, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (with S. Rajappa and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 36 = 1997 SLD 36 = 1997 PTD 377 = (1996) 75 TAX 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Tax at Source and Exemption Certificates\nConclusion:\nThe imposition of a condition in exemption certificates limiting exemption to goods cleared from the Customs Post nearest to the industrial undertaking was declared invalid. However, authorities are entitled to ensure compliance and prevent tax evasion through permissible legal measures, including inspections.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 50, Second Schedule, Clause (118), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; SRO. 593(1)/91 dated 30th June 1991\n•\nCases: Wali Oil Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,SecondSched.,Cl.(118) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 19995 of 1996, heard on 21st November, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Anjum Andorabi for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butt for the State", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MEHRAN FLEX INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 37 = 1997 SLD 37 = 1997 PTD 379 = (1996) 75 TAX 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Registration as Income Tax Practitioner\nConclusion:\nThe Central Board of Revenue (CBR) has the authority to establish rules for registering Income Tax Practitioners, including requiring specific qualifications. Advocates cannot claim automatic entitlement to be registered as Income Tax Practitioners. Rule 205 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982, was upheld as valid.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 157 & 165, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; Rule 205, Income Tax Rules, 1982\n•\nCases: Usman Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs; The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=157,165 Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973=22(2)B Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=207 Income Tax Rules, 1982=205 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.789 of 1996, decision dated: 25-11-1996, hearing DATE : 4-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tanvir Bashir Ansari for Petitioners. Muhammad Bashir Kiani, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Mir AHMAD ALI and another\nVs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX, NORTHERN REGION, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 38 = 1997 SLD 38 = 1997 PTD 385 = (1996) 219 ITR 572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction for Dividends from New Industrial Undertakings\nConclusion:\nEntitlement to deduction under Section 80-K does not require the actual allowance of deduction under Section 80-J but only that the industrial undertaking is eligible for such deduction.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 80-J & 80-K, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Union of India v. Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd.; Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. A.V. Joshi reversed", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15,80-J,80-K ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1044 of 1979, decision dated: 1st March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA, N. P. SINGH AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "E.R. Kumar and Miss Bina Madhavan, Advocates for P.H. Parekh, Advocate for Appellants. B.S. Ahuja for S.N. Terdol, Advocate for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "AHMEDABAD MANUFACTURING AND CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD. and another\nVs\nA.V.JOSHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 39 = 1997 SLD 39 = 1997 PTD 389 = (1996) 219 ITR 358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeals against Refusal to Continue Registration of Firms\nConclusion:\nAn appeal against an order refusing continuation of a firm's registration under Section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 184(7), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: CIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 640 of 1978, decision dated: 18-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSATYANARAYANA SAW MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 40 = 1997 SLD 40 = 1997 PTD 390 = (1996) 219 ITR 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Amalgamation and Revenue Expenditure\nConclusion:\nProfessional charges for amalgamation are deductible as revenue expenditure if the amalgamation facilitates business efficiency. Contributions to the Housing Board for worker tenements were also deemed revenue expenditures.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 37 & 256, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) v. CIT; L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 593 and 594 of 1978, decision dated: 29-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND M. K. MUKHERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol, Advocate, with him) for the Commissioner. Gourab Banerjee, Ms. Anjali Verma and Miss Ruby Ahuja, Advocates for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 41 = 1997 SLD 41 = 1997 PTD 396 = (1996) 219 ITR 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty Jurisdiction Post-Amendment\nConclusion:\nThe deletion of Section 274(2) did not affect penalty proceedings pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) as of March 31, 1976. The IAC retained jurisdiction to conclude such cases.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 271(1)(c) & 274, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: CIT v. Dhadi Sahu", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3169 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd April, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant. S. Srinivasan, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. R. SHARADAMMA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 42 = 1997 SLD 42 = 1997 PTD 400 = (1996) 219 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Pre-Incorporation Profits of a Company\nConclusion:\nA company is not liable for tax on pre-incorporation profits since it did not exist at the time such profits were earned.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: CIT v. Tea Producing Co. of India Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 11 of 1982, decision dated: 5-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA, S. P. BHARUCHA AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "(Direct reference under section 257 of the Income Tax Act 1961, to the Supreme Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal)\nJ. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCITY MILLS DISTRIBUTORS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 43 = 1997 SLD 43 = 1997 PTD 405 = (1996) 219 ITR 644", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Employee Benefits and Perquisites\nConclusion:\nCash payments to employees do not qualify as perquisites under Sections 40(a)(v) or 40-A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and are excluded from their scope.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 40 & 40-A, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: CIT v. Commonwealth Trust Ltd. overruled", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2215 of 1978 with C.As. Nos. 5946 and 2383 of 1994 and 10742, 7760, 7761, 9702, 7758 and 2317 to 2319 of 1995 and 4223 of 1996, decision dated: 12-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND M. K. MUKHERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra and S.N. Terdol, Advocates for Appellants. G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (Mrs. A.K. Verma, Santosh K Aggarwal and Vinay Vaish, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAFATLAL GANGABHAI AND CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 44 = 1997 SLD 44 = 1997 PTD 415 = (1996) 219 ITR 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Development Allowance for Tea Industry\nConclusion:\nDevelopment allowance can be claimed in multiple stages across years as specified under Section 33-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowing flexibility in accounting for planting costs.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 33-A, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Kilkotagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Ltd. v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 190 of 1979, decision dated: 13-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKILKOTAGIRI TEA AND COFFEE ESTATE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 45 = 1997 SLD 45 = 1997 PTD 422 = (1996) 219 ITR 581", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Surtax Payments\nConclusion:\nSurtax levied under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is not deductible under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it is considered a tax on profits.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 40(a)(ii), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT reversed", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1187, 1188 of 1985 with 455 of 1987, 3699 to 3700 of 1984, 2133 of 1991, 816 of 1988, 4818, 4819 of 1990, 1732, 1733 of 1990, 197 of 1989, 3698 of 1984, 5018 to 21 of 1991, 3246 of 1995, 3976, 3977 of 1995, 9176, 9177 of 1995, 10051 of 1995, 11361 of 1995, 3097 of 1990 and 3172 of", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. T. THOMAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.B. Pai and J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocates (Mukul Mudgal, O.C. Mathur, Ms. A.K. Verma, Advocates for Messrs J.B.D. & Co., A. Subba Rao, Anil Srivastava, S.N. Terdol, Advocates with them) for the Appearing Parties", + "Party Name:": "SMITH KLINE AND FRENCH (INDIA) LTD. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 46 = 1997 SLD 46 = 1997 PTD 430 = (1996) 219 ITR 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Provision for Taxation and Computation of Capital\nConclusion:\nProvision for taxation is not considered a fund and cannot be deducted from the cost of excluded investments in computing capital under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, or the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Second Schedule, Super Profits Tax Act, 1963; Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964\n•\nCases: Duncan Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT reversed", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 595 of 1978, decision dated: 13-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA, S. P. BHARUCHA AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Terdol for Appellant. S.N. Gupta for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDUNCAN BROTHERS & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 47 = 1997 SLD 47 = 1997 PTD 438 = (1995) 212 ITR 148 = 1996 PTCL 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Prosecution during Pendency of Appeals\nConclusion:\nThe pendency of appeals against income addition or penalty under the Income Tax Act does not bar the initiation or continuation of criminal prosecution for alleged offenses under the Act. The prosecution cannot be stayed based on pending appeals.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, First ITO (1984); Ananda Fabrics v. Asst. CIT (1990)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 4712 and 4730 of 1994, decision dated: 15-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " O. P., JAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajesh Kumar for the Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "SHEO BALAK RAM GANESH PRASAD\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 48 = 1997 SLD 48 = 1997 PTD 442 = (1995) 212 ITR 242 = 1996 PTCL 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeals Against Orders Under Section 197(3)\nConclusion:\nA right of appeal is a statutory right and not inherent. No appeal lies against an order under Section 197(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This section governs applications for determination of the proportion of tax to be deducted.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 197, 246 & 248, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.37 of 1983, decision dated: 8-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate with J.P. Devadhar instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGARWARE NYLONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 49 = 1997 SLD 49 = 1997 PTD 445 = (1995) 213 ITR 10 = (1995) 73 TAX 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Waiver of Penalty and Meaning of Payable \nConclusion:\nThe term payable in Section 273-A includes penalties already discharged. Payment of penalty does not preclude the assessee from seeking a waiver. The Commissioner must consider genuine hardship and cooperation in proceedings as conditions precedent for granting relief.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 273-A, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Kherunnisa Allibhai v. CIT (1978); New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 259 of 1980, decision dated: 27-06-1994", + "Judge Name:": " M.B. SHAH AND N.N. MATHUR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for the Assessee. B.S. Shelat and M.R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GARDEN SILK WEAVING FACTORY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 50 = 1997 SLD 50 = 1997 PTD 449 = (1995) 213 ITR 20 = (1995) 73 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction for Film Distribution Costs\nConclusion:\nCirculars conferring rights on assessees must be applied as they stood on April 1 of the relevant financial year. Subsequent modifications or withdrawals of such circulars cannot adversely affect the assessee for that year.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Circular Nos. 30, 92, and 154; Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen; Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 7 of 1983, decision dated: 23rd November, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.S. Bhujle and Smt. S.P. Vijayakar with Sunil Mandle for the Assessee. G.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate with P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SHAKTI RAJ FILMS DISTRIBUTORS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 51 = 1997 SLD 51 = 1997 PTD 460 = (1995) 212 ITR 220 = 1996 PTCL 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Income from Money-Lending\nConclusion:\nInterest income derived from systematic money-lending activity qualifies as business income. The minor assessee engaged in money-lending through inherited stock-in-trade was held to be carrying on a business.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. CEPT; Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 498 to 501 of 1981 (References Nos. 184 to 187 of 1981), decision dated: 19-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " VENKATASWAMI AND, JAYASIMHA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nR.M. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 52 = 1997 SLD 52 = (1995) 74 TAX 15 = 1997 PTD 464 = (1995) 213 ITR 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusion:\nThe presumption of concealment under Section 271(1)(c) shifts the burden to the assessee to rebut it. Inability to rebut the presumption justifies the imposition of penalties for concealment.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 271(1)(c), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: CIT (Addl.) v. Jeevan Lal Sah; CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 173 of 1977, decision dated: 27-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": " K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND D.K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Pandey with R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner. C.S. Aggarwal with Salil Aggarwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHAMA MAGAZINE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 53 = 1997 SLD 53 = 1997 PTD 469 = (1996) 219 ITR 737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Validity of Assessment Without Notices to All Legal Representatives\nConclusion:\nFailure to issue notices to all legal representatives does not render assessments null and void but irregular. Such assessments can be rectified by the appellate authorities.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 159, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. CIT; Jai Prakash Singh v. CIT reversed", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2542 to 2544 of 1977, decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. A. Subhashini and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant. N.R. Choudhary and D.N. Mukherjee, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAI PRAKASH SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 54 = 1997 SLD 54 = 1997 PTD 479 = (1996) 219 ITR 498", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax from Companies in Liquidation\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Department is treated as a secured creditor under Section 178 of the Income Tax Act. This prioritization differs from the Companies Act, which applies to crystallized liabilities.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 178, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 530, Companies Act, 1956\n•\nCases: Imperial Chit Funds Ltd. v. Income Tax Department", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1199 (NT) of 1979, decision dated: 19-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. John Mathew and N. Sudhakaran for Appellant. J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "IMPERIAL CHIT FUNDS (P.) LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 55 = 1997 SLD 55 = 1997 PTD 491 = (1995) 213 ITR 523 = (1996) 75 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction Limits and Business Expenditures\nConclusion:\nThe ceiling under Section 80-VV applies to individual cases of liability determination and not aggregate expenses for the year. Interest on delayed tax payments is not deductible.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 80-VV & 37, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 91 of 1992, decision dated: 12-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " SUSANTA CHATTERJI AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.M. Mehra and R.K. Patel for K.C. Patel for the Assessee. Mihir Thakore for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SAURASHTRA CEMENT AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 56 = 1997 SLD 56 = 1997 PTD 500 = (1995) 213 ITR 563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Applications for References in Multiple Appeals\nConclusion:\nA single application suffices for multiple appeals arising from one order, but separate applications are needed for appeals for different years or under different enactments.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 256, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Narhari v. Shanker; J.K. Agents (P.) Ltd. v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=256 ", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 974 of 1992 alongwith Original Petition No.. 975 of 1992, decision dated: 23rd November, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " T.L. VISWANATHA LYER AND MRS. K. K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.C. Sen for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MANI & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 57 = 1997 SLD 57 = 1997 PTD 508 = (1995) 213 ITR 551 = (1996) 75 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rental Income as Business or Other Sources\nConclusion:\nRental income from sub-letting premises not connected with business operations is assessable as income from other sources rather than business income.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 28 & 56, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 174 of 1983, decision dated: 16-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner. Y.P. Trivedi with Ms. Vasanti Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nARVINDKUMAR ODHAVJI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 58 = 1997 SLD 58 = 1997 PTD 516 = (1996) 220 ITR 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Forfeiture of Deposits by Bank\nConclusion:\nForfeited deposits from constituents in banking transactions constitute income arising from business operations and are assessable as business income.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. reversed", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 132 and 133 of 1979, decision dated: 8-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Manoj Arora and S.N. Terdol, Advocates for Appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 59 = 1997 SLD 59 = 1997 PTD 520 = (1996) 220 ITR 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Computation for Surtax\nConclusion:\nIssuance of bonus shares by capitalizing reserves does not increase the capital base for computation under the Surtax Act.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Rule 3, Schedule II, Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964\n•\nCases: CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4360 and 4361(NT) of 1981 with Civil Appeal No. 1705 of 1988, decision dated: 2-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramaehandran, Advocate for Appellant. G.C. Sharma and Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate with B.S. Ahuja and S.N. Terdol, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 60 = 1997 SLD 60 = 1997 PTD 529 = (1996) 220 ITR 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation for Assessments Based on Revised Returns\nConclusion:\nRevised returns under Section 139(5) are not permissible for returns filed under Section 139(4). Limitation for assessments does not extend based on invalid revised returns.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 139(4), 139(5), 153(1)(b), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCases: Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha v. CIT reversed", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1604 and 1605 of 1985 with Civil Appeals Nos. 4005 and 4006 of 1984, decision dated: 23rd April, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. T. THOMAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Sen, Senior Advocate (M.N. Tandon and S. Ghosh, Advocates with him) for Appellants. Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "KUMAR JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 61 = 1997 SLD 61 = 1997 PTD 540 = (1996) 220 ITR 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Compensation for Damaged Stocks\nConclusion:\nCompensation received by an assessee for the loss of stock-in-trade, regardless of whether the amount is settled through litigation or compromise, is considered taxable as trading income. In this case, the assessee’s goat skins, pledged as collateral to a bank, were damaged due to improper storage by the bank. Following a settlement between the assessee and the bank, the latter compensated the assessee by waiving an outstanding debt. The court held that this waiver constituted a replacement of lost stock-in-trade value, making it taxable as part of the business income.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5508 of 1985, decision dated: 22-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jehangir Mistry and Mrs. A.K. Verma for Appellants. Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate and (S.N. Terdol and S.Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RAMESH NARAIN SAXENA and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 62 = 1997 SLD 62 = 1997 PTD 544 = (1996) 220 ITR 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Recovery from Retired Partners\nConclusion:\nA partner's liability for tax dues incurred by a firm while they were a partner continues even after their retirement. This principle stems from the Partnership Act, which treats partners as jointly and severally responsible for the firm’s liabilities incurred during their tenure. In this case, despite the retirement of a partner, the court affirmed that tax arrears of the firm, arising during the retired partner's time, could be recovered from the individual. The case emphasized that the firm is not a distinct legal entity, and its tax obligations bind all partners.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 188-A, 189(3), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 25, Indian Partnership Act, 1932.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1615 and 1616 of 1979, decision dated: 7-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (V.U. Eradi and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "THIRD Income Tax OFFICER and another\nVs\nARUNAGIRI CHETTIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 63 = 1997 SLD 63 = 1997 PTD 561 = (1995) 213 ITR 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption for Charitable and Religious Trusts\nConclusion:\nSection 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act disqualifies certain charitable trusts from exemption if they are established for the benefit of a specific community or caste. However, the provision applies only to purely charitable trusts. Trusts serving both charitable and religious purposes are exempt from this disqualification. This distinction ensures that composite trusts, like the one in this case, are eligible for tax exemption under Section 11. The trust in question was deemed eligible for exemption as it served both religious and charitable purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Sections 11 & 13, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 900 to 903/(AHD) of 1979, decision dated: 3rd November, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " M. B. SHAH AND, J. M. PANCHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.J. Shelat and M.R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. D.A. Mehta and K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBARKATE SAIFIYAH SOCIETY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 64 = 1997 SLD 64 = 1997 PTD 570 = (1996) 219 ITR 563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Allocation of Business Expenditure Across Income Sources\nConclusion:\nWhere an assessee’s business involves multiple distinct activities, expenditures, such as managing agency commission, must be allocated proportionately among taxable and non-taxable income sources. In this case, the assessee operated tea and coffee estates and coffee curing works. Since the Tribunal determined these were distinct businesses, the managing agency commission had to be allocated among the income sources rather than fully deducted against a single income source. The decision underlines the principle that expenses must correspond to specific income sources.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 37, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 6108 with Civil Appeals Nos. 6109-6114 of 1983, decision dated: 10-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. A. ramachandra, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with him) for Appellant. Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "WATERRFALL ESTATES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 65 = 1997 SLD 65 = 1997 PTD 576 = (1996) 219 ITR 410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund of Excess Tax Paid by LIC Predecessors\nConclusion:\nUnder Section 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, LIC inherits both the assets and liabilities of predecessor insurers. Refunds of excess tax paid by predecessor insurers constitute income for LIC, as they form part of the inherited assets. However, these refunds are considered part of the earlier valuation period, and deductions for such amounts are permissible under Rule 2(1)(b) of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act. This interpretation harmonizes the LIC Act and tax provisions, ensuring the refunded amounts are appropriately accounted for.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 7, LIC Act, 1956; Rule 2(1)(b), First Schedule, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 295 (NT) of 1979, decided or 19-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve and T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocates (A.V. Rangam, A. Ranganadhan and K.K. Sharma, Advocates with him) for Appellant. J. Rainamurthi, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol, Advocate with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 66 = 1997 SLD 66 = 1997 PTD 585 = (1995) 213 ITR 541 = (1996) 75 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ownership of Property for Tax Purposes\nConclusion:\nOwnership of property for income tax purposes depends on the substance of ownership, not merely on registration. In this case, the assessee executed and presented a sale deed for registration in 1970, though the actual registration occurred in 1975. Since the sale consideration was received, and possession was handed over in 1970, the property’s income could not be taxed in the assessee’s hands for assessment year 1972-73. The court held that under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, equitable ownership had already passed to the buyer.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Section 22, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 53-A, Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 36 of 1984, decision dated: 21st July, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND V. G. PAISHIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vineet Kothari for the Assessee. D.S. Shishodia, Senior Advocate, with S. Bhamdawat for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "MAHARNI YOGESHWARI KUMARI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 67 = 1997 SLD 67 = 1997 PTD 594 = (1996) 219 ITR 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Distinction Between Provisions and Reserves for Surtax Computation\nConclusion:\nThe distinction between provisions and reserves is critical for determining the capital base under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act. A provision is made to meet a known liability, while a reserve is an appropriation of profits for future purposes. In this case, the court held that the bad debts reserve and gratuity reserve constituted reserves, as they were not based on actual liabilities but were general appropriations from profits. These reserves were, therefore, includible in the capital base computation for surtax purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nKey References: Rule 1, Second Schedule, Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 471 and 72 (NT) of 1978, decision dated: 15-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukal, Senior Advocate with Ranbir Chandra and S.N. Terdol, Advocates for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nJYOTI LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 68 = 1997 SLD 68 = 1997 PTD 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding Tax on Call Deposit Receipts\nConclusion:\nSection 50(2-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1996), applies only to instruments involving the actual transfer of money between parties. Call deposit receipts, which do not effect such a transfer, were deemed not subject to withholding tax before the amendment. The court clarified this interpretation using a circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue in 1994. Additionally, it was established that amendments to statutes usually signify changes in the law unless they are declaratory or clarificatory in nature.\nCitations:\n•\nK.G. Old Principal Christian Technical Training Centre Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court (PLD 1976 Lah. 1097).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(2B) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 6430, 6432, 6746, 6747 and 10963 of 1996, heard on 13-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.Iqbal Hashmi and Ikramul Haq for petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Shahbaz Butt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M/s. PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK and others\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 69 = 1997 SLD 69 = 1997 PTD 612 = (1996) 75 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Tax at Source for Rent Payments\nConclusion:\nSection 50(7-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, mandates tax deduction at source only if the rent paid to an individual exceeds the prescribed limit. The term person in this context refers to an individual and not multiple recipients collectively. Therefore, if payments to each recipient are below the threshold, the provision does not apply. This interpretation ensures the scope of the law aligns with its intent.\nKey Points:\n1.\nThe word person in Section 50(7-B) must be interpreted in its singular form unless explicitly stated otherwise.\n2.\nTax deduction applies to payments exceeding the statutory limit to any single recipient.\n3.\nAssessment for treating the payer as in default was invalidated where payments to individuals did not exceed the limit.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.O. Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bahagwan Das (AIR 1955 SC 342).\n•\nS. Naganatha v. CIT (AIR 1965 Mad).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7B),50(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6481/LB to 6483/LB of 1996, decision dated: 10-11-1996, hearing DATE : 15-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SIKANDAR KALIM FAZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Tabassum Maqsood for Appellant. Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 70 = 1997 SLD 70 = 1997 PTD 616 = (1996) 219 ITR 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: High Court's Jurisdiction in Reference Proceedings\nConclusion:\nThe High Court's jurisdiction in taxation references is confined to questions of law. It cannot examine evidence not presented before the Tribunal. A conclusion by the Tribunal is considered perverse only if no reasonable person, considering the evidence, could have reached it. In this case, the Tribunal found no signed assessment order for the assessment year 1955-56, rendering the assessment invalid. The High Court's decision to override this finding was deemed incorrect as it relied on evidence not presented before the Tribunal.\nCitations:\n•\nKalyankumar Ray v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 634 (SC).\n•\nEllis C. Red v. CIT (1930) 5 ITC 100 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2242 to 2246 of 1978, decision dated: 8-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.B. Rohtegi, Anup Sharma and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi for Appellants. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, (R. Satish and S.N. Terdol, Advocates, with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SMT. KILASHO DEVI BURMAN and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 71 = 1997 SLD 71 = 1997 PTD 623 = (1996) 218 ITR 355 = (1996) 75 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment of Firms after the Death of a Partner\nConclusion:\nIn the absence of a clause in the partnership deed allowing for continuation after a partner's death, the partnership is dissolved under Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The surviving partners continuing the business constitutes a new partnership, necessitating separate assessments for the periods before and after the partner's death. The court upheld this principle, confirming two assessments for the respective periods in this case.\nCitations:\n•\nWazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 761 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Basant Behari Gopal Behari & Co. (1988) 172 ITR 662 (All.).\n•\nMathurdas Govardhandas v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 470 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Cases Nos. 13 and 14 of 1983, decision dated: 29-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA, S. P. BHARUCHA AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for the Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nEMPIRE ESTATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 72 = 1997 SLD 72 = 1997 PTD 628 = (1996) 219 ITR 618", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Settlement of Cases – Powers of Settlement Commission\nConclusion:\nThe jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission under Section 245-D of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, is confined to matters relating to the application before it. The Commission cannot entertain requests by the assessee to reopen earlier assessments for purposes like spreading the enhanced value of stock. Its powers are limited to reopening completed proceedings only if necessary for the proper disposal of the pending case and within an eight-year limitation. The Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by dropping penalty proceedings for years not under its purview.\nCitations:\n•\nSections 245-D, 245-E & 245-F of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1000 to 1005 of 1979, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND M. K. MUKHERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and S.N. Terdol, Advocates, with him) for Appellants. N.K. Poddar, Senior Advocate (D. N. Mishra and Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocates, with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 73 = 1997 SLD 73 = 1997 PTD 647 = (1996) 218 ITR 239 = (1996) 75 TAX 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxation of Association of Persons vs. Individual Members\nConclusion:\nUnder the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, unlike its 1922 counterpart, there is no option for the tax officer to assess either the association of persons (AOP) or its members individually based on what benefits revenue most. If income belongs to an AOP, it must be taxed at the entity level, not at the member level, regardless of individual assessments made earlier. The 1961 Act emphasizes taxing the right person, aligning with the principle of consistency and legal correctness.\nCitations:\n•\nCh. Atchaiah v. ITO (1979) 116 ITR 675 (AP) reversed.\n•\nCIT v. B.R. Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP) overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=148 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2513 of 1977, decision dated: 11-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate with S.N. Terdol and S Rajappa, Advocates with him for Appellant. A. Panduranga Rao, Rakesh K. Sharma and K.R. Chowdhary, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nVs\nCh. ATCHAIAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 74 = 1997 SLD 74 = 1997 PTD 657", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitutional Validity of Sections 80-C, 80-CC & 80-D\nConclusion:\nA constitutional question regarding the validity of Sections 80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, necessitated judicial interpretation. Since similar petitions involving the same legal issues had been granted leave to appeal and interim relief, this petition was admitted on the same terms.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,80CC & 80D Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1185/L of 1996, decision dated: 16-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON AND MUHAMMAD ILYAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Abdul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 75 = 1997 SLD 75 = 1997 PTD 658 = (1996) 218 ITR 221 = (1996) 75 TAX 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rental Income – Classification as Business Income or Income from House Property\nConclusion:\nThe case pertained to rental income received by a sub-lessee and whether it should be taxed under business income or income from house property. The High Court did not address the main issue of whether the lack of registration of the sub-lease meant the assessee retained ownership for tax purposes. The matter was remanded for reconsideration. The court reiterated that the scope of reference under Section 256(1) does not allow the introduction of new facts.\nCitations:\n•\nBengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1949) 17 ITR 308 (Cal.).\n•\nS.G. Mercantile Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 195 of 1996, decision dated: 5-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (B.S. Ahuja and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant. A.K. Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Aruna Banerjee, R. Chaterjee and G.S. Chatterjee for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nPARK HOTEL (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 76 = 1997 SLD 76 = 1997 PTD 663 = (1996) 218 ITR 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Bad Debts and Sticky Advances\nConclusion:\nIn cases of sticky advances written off by the assessee, they qualify as bad debts and can be dealt with under relevant provisions. Observations in Kerala Financial Corporation (1994) permitting tax refunds on interest from sticky advances were removed as they contradicted prior rulings in State Bank of Travancore (1986).\nCitations:\n•\nState Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC).\n•\nKerala Financial Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.As. Nos. 1 to 6 in Civil Appeals Nos. 4636 to 4641 of 1994, decision dated: 11-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy and B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocates with (R. Satish and B.K. Prasad with them) for Appellants. P.S. Poti, Senior Advocate with (N. Sudhakaran with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 77 = 1997 SLD 77 = 1997 PTD 665 = (1996) 219 ITR 706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Surtax – Classification of Reserves and Provisions\nConclusion:\nFor banking companies, amounts set aside for bad and doubtful debts qualify as reserves if not appropriated against specific liabilities or bad debts. Such reserves enhance the company's capital base for computation under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Provisions differ from reserves as they are appropriations for known liabilities. The Supreme Court reversed the earlier decision, clarifying that reserves intended for general purposes qualify for statutory benefits.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. State Bank of Patiala (1993) 203 ITR 150 reversed.\n•\nVazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4270 to 4273 of 1996 with Civil Appeals Nos. 4274 to 4281 and 4282 of 1996, decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (A.D.N. Rao and A. Subha Rao, Advocates with him) for Appellant. B.S. Ahuja for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "STATE BANK OF PATIALA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 78 = 1997 SLD 78 = 1997 PTD 679 = (1996) 218 ITR 140 = (1996) 75 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Amalgamation of Companies – Carry Forward of Losses and Depreciation\nConclusion:\nWhen a scheme of amalgamation involving a sick industrial company is sanctioned under Section 18 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) must also make the declaration under Section 72-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The conditions under Section 72-A align with those for sanctioning the scheme under SICA. Declining to provide the carry-forward benefit of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation in the rehabilitation scheme violates the legal framework.\nCitations:\n•\nRelevant Sections: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (S.72-A); SICA, 1985 (S.18 & S.32(2)).\n•\nCIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 225; 54 Comp. Cas. 651.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5638 of 1994, decision dated: 3rd January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.K. P. Shankar Dass, Senior Advocate (Ashok Grover, Advocate with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "INDIAN SHAVING PRODUCTS LIMITED\nVs\nBOARD OF INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 79 = 1997 SLD 79 = (1995) 74 TAX 207 = 1997 PTD 688 = (1995) 213 ITR 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Loss – Purchase of Shares for Business Expansion\nConclusion:\nLoss incurred on the sale of shares purchased under pressure to obtain more business from a company is deductible as a business loss. The nexus between the purchase of shares and business expansion justifies the allowance.\nCitations:\n•\nPatnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 365 (SC).\n•\nRelated Cases: CIT (Addl.) v. B. M. S. (P.) Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 321; Ramnarain Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 534.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1147 of 1981, decision dated: 28-07-1994", + "Judge Name:": " GULAB C. GUPTA AND THANIKKACHALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarhana Raja for the Assessee. N.V. Balasubramanian for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "INDIAN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES CO. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 80 = 1997 SLD 80 = 1997 PTD 692 = (1995) 213 ITR 512 = (1995) 74 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxation of Arrears of Rent\nConclusion:\nArrears of rent received in subsequent years cannot be taxed under Income from House Property (Section 23) or Income from Other Sources (Section 56) for the year of receipt. The statute restricts assessment under these heads to income from the relevant previous year.\nCitations:\n•\nHamilton & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 391 (Cal.).\n•\nNalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row, CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Authority for Advance Ruling No.204 of 1994, decision dated: 26-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, J. (CHAIRMAN)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Authority for Advance Ruling No. 204 of 1994, decided on 26th December, 1994\nAuthority for Advance Rulings\nGurcharan Singh Lamba for the Assessee. Nemo for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "JAGTAR SINGH PUREWAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR (PUNJAB)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 81 = 1997 SLD 81 = (1995) 74 TAX 186 = 1997 PTD 697 = (1995) 213 ITR 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains – Retirement of Partner\nConclusion:\nA retiring partner drawing the amount standing to their capital account does not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, no capital gains tax arises.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Raghu Kumar (L.) (1983) 141 ITR 674 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Referred Case No. 159 of 1995, decision dated: 9-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " DYED SHAH MUHAMMAD QUADRI AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nG. SESHAGIRI RAO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 82 = 1997 SLD 82 = (1995) 74 TAX 120 = 1997 PTD 700 = (1995) 213 ITR 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Extension of Limitation for Assessment – Concealment of Income\nConclusion:\nThe extended period of limitation under Section 153(1)(b) applies when there is prima facie evidence of concealment under Section 271(1)(c). A preliminary finding by the Income Tax Officer is sufficient to invoke the extended timeline.\nCitations:\n•\nM.B. Mercantile Co. v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 201 (Cal).\n•\nCIT v. Surajpal Singh (1977) 108 ITR 746 (All).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 8827 of 1991-S, decision dated: 4-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " TL. VISWANATHA LYER AND MRS. K.K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair and G. Sivarajan for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "A.M. ZAINALABDEEN MUSALIAR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 83 = 1997 SLD 83 = (1995) 74 TAX 231 = 1997 PTD 706 = (1995) 213 ITR 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Diversion of Income by Overriding Title – Sub-partnership\nConclusion:\nIncome diverted by overriding title due to a sub-partnership agreement is not taxable in the original partner's hands. Once the sub-partnership is effective, the income attributable to the sub-partner is excluded from the original partner's income.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No.26 of 1979, decision dated: 7-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " K. S. PARIPOORNAN, C.J. AND A. K. GANGULY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramesh Kumar Agrawal for the Assessee. K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "Smt. SULOCHANA DEVI NATHANI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 84 = 1997 SLD 84 = (1995) 74 TAX 79 = 1997 PTD 710 = (1995) 213 ITR 384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Director’s Remuneration\nConclusion:\nRemuneration paid to a director, even if in violation of the Companies Act, 1956, is allowable as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act if it is for services rendered. The Income Tax Officer cannot disallow the payment solely on grounds of non-compliance with corporate regulations.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Ramakrishna Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd. (1974) 93 ITR 49 (Mad.).\n•\nCIT v. Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd. (1974) 93 ITR 122 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Fax Case No. 1319 of 1981 (Reference No.665 of 1981), decision dated: 22-08-1994", + "Judge Name:": " GULAB C. GUPTA AND THANKKACHALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NILGIRI FINANCE AND HIRE PURCHASE (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 85 = 1997 SLD 85 = (1995) 74 TAX 126 = 1997 PTD 712 = (1995) 213 ITR 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment – Law Applicable to Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe law applicable for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the one in force at the time the original return is filed for the relevant assessment year. Decisions are authoritative only for the issues they directly decide and not for interpretations deduced from them. The High Courts are bound by the Supreme Court's decision on the specific issue.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons (1992) 195 ITR 1 (SC) followed.\n•\nJain Bros. v. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC) distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No. 113 of 1980, decision dated: 11-11-1993", + "Judge Name:": " S. B. SINHA, S. N., JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. K.N. Jain, Senior Advocate, and Jagdish Kumar. Amicus curiae for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSmt. KAMLA DEVI RATHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 86 = 1997 SLD 86 = (1995) 74 TAX 32 = 1997 PTD 717 = (1995) 213 ITR 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Voluntary Disclosure and Assessment of Undisclosed Income\nConclusion:\nThe immunity under Section 8 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, applies only to the declarant. In this case, the partner of the firm made a voluntary disclosure as an individual, not on behalf of the firm. Therefore, the firm cannot claim immunity for the disclosed income, and the Income Tax Officer can examine the genuineness of the firm's accounts.\nCitations:\n•\nJamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 244 (SC) followed.\n•\nRadhe Shyam Tibrewal v. CIT (1984) 145 ITR 186 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.96 of 1983, decision dated: 9-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.B. Bhujle for the Assessee. G.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "LAHERCHAND DHANJI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 87 = 1997 SLD 87 = (1995) 74 TAX 101 = 1997 PTD 724 = (1995) 213 ITR 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Accrual of Income – Interest on Debentures After Nationalization\nConclusion:\nIncome accrues when it becomes due and payable. In this case, the right to receive interest on debentures ceased due to nationalization and the suspension of obligations under relevant notifications. As no debt equivalent to the interest was created during the accounting period, the interest did not accrue. Even under the mercantile system of accounting, notional income cannot be included if it is not real income.\nCitations:\n•\nCalcutta Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 120 (Cal.) followed.\n•\nE.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 125 of 1992, decision dated: 4-08-1993", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.C. Moitra and R.C. Prasad for the Commissioner. R.N. Dutt and P.K. Malik for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nEASTERN INVESTMENTS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 88 = 1997 SLD 88 = (1995) 74 TAX 147 = (1995) 213 ITR 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Classification – Business Income or Property Income\nConclusion:\nThe income derived from non-refundable deposits and compensation charged by the company for occupancy rights was classified as business income, not property income. Additionally, higher compensation charged by shareholders from third parties was not assessable in the company’s hands. Interest on non-refundable deposits collected for business activities was allowed as deductible expenditure under Section 37.\nAdditional Conclusions:\n•\nLosses from prior years were required to be carried forward and adjusted against subsequent income under Section 72.\n•\nThe Tribunal was justified in canceling additional tax imposed under Section 104.\nCitations:\n•\nShree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 694 (Bom.) applied.\n•\nCIT v. Fazalbhoy Investment Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1977) 109 ITR 802 (Bom.) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos 1 and 138 of 1982, decision dated: 27-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " V.A. MOHTA, I. G. SHAH AND S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner. Soli Dastur with S.J. Mehta and Mrs. Aarti Vissanji instructed by J.M. Munim for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSHREE NIRMAL COMMERCIAL LTD (and Vice Versa)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 89 = 1997 SLD 89 = 1997 PTD 747 = (1996) 75 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Tax at Source ��� Sale or Lease by Government or Local Authorities\nConclusion:\nUnder Section 50(7-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, advance tax deduction applies to the sale price of property sold by the Government, Local Councils, or Public Companies. The term sale of property includes leases for collecting taxes like octroi duties, tolls, and levies. The explanation added in 1984 clarified that leases for such purposes also fall under the provision.\nCitations:\n•\nEmphasis on Explanation to Section 50(7-A).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7A) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 15429 of 1996, decision dated: 4-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Elahi Malik for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4\nShahbaz Butt and Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent No. 3\nGhulam Rasool for Respondent No. 5", + "Party Name:": "BISMILLAH & Co\nVs\nSECRETARY, FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 90 = 1997 SLD 90 = 1997 PTD 757 = (1996) 218 ITR 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Contingency Reserve Funds\nConclusion:\nAmounts credited to a contingency reserve fund under statutory requirements (like the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948) are not deductible as business expenses. The reserve funds belong to the electricity company and are not diverted by overriding title. These amounts are set aside for potential liabilities and not for known, existing liabilities.\nCitations:\n•\nCochin State Power and Light Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 582 (Ker.) overruled.\n•\nVellore Electric Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 454 (Mad.) approved.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Cases Nos. 13 to 16 of 1981, decision dated: 28-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA, FAIZANUDDIN AND S.B. MAJUMDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajinder Sachar, Senior Advocate (Bimlesh Ghosh, A.K. Ghosh, Advocates with him) for Messrs Fox Mondal & Co. for Appellant. J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate S.N. Terdol, R. Satish Manoj Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ASSOCIATED POWER CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 91 = 1997 SLD 91 = 1997 PTD 750 = (1996) 218 ITR 164 = (1996) 75 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Accrual of Liability – Sales Tax Under Mercantile System\nConclusion:\nThe liability to pay sales tax under the mercantile accounting system accrues when the sales are made, not when the liability is quantified or adjudicated. Subsequent appeals on sales tax assessments do not affect the accrual of liability. Thus, sales tax liabilities must be claimed as deductions in the year of sales, not in the year of resolution of disputes.\nCitations:\n•\nKedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) applied.\n•\nKalinga Tubes Ltd. v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 374 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1396 of 1996, decision dated: 8-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Terdol and B. Parthasarthy, Advocates for Appellant. Ms. Indra Jaisingh, Senior Advocate (Ms. Vijay Lakshmi Melton, Advocate, with her) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nKALINGA TUBES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 92 = 1997 SLD 92 = (1995) 74 TAX 107 = 1997 PTD 770 = (1995) 213 ITR 378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Refund – Advance Tax Adjustments\nConclusion:\nAdvance tax, once adjusted towards assessed tax liability, is treated as payment for the relevant assessment year. If a refund arises due to appellate orders, the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244(1-A) on the refunded amount from the date of excess payment to the date of actual refund.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Leader Engineering Works (1989) 178 ITR 529 (P & H) followed.\n•\nKarim (K.A.) & Sons v. CIT (1990) 186 ITR 97 (Ker.) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 13436 of 1991-I, decision dated: 13-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. PATNAIK, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Markose Vellappally for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ASIAN TECHS LTD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 93 = 1997 SLD 93 = 1997 PTD 783", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeals – Comprehensive Orders and Additions\nConclusion:\nWhere the Income Tax Officer had passed a detailed and comprehensive order with adequate reasoning for additions, and the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide sufficient reasons for granting relief, the Tribunal was justified in vacating the appellate order and restoring the Income Tax Officer's decision.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 & 23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2045/0$, 2475/LB and 2454/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 14-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S. Bajwa, I.T.P. and Shahid Nasim, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2045/LB of 1987-88). M.S. Bajwa, I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 2475/LB and 2454/LB of 1987-88)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 94 = 1997 SLD 94 = 1997 PTD 786 = (1996) 75 TAX 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Definition of Banking Company – Interpretation of Statutes\nConclusion:\nThe definition of banking company in Section 2(10) of the Income Tax Ordinance, read with Section 5(b) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, is broad. A company conducting activities like accepting deposits for lending or investment may qualify as a banking company. Withdrawal modes, including methods beyond cheques and drafts, are considered relevant for such classification.\nKey Points:\n•\nDetermining whether a company is a banking company is fact-dependent.\n•\nOfficial recognition by agencies like the State Bank of Pakistan does not conclusively determine tax treatment.\n•\nFiscal statutes should not be stretched or narrowed unduly.\nCitations:\n•\nHaideri International Finance Limited v. The State Bank 1986 CLC 2197 referred.\n•\nAllah Din v. Habib PLD 1982 SC 465 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(10),24(l) Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=5(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4125/LB, 4126/LB, 4191/LB and 4190/LB of 1996, decision dated: 24-12-1996, hearing DATE : 4-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Hussain, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As..Nos. 4125/LB and 4126/LB of 1996)\nShahbaz Butt, L.A. and Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 4125/LB and 4126/LB of 1996)\nShahbaz Butt, L.A. and Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant (in I.I.As. Nos. 4191/LB and 4190/LB of 1996)\nSohail Hussain, F.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 4191/LB and 4190/LB of 1996)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 95 = 1997 SLD 95 = 1997 PTD 809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Accounts – Estimation of Sales\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer rejected accounts based on a perceived history of defects. A reduction in estimated sales by the First Appellate Authority was deemed reasonable and upheld by the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "As Nos. 4020, 4021, 5417 and 5418/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 7-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " SARDAR MUHAMMAD ANWAR A. KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Tahir Javed, I.T.P. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos, 4020/LB and ,.)21/LB of 1991-92). Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. J20/LB and 4021 / LB of 1991-92)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 96 = 1997 SLD 96 = 1997 PTD 811", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Accounts – Dealers of State-Owned Oil Companies\nConclusion:\n•\nSales unverifiability does not justify rejection of accounts when prices are fixed by the principal company unless black marketing is proven.\n•\nAdditions based on unverifiable sales are unsustainable in law without evidence of wrongdoing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1260/LB, 1857/LB of 1992-93 and 3499/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 12-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1260/LB)\nSartaj Yousuf, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 3499/LB and 1857/LB of 1992-93)\nA.R. Shami, I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 3499/LB and 1857/LB of 1992-93)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 97 = 1984 SLD 97 = 1984 PTD 143 = (1984) 49 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Service of Orders and Legal Procedures\nConclusions:\n(a) Service of appellate orders on the assessee's advocate does not suffice; service on the assessee is mandatory, and appeal limitation starts only from the date of service on the assessee.\n(b) Rules under the Income Tax Ordinance cannot override the main statute.\n(c) Power of attorney granted for civil proceedings has no relevance to income-tax proceedings.\n(d) Stock inquiries must be relevant to the assessment year and status of the assessee's business.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=31(8),31 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132(4),130,9,63,157 ", + "Case #": "I.T. A. No. 2954 of 1982-83, decision dated: 15-01-1984, hearing DATE : 15-11-1983", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Saeed Rana for Appellant. Imtiaz Anjum A. C., D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 98 = 1997 SLD 98 = 1997 PTD 814", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Non-Compliance with Notices\nConclusions:\n(a) The assessee failed to comply with notices under Sections 62 and 58, and the appellate authority's findings were clear and justified.\n(b) The assessee's claim of non-operation of business was unsubstantiated and contradicted by inquiry findings. The Tribunal upheld the addition.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,58 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2915/LB of 1995, decision dated: 5th December; 1995.hearing DATE : 21st November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " SHAFIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Maqsood Ahmed Qadri for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 99 = 1997 SLD 99 = 1997 PTD 816", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification and Additions\nConclusions:\n(a) Directions to allow initial depreciation by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were valid.\n(b) Disallowance of expenses was reasonable and did not warrant interference.\n(c) Additions aligned with the assessee’s historical records were upheld by the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 9302/LB/DB, 9303/LB/DB of 1991-92, 9306/LB/DB and 142/LB/DB of 1993-94, decision dated: 5-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " SARDAR MUHAMMAD ANWAR A. KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Hussain, I. T. P. for Appellant. Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 100 = 1997 SLD 100 = 1997 PTD 819 = (1996) 75 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal Dismissal Due to Lack of Record\nConclusion:\nRepeated failure by the Departmental Representative to produce relevant records led the Tribunal to reject the department's appeal, citing disinterest in pursuing the case.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11037 of 1995, decision dated: 30-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AQIL MIRZA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq for Petitioners. Shahbaz Ahmed Butt, Legal Advisor for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SANTE INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED and another\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 1 = 1996 SLD 1 = 1996 PTD 824", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Accounts – Doctor’s Case\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer’s rejection of accounts was unwarranted as there was no evidence that the doctor engaged in undisclosed business. The disclosed version of accounts was consistent with prior assessments and was accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1905/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 28-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sartaj yousuf, D.R for Appellant. Zaka-ud-Din Chaudhary for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 101 = 1997 SLD 101 = 1997 PTD 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gross Profit Rate Application\nConclusion:\nApplying the gross profit rate consistent with the assessee's historical record was justified as the assessee had not appealed against it previously.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) & 63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3756/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 12-12-1995.hearing DATE : 12-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant. Sartaj Tousif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 102 = 1997 SLD 102 = 1997 PTD 829", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Powers of I.A.C. to Revise Assessments\nConclusions:\n(a) Loss of revenue due to lawful compliance does not make an assessment erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.\n(b) Departures from historical assessments that are legally valid do not justify action under Section 66-A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 2732 and 3342/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 22-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghani Dad Khan for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2732/LB of 1991-92)\nSartaj Yousuf, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2732/LB of 1991-92)\nSartaj Yousuf, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 3342/LB of 1991-92)\nGhani Dad Khan for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 3342/LB of 1991-92)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 103 = 1997 SLD 103 = 1997 PTD 831", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)\nConclusion:\nThe DTAA between India and the UK prevails over domestic laws. Income from shipping operations of a UK-incorporated company was not taxable in India under Article 9 of the agreement. Circular No. 333 clarified that DTAA provisions override the Income Tax Act where applicable.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. R.M. Muthaiah (1993) 202 ITR 508 (Kar.) followed.\n•\nMcDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.719/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 6-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Riaz Hussain for Appellant. Sartai Yousuf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 104 = 1997 SLD 104 = 1997 PTD 833 = (1995) 212 ITR 31 = 1996 PTCL 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)\nConclusion:\nThe DTAA between India and the UK prevails over domestic laws. Income from shipping operations of a UK-incorporated company was not taxable in India under Article 9 of the agreement. Circular No. 333 clarified that DTAA provisions override the Income Tax Act where applicable.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. R.M. Muthaiah (1993) 202 ITR 508 (Kar.) followed.\n•\nMcDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 4628 of 1993, decision dated: 6-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " M. B. SHAH AND H. L. GOKHALE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Shelat for Petitioners. M.J. Thakore instructed by M.R. Bhatt of Messrs R.P. Bhatt & Co. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ARABIAN EXPRESS LINE LTD. OF UNITED KINGDOM and others\nVs\nUNION OIF INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 105 = 1997 SLD 105 = 1997 PTD 846 = (1995) 213 ITR 560 = (1996) 75 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure – Interest on Loan\nConclusion:\nInterest of ₹82,283 on borrowings for constructing a manufacturing unit at a separate location was held to be a capital expenditure, as the manufacturing business was independent of the assessee's trading business.\nCitations:\n•\nB.R. Limited v. Gupta (1978) 113 ITR 647 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 715 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 186 of 1982, decision dated: 19-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " SUSANTA CHATERJI AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.M. Talati for the Assessee. Mihir Thakore for Messrs M.R. Bhatt & Co. for Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RAINBOW DYESTUFF LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 106 = 1997 SLD 106 = 1997 PTD 849 = (1996) 75 TAX 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding Tax in Tribal Areas\nConclusion:\nWithholding tax deduction by banks in Tribal Areas was unconstitutional as the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, had not been extended to these areas under Article 247 of the Constitution. Banks were directed to reverse such deductions and credit the amounts to customers' accounts.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(2A)(2B) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=247,199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No 15 of 1995, decision dated: 17-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUR REHMAN KHAN AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Zaki-ud-Din for Petitioner. Eid Muhammad Khattak for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Samiullah Jan for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.", + "Party Name:": "GHILAF GUL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, ZONEB, PESHAWAR and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 107 = 1997 SLD 107 = 1997 PTD 851", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation for Reassessment – Remanded Cases\nConclusions:\n(a) Assessment framed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 66(1)(c) was time-barred, as the Tribunal’s remand order was duly conveyed to the Assessing Officer.\n(b) The limitation period started from the date the Assessing Authority was informed of the Tribunal’s remand order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 928/LB of 1995, decision dated: 13-12-1995.hearing DATE : 31st October, 1995.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Appellant. Sohail Muttee Babri, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 108 = 1999 SLD 108 = 1999 PTD 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmszTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Accounts – Sales Estimation\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer rejected declared sales without sufficient material to justify a higher estimation. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that adequate evidence is required to support estimations even after rejecting declared accounts, reducing the assessed sales based on reasonableness.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 70/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 4-10-1995, hearing DATE : 21st September, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MEHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Ahmed Ch., C. A. for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 109 = 1997 SLD 109 = 1997 PTD 855", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment – Benami Purchases\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer’s rejection of the assessee's claim regarding the sale of plots at cost was unwarranted as the transfer was verifiable and properly disclosed. The proceedings under Section 65 were deemed ab initio void, and no gain accrued to the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59(1),22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2595/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 17-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": " S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Appellant. Muhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 110 = 1997 SLD 110 = 1997 PTD 857 = (1995) 213 ITR 397 = (1996) 75 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Special Deduction – Computation of Capital for New Industrial Undertaking\nLegal Issue: Whether a proposed dividend on the first day of the computation period qualifies as a debt owed under Section 80-J for the purpose of computing capital employed in a new industrial undertaking.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that a mere recommendation by directors for a dividend does not constitute a debt owed unless it has been declared by the general body at the annual general meeting. Consequently, the amount of the proposed dividend is includible in the capital employed for computing the deduction under Section 80-J. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from this finding.\nKey Takeaway: Proposed dividends not yet declared on the computation date cannot be deducted from the aggregate value of the assets for determining capital employed.\nCitation:\nKesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT (1966) 59 ITR 767 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. Nos. 12684 and 12682 of 1993-S, decision dated: 5-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " T. L. VISWANATHA IYER AND MRS. K. K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. Joseph Markos and Joseph Kodianthra for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nTRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 111 = 1997 SLD 111 = 1997 PTD 859", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment – Additions and Construction Valuation\nLegal Issue: Legitimacy of reopening assessments after prior acceptance under self-assessment and simplified procedures, and the validity of additions based on construction valuation discrepancies.\nConclusions:\n(a) Reopening of Assessments:\nThe Revenue reopened assessments under Section 65 after initially accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding income sources. The court ruled this reopening invalid as it violated procedural norms and amounted to taking a detrimental U-turn without justification. Additions made under various provisions of Section 13 were deleted.\n(b) Construction Valuation Dispute:\nThe Revenue relied on the approved plan's covered area to dispute the declared construction valuation. However, the court held that an approved plan does not automatically confirm the extent or phase of actual construction. In the absence of concrete evidence, the declared valuation by the assessee should prevail.\nKey Takeaway: Reopening of assessments requires justifiable grounds, and construction valuation discrepancies must be substantiated by tangible evidence.\nCitations:\n•\n1993 PTD 766.\n•\nCentral Insurance Company v. C.B.R. (1993) 68 Tax 86.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,65,13(1)(aa),13(1)(d),13 ", + "Case #": "LT.As Nos 3783/LB to 3785/LB of 1995, decision dated: 14th December 1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S. Babar for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 112 = 1997 SLD 112 = 1997 PTD 864", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ex Parte Proceedings and Rejection of Declared Accounts\nLegal Issues:\n(a) Whether the Revenue’s presumption of defects in accounts due to the appellant’s absence in hearings was valid.\n(b) The legitimacy of rejecting the appellant’s declared version due to discrepancies in accounts.\nConclusions:\n(a) Ex Parte Proceedings:\nThe appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal despite being duly notified. The Tribunal presumed the Revenue's actions, including rejecting the declared version, to be justified.\n(b) Discrepancies in Accounts:\nThe Revenue pointed out significant defects and discrepancies in various account heads. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s decision, ruling that in the absence of rebuttal or justification from the appellant, the additions and adjustments made by the Revenue were valid.\nKey Takeaway: Failure to participate in proceedings or address discrepancies in accounts can lead to adverse presumptions against the appellant.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3),134 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=20(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 4161/LB and 4162/LB of 1991-92,. decided on 11-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 113 = 1997 SLD 113 = 1997 PTD 879 = (1996) 75 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Principles of Precedent and Mistake of Law in Tribunal Decisions\nLegal Issues:\n(a) Importance of consistency in legal decisions.\n(b) Remedy when conflicting views arise within the same judicial forum.\nConclusions:\n(a) Consistency in Precedent:\nThe court emphasized the need for uniformity in judicial decisions to avoid chaos and uncertainty in the administration of justice. A Division Bench's decision is binding on other Benches of equal strength.\n(b) Mistake of Law in Tribunal Decisions:\nThe Tribunal recalled its earlier order where conflicting views were taken by members, disregarding an earlier Division Bench decision. The Tribunal directed the case to be reheard by a Full Bench to ensure consistency.\nKey Takeaway: Conflicting interpretations within the same judicial forum should be resolved by referring the matter to a larger bench to maintain the integrity of judicial decisions.\nCitations:\n•\nMultiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee PLD 1995 SC 423.\n•\nMahadeolal Kanodla v. Administrator-General of West Bengal AIR 1960 SC 936.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 320/KB of 1991-92 and M.A. (RECT) No. 80/KB of 1995-96 decided on 7-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque and Arshad Siraj for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 114 = 1997 SLD 114 = 1997 PTD 889 = (1996) 218 ITR 438 = (1996) 75 TAX 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Cooperative Societies – Tax Exemption on Reserve Fund Investments\nLegal Issue: Whether interest earned on Government securities held as reserve funds qualifies for tax exemption under Section 81.\nConclusion:\nThe reserve fund held by the cooperative society was mandated by law to be invested in Government securities and could not be utilized as working capital. The court held that such investments do not form part of the working or circulating capital of the banking business, and hence, interest earned from these investments is taxable.\nKey Takeaway: Reserve fund investments held under statutory obligations are not considered part of working capital for tax exemption purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nM.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1979) 19 ITR 327.\n•\nAssam Cooperative Apex Marketing Society v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 338 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1116(NT) of 1979, 1196(NT) OF 1992, 2211 and 2212 of 1996, decision dated: 19-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. AHMADI, C.J. AND B.L. HANSARIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish N. Slave and A. K. Chitale, Senior Advocates (D. M. Mishra, Advocate for Messrs J. B. D. & Co. with them) for Appellants. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Manoj Arora and S. N.Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MADHYA PRADESH COOPERATIVE BANK LTD\nVs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nMADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHKARI BANK MARYADIT\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 115 = 1997 SLD 115 = 1997 PTD 898", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Accounts and Gross Profit (G.P.) Rate Application\nLegal Issue: Whether the Revenue’s application of an enhanced G.P. rate without considering the nature of the business was justified.\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer applied an inflated G.P. rate to determine the assessee’s income without taking into account the nature of the business. The Appellate Tribunal found the enhanced rate arbitrary and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer with instructions to determine a G.P. rate consistent with the business's specific characteristics.\nKey Takeaway: Gross Profit rates must be applied with due consideration of the nature and circumstances of the business to avoid arbitrary assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2535/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 26-11-1995, hearing DATE : 23rd October, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ali Bhatti for Appellant. Javed Rehman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 116 = 1997 SLD 116 = 1997 PTD 900", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment – Special National Fund Bonds and Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) Guidelines\nLegal Issue: Whether reassessment initiated without the approval of the C.B.R., contrary to its Circular No. 3 of 1979, is valid.\nConclusion:\nThe assessee produced Special National Fund Bonds to avail coverage provided under the C.B.R.'s instructions regarding concealed money. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment against the explicit instructions of the C.B.R. The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment without the mandatory approval of the C.B.R. was invalid, rendering the reassessment unsustainable.\nKey Takeaway: Reassessment initiated in contravention of binding guidelines or circulars issued by the C.B.R. lacks validity and is not maintainable.\nCitations:\n•\n(1984) PTD (Trib.) 70.\n•\nI.T.A. No. 1460/LB of 1982-83.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,8 ", + "Case #": "I.T.Os. Nos. 457 and 458/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 2-05-1996, hearing DATE : 25-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam, D.R. for Appellant. Saghir Tirmmy for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 117 = 1997 SLD 117 = 1997 PTD 902 = (1996) 75 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Powers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I.A.C.) under Section 66-A\nLegal Issue: Whether an I.A.C. can invoke Section 66-A to revise an Income Tax Officer's (I.T.O.) order in the absence of substantive evidence of error or prejudice to revenue.\nConclusions:\n(a) Material Evidence:\nThe I.A.C. lacked material evidence to substantiate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Thus, the revision order was deemed unsustainable.\n(b) Disagreement Among Officers:\nA mere difference of opinion between officers regarding the quality of an assessment does not justify invoking Section 66-A.\n(c) Quality of Assessment:\nPoor quality of an assessment order, without fulfilling the twin conditions of error and prejudice to revenue, cannot trigger Section 66-A.\n(d) Discretionary Substitution:\nThe I.A.C. is not authorized to substitute the I.T.O.'s conclusions with their discretion without concrete evidence of error.\nKey Takeaway: Revision under Section 66-A requires clear evidence of both error and prejudice to revenue; mere dissatisfaction with the quality of the assessment is insufficient.\nCitations:\n•\nMrs. Zaibunnisa v. CIT 1982 PTD 36.\n•\nM/s. United Builders Corporation v. CIT 1984 PTD 137.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 122/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 19-12-1996, hearing DATE : 17-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Sherazi and Javed Ahmad Siddiqui for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 118 = 1997 SLD 118 = 1997 PTD 911 = (1996) 75 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6Q1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Service of Notice – Mandatory Compliance under Income Tax Ordinance and Civil Procedure Code\nLegal Issue: Whether service of notice by affixation without examining the process-server on oath satisfies legal requirements.\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer completed an ex parte assessment based on service of notice by affixation at the business premises, without examining the process-server on oath as required under Section 154 of the Income Tax Ordinance and Order V, Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Tribunal held that the mandatory requirements were not satisfied, and the assessment was set aside.\nKey Takeaway: Proper procedural compliance, including examination of the process-server, is mandatory for valid service of notice and subsequent assessments.\nCitation:\nMst. Azizan v. Mehr Din 1993 CLC 1187.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=154 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.V,R.19 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2210/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 24-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Mehtab Khan for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 119 = 1997 SLD 119 = 1997 PTD 913", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of Accounts and Gross Profit (G.P.) Rate Application\nLegal Issue: Whether the I.T.O. was justified in rejecting declared sales and applying an enhanced G.P. rate based on trading account history.\nConclusion:\nThe I.T.O. rejected the declared trading accounts and applied an arbitrary 12.25% G.P. rate based on past trading history, despite the purchases and sales being fully vouched and verifiable. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no defects in the accounts and rejected the I.T.O.'s findings. The Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's decision, ruling that each assessment year must be treated as independent, and the declared G.P. rate was reasonable.\nKey Takeaway: History of trading accounts cannot override verified and substantiated trading data for an independent assessment year.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "As. Nos. 9424, 9425 of 1977 and 9978/LB/DB of 1991-92, decision dated: 23 July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yousaf Sheikh, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 120 = 1997 SLD 120 = 1997 PTD 917", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Change of Opinion and Arbitrary G.P. Rate Application\nLegal Issues:\n(a) Whether the Assessing Officer can change their opinion during reassessment.\n(b) Whether rejection of declared sales and application of an arbitrary G.P. rate is justified.\nConclusions:\n(a) Change of Opinion:\nThe Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's change of opinion during reassessment to apply an inflated 30% G.P. rate was unjustified and violated legal principles.\n(b) Declared Sales:\nThe rejection of declared sales based on irrelevant considerations, despite being substantiated through registered sale deeds, was invalid. The Tribunal directed that declared results be accepted and liability calculated accordingly.\nKey Takeaway: Assessing Officers are not permitted to reopen or alter settled matters arbitrarily or without cogent reasoning.\nCitations:\n•\n(1938) 6 ITR 265.\n•\nM/s. Bhandaras (Pvt.) Ltd. (1993) 68 Tax 41 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2823/LB, 46996/LB, 2824/LB of 1991-92 and 4697/LB of 1995 decided on 6th June 1995, hearing DATE : 13-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas, F.C.A. for Appellant. Shahhaz Butt, L.A. and Naseer Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 121 = 1997 SLD 121 = 1997 PTD 944 = (1996) 222 ITR 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Agency and Unclaimed Balances\nLegal Issue: Whether surplus receipts from unclaimed balances are taxable as income.\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, acting as an agent for collieries and coal purchasers, claimed under-charges from collieries and paid purchasers as claimed. Surplus amounts were credited to the profit and loss account and assessed as income in prior years. For the assessment year 1953-54, the assessee argued the surplus was not income.\nThe Supreme Court held:\n1.\nSurplus Receipts as Trading Income: The amounts collected were trading receipts since they arose from the assessee's business operations. The surplus, consistently shown in profit and loss accounts, indicated no trust or existing liability to repay.\n2.\nNo Trust Relationship: The amounts received were not held in trust for purchasers, as evidenced by the assessee’s treatment of the funds as its own.\n3.\nAssessment Validity: The surplus amounts were taxable as business profits for the relevant assessment years.\nKey Takeaway: Surplus receipts arising in the course of business, without an existing liability or trust relationship, constitute taxable income.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Ltd. (1979) 117 ITR 621 reversed.\n•\nMorley (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) v. Tattersall (1939) 7 ITR 316 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4551 to 4558 of 1990, decision dated: 14-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (B.S. Ahuja and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (K.V. Vishwanathan and Darshan Singh, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nKARAM CHAND THAPAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 515 = 1997 SLD 515 = 1997 PTD 977 = (1996) 221 ITR 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation and Unabsorbed Depreciation for Foreign Shipping Companies\nLegal Issue: Applicability of Central Board of Revenue instructions for depreciation of foreign ships operating in India.\nConclusion:\nThe Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) instructions under Rule 33 of the Indian Income Tax Rules, 1922, provided specific guidelines for calculating depreciation for foreign shipping companies engaged in Indian trade.\nThe Supreme Court held:\n1.\nDepreciation Denied for Old Ships: Ships older than 20 years were not entitled to depreciation as per C.B.R. instructions.\n2.\nUnabsorbed Depreciation Limited: Unabsorbed depreciation for ships that did not operate in Indian waters during the relevant accounting year could not be set off.\n3.\nInstructions Consistent with Law: The C.B.R. instructions were consistent with the Income Tax Act, 1922, and served as a practical guide for assessing officers.\nKey Takeaway: Depreciation and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation for foreign shipping companies are subject to specific conditions outlined in C.B.R. instructions, which align with statutory provisions.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. With. Wilhelmsen (1978) 115 ITR 10 affirmed.\n•\nEllerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi),8,33 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1206 of 1978, decision dated: 9-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manoj Arora, Ms. Shipra Ghose Jain, Manoj Pillai, Rahul P. Dave and D.N. Gupta, Advocates for Appellant. Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. A. Subhashini, S. Rajappa and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "WILH. WILHELMSEN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 123 = 1997 SLD 123 = 1997 PTD 989 = (1996) 222 ITR 989", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains – Cost of Acquisition of Bonus Shares\nLegal Issue: Computation of capital gains when original shares were acquired after January 1, 1954, and bonus shares were subsequently issued.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court clarified the cost of acquisition for original and bonus shares in computing capital gains.\n1.\nImpact of Bonus Shares: Issuance of bonus shares reduces the value of original shares. The cost of acquisition must be spread and averaged across the original and bonus shares.\n2.\nNo Dichotomy for Dealers vs. Investors: The same principle applies to dealers and investors in shares, as both deal with the surplus as either profits or capital gains.\n3.\nAveraging Mandatory: Even where statutory cost provisions apply, averaging of cost across original and bonus shares is required unless explicitly provided otherwise.\nKey Takeaway: Bonus shares alter the cost basis of original shares, requiring an averaging approach for accurate computation of capital gains.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (1964) 52 ITR 567 (SC) applied.\n•\nSutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 666 (Cal.) overruled.\n•\nShekhawati General Traders Ltd. v. ITO (1971) 82 ITR 788 (SC) distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1124 and 1125 of 1987, decision dated: 26-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Dr. v. Gaurishankar, Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocates (Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, S. Rajappa, C. Ramesh, Parmeswaran, M.S. Syali, M.N. Shroff and Ms. Reema Bhandari, Advocates, with them) for the Appearing Parties", + "Party Name:": "ESCORTS FARMS (RAMGARH) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 124 = 1997 SLD 124 = (1995) 74 TAX 168 = 1997 PTD 1002 = (1995) 213 ITR 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Offences and Prosecution – False Verification and Tax Evasion\nLegal Issue: Whether findings of fact by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can influence or quash criminal prosecution under sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court examined whether findings of the Tribunal in penalty proceedings can influence or quash criminal prosecution under tax laws:\n1.\nFindings of Tribunal Are Binding on Criminal Courts:\no\nThe Tribunal, as a fact-finding authority, held that discrepancies in the returns were due to a bona fide mistake by the accountant, who had passed away. The Tribunal accepted the explanation and quashed penalty proceedings.\no\nCriminal courts must accept factual findings of the Tribunal in such matters unless contradicted by independent criminal procedure.\n2.\nProsecution Quashed:\no\nSince the Tribunal found no intentional concealment of income, the prosecution under sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act lacked merit and was liable to be quashed.\nKey Takeaway:\nCriminal prosecution for tax evasion cannot be sustained if the Tribunal has conclusively ruled that discrepancies in returns were unintentional or bona fide.\nCitations:\n•\nPatnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 365 (SC) applied.\n•\nOther references include Bajaj (R.N.) v. K. Govindan, ITO (1992) 198 ITR 447 (Mad.) and Uttam Chand v. ITO (1982) 133 ITR 909 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Original Petitions Nos. 4162 to 4182 of 1991, decision dated: 1-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " RANGASAMY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Mani for Petitioners. Ramaswami, K., Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD I. UNJAWALA and others\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 125 = 1997 SLD 125 = 1997 PTD 1016 = (1996) 222 ITR 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Compliance by Political Parties and Election Expenditures\nLegal Issue: Statutory obligations of political parties to file returns, disclose expenditures, and the consequences of default under the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\nThe Court discussed the obligations of political parties under tax law and election laws:\n1.\nStatutory Obligations to File Returns:\no\nSection 13-A of the Income Tax Act mandates political parties to file income tax returns annually, failing which penalties under section 276-CC apply.\no\nMany political parties had failed to file returns, violating statutory provisions.\n2.\nEnforcement Failures:\no\nThe income tax authorities were criticized for failing to enforce compliance and penalize defaulter political parties.\no\nDirected the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, to investigate and enforce compliance.\n3.\nElection Expenditures:\no\nExpenditures by political parties on behalf of candidates are presumed to be authorized by candidates unless rebutted.\no\nPolitical parties are obligated to submit detailed accounts of such expenditures to the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution.\n4.\nMandatory Audited Accounts:\no\nMaintenance of audited accounts by political parties is mandatory and essential for ensuring transparency in election funding.\n5.\nDirections Issued:\no\nPolitical parties must comply with tax and election laws.\no\nThe Election Commission may demand scrutiny of election-related expenses by political parties.\nKey Takeaway:\nPolitical parties must comply with tax obligations and maintain transparency in election funding. Non-compliance is subject to penalties under the Income Tax Act and oversight by the Election Commission.\nCitations:\n•\nKesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.\n•\nMohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851.\n•\nD.P. Gupta and Kapil Sibal, among others, appeared for the parties.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition (Civil) No. 24 of 1995, decision dated: 4-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " KULDIP SINGH AND FAIZANUDDIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.D. Shourie for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 126 = 1997 SLD 126 = 1997 PTD 1056 = (1995) 213 ITR 296 = (1995) 74 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Exemption for Educational Trusts\nLegal Issue: Whether a trust operating solely for educational purposes is entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision granting exemption under Section 10(22) for a trust that existed solely for educational purposes during the relevant accounting year.\n1.\nPurpose and Utilization: The trust ran two educational institutions and used its surplus exclusively for educational purposes. It had not engaged in any profit-making activities, despite broad object clauses in its deed.\n2.\nKey Principle: Section 10(22) provides tax exemption to institutions existing solely for educational purposes during the relevant period.\n3.\nNo Distribution of Profits: The surplus income was reinvested into the educational institutions, without any profit distribution.\nKey Takeaway: A trust engaged solely in education, even with broad object clauses, can claim exemption if it does not pursue profit-making activities.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC).\n•\nMunicipal Corporation of Delhi v. Children Book Trust (1992) AIR SC 1456.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 142 of 1993-S, decision dated: 4-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " T. L. VISWANATHA IYER AND MRS. K.K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. V. Ramachandran and B.S. Krishnan and P.R. Raman for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGEETHA BHAVAN TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 127 = 1997 SLD 127 = 1997 PTD 1059 = (1996) 222 ITR 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains and Bonus Shares – Reference by High Court\nLegal Issue: Computation of capital gains where bonus shares are involved and rejection of reference by High Court without reasons.\nConclusion:\n1.\nCapital Gains on Bonus Shares: The Tribunal’s findings regarding computation of capital gains on the sale of bonus shares raised questions of law.\n2.\nHigh Court’s Duty: The High Court’s rejection of the reference application without addressing the Tribunal’s findings or giving reasons was unjustified.\n3.\nDirections: The Supreme Court directed the High Court to provide reasons and reconsider the application for reference.\nKey Takeaway: When questions of law arise from Tribunal findings, the High Court must substantiate its rejection of reference applications.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.3180, 3358, 4635, 4238, 4636 of 1992, 1664, 1665 of 1994, 12531 and 12533 (S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 15006 to 15008 of 1992) of 1996, decision dated: 26-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, Advocate, with him) for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 3180 of 1992). Dr. -R.R. Mishra Senior Advocate (C. Ramesh, P.Parmeswaran, M.S. Syali, M.N. Shroff and MS. Reema Bhandari, Advocate with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSAKARLAL BALABHAI & CO. LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 128 = 1997 SLD 128 = 1997 PTD 1062 = (1996) 222 ITR 438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Pre-emptive Purchase of Immovable Property by Central Government\nLegal Issue: Interpretation of free from all encumbrances under Section 269-UE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its interaction with rent control laws.\nConclusion:\n1.\nPre-emptive Purchase and Encumbrances: When an agreement specifies the property will be sold free of encumbrances, the government’s pre-emptive purchase also results in the property vesting free of such encumbrances.\n2.\nCompensation to Tenants: Tenants or holders of leasehold interests must obtain compensation from the purchase price awarded to the seller.\n3.\nRent Control Legislation: The Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine whether the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act applies to properties owned by the Central Government.\nKey Takeaway: Pre-emptive purchase vests property in the Central Government free of encumbrances unless statutory tenant rights under rent control laws are established.\nCitations:\n•\nC.B. Gautam v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 1995, decision dated: 25-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " KULDIP SINGH AND K. T. THOMAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jaydeep Gupta, Ujjwal Banerjee, Rajesh Srivastava and H.K. Puri, Advocates for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ADAIR DUTT & CO. INDIA (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 855 = 1995 SLD 855 = (1995) 72 TAX 184 = 1995 PTD 81 = (1994) 205 ITR 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Unexplained Money and Wealth Tax Returns – Section 69A\nLegal Issue: Whether the assets discovered during a search represented unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\n1.\nUnexplained Assets: The assessee failed to prove the legitimacy of assets totaling Rs. 1,82,530 discovered during a search.\n2.\nDiscrepancies in Returns: Alleged wealth tax returns purportedly showing the assets were deemed fabricated, as they bore no evidence of being filed prior to the search.\n3.\nBurden of Proof: The assessee’s explanation regarding ancestral gifts from deceased relatives was unsupported by evidence, and the assets were considered undisclosed income.\nKey Takeaway: The burden lies on the assessee to substantiate claims of disclosed assets. Fabricated records or delayed explanations cannot override clear evidence of concealment.\nCitations:\n•\nWealth-tax returns and Section 69A enforcement.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 18 OF 1978, JULY 23, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA AND K.M. YUSUF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.N. Bajoria for the Applicant. H.M. Dhar and Sunit Mukherjee for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mihir Chatterjee\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 856 = 1995 SLD 856 = (1995) 72 TAX 193 = 1996 PTD 50 = (1994) 205 ITR 353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Income – Applicability of Section 28(iv) to Interest-Free Withdrawals\nLegal Issue: Whether interest-free withdrawals by a partner of a firm can be treated as taxable business income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held that Section 28(iv), which applies to the value of any benefit or perquisite other than cash arising from business, could not be applied to interest-free withdrawals.\n1.\nTribunal’s View in the Firm’s Case: The Tribunal noted that non-interest-bearing funds available to the firm exceeded the advances made to partners. Hence, there was no basis to disallow interest or tax the partner's withdrawals.\n2.\nNature of Section 28(iv): The benefit under Section 28(iv) must be non-monetary. Since the withdrawals involved cash, the provision was not applicable.\n3.\nConsistency Across Decisions: The Tribunal’s reliance on unrelated disallowance of interest contradicted its own findings in the firm’s case.\nKey Takeaway: Cash benefits or perquisites do not fall under the ambit of Section 28(iv), and consistency in Tribunal findings across related cases is crucial.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Alchemic (P.) Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 168 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NOS. 298 AND 299 OF 1982, MARCH 22, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA AND VIJENDER, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anoop Sharma and Deepak Chopra for the Applicant. Rajendra and R.C. Pandey for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Ravinder Singh\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 130 = 1997 SLD 130 = 1997 PTD 1093", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Purchase of Property – Validity of Additions Based on Comparative Analysis\nLegal Issue: Whether additions based on comparison of property prices without sufficient evidence are sustainable.\nConclusion:\nAdditions made under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, based on improper comparisons, were deemed invalid.\n1.\nUnfair Comparisons: Properties on narrow lanes cannot be compared with properties on main roads without accounting for location differences.\n2.\nRequirement of Evidence: Incontrovertible evidence is necessary to reject declared purchase prices, even if provincial authorities have fixed market rates.\n3.\nConsequences for Penalties: Penalties under Section 111 were also deleted since the primary addition lacked merit.\nKey Takeaway: Valid comparisons and incontrovertible evidence are prerequisites for rejecting declared property values and imposing penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1162/LB and 1396/LB of 1987-88, I.T.A. No. 140/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 10-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shuja Khan for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf Khan, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 131 = 1997 SLD 131 = 1997 PTD 1095", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Property Purchase and Household Expenses – Additions and Estimations\nLegal Issue: Validity of additions based on market assumptions and routine observations.\nConclusion:\n1.\nProperty Purchase: Additions based on market price assumptions, ignoring evidence of a prior agreement on consideration, were invalid.\n2.\nHousehold Expenses: Estimates of household expenses without specific evidence were deemed unsustainable.\nKey Takeaway: Additions must be supported by clear evidence rather than routine observations or assumptions about market practices.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),13(1)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Os. Nos. 3607/LB of 1986-87, 3608/LB of 1989-90, 3609/LB of 1990-91 and 3610/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 29-01-1996.hearing DATE : 29-01-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MALIK MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Iqbal and Fazal Mahmood, F.C.A. for Appellant. Zafar Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 132 = 1997 SLD 132 = 1997 PTD 1097", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Re-opening of Assessments – Suspicion vs. Definite Information\nLegal Issue: Whether re-opening finalized proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, based on suspicion is valid.\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held that re-opening finalized assessments requires definite information, not mere suspicion or doubt.\n1.\nFinalized vs. Pending Proceedings: Re-opening finalized proceedings demands concrete evidence of concealment, unlike pending assessments, where suspicion suffices.\n2.\nLack of Definite Information: The assessing officer's doubt that the asset was acquired at a price higher than declared did not constitute sufficient grounds for re-opening.\n3.\nCancellation of Reassessment: The original assessment under Section 62 was restored.\nKey Takeaway: Definite information is mandatory for re-opening finalized assessments, and mere suspicion is insufficient.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.O. v. M/s. Chappal Builders (1993 SCMR 1108).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1452(IB) 1453(IB),1454(IB) of 1995-96, 617(IB), 618(IB) and 619(113) of 1992-93, decision dated: 2-11-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Riaz, D.R. for the I.T.O. Sohail Babri, I.T.P. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 133 = 1997 SLD 133 = 1997 PTD 1102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Re-opening After Appeal Effects and Deemed Income Additions\nLegal Issue: Legality of re-opening assessments after giving appeal effects and adding deemed income without notice.\nConclusion:\n1.\nPost-Appeal Re-opening: Re-opening after appeal effects rendered the department's appeal infructuous. Fresh assessments must consider appellate findings.\n2.\nDeemed Income and Notice: Additions based on deemed income without providing reasonable opportunity or issuing notice were held illegal.\nKey Takeaway: Additions made without confronting the assessee or providing notice are unsustainable and violate principles of natural justice.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13(1)(d),13(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos.2912/LB of 1991-1992 and 916/LB of 1993, decision dated: 15-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD AKBAR A. KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 2912/LB of 1991-92)\nShehid Abbas for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 2912/LB of 1991-92)\nShehid Abbas for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 916/LB of 1993)\nMuhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 916/LB of 1993)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 134 = 1997 SLD 134 = 1997 PTD 1104 = (1996) 76 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitutional Petition and Alternate Remedy\nLegal Issue: Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an alternate statutory remedy is already availed.\nConclusion:\n1.\nAlternate Remedy Utilized: The assessee, a State Cement Corporation, filed a constitutional petition challenging the CIT(A)’s order treating the Cement Development Fund as income, while simultaneously filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n2.\nHigh Court's Decision: The constitutional petition was dismissed as it was not maintainable since the statutory remedy through an appeal had already been availed.\nKey Takeaway: A constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the statutory appellate process is in progress.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12443 of 1994, decision dated: 26-06-1995, hearing DATE : 26-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butt for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN PRIVATE LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 135 = 1997 SLD 135 = 1997 PTD 1111 = 1998 PTCL 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Profit and Loss Account – Additions for Employee Benefits\nLegal Issue: Validity of disallowing expenses for labor benefits.\nConclusion:\n1.\nExpenses Disallowed: Assessing Officer disallowed expenses for free Atta for labor, entertainment, water supply, and truck repairs.\n2.\nTribunal’s Directive: The Tribunal remanded the issue of free Atta for labor to the Assessing Officer for re-determination, while other disallowances were upheld.\nKey Takeaway: Specific employee benefits must be substantiated to avoid disallowance under profit and loss scrutiny.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(i)(xviii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No384/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 3rd December, 1995, hearing DATE : 30-11-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sarfraz, F.C.A. for Appellant. Sartaj Yousaf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 136 = 1997 SLD 136 = 1997 PTD 1113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdiction and Remand for Grounds of Appeal\nLegal Issues:\n1.\nJurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.\n2.\nRemand for failure to consider grounds of appeal.\nConclusion:\n3.\nJurisdiction: The assessee’s objection to jurisdiction was dismissed as they had voluntarily filed their return at the location where they worked.\n4.\nRemand: The Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, directing attention to grounds raised by the assessee.\nKey Takeaway: Objections to jurisdiction must be raised promptly and be grounded in law. Appeals should address all relevant grounds.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,135(4)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1583/LB of 1995, decision dated: 7-11-1995, hearing DATE : 7-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Munir Hussain for Appellant. Mrs. Sameera Yasin, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 137 = 1997 SLD 137 = 1997 PTD 1115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Concealment and Additions Based on Property Valuation\nLegal Issue: Validity of additions for alleged concealment in property transactions.\nConclusion:\n1.\nAssessed Value: The Assessing Officer alleged concealment based on differences in market value and transaction value.\n2.\nTribunal’s Decision: The Tribunal reduced additions under Section 13(1)(b), as the property value was properly reflected based on allotment price converted into shares. However, unverifiable add-backs in the profit and loss account were maintained.\nKey Takeaway: Valuation differences must be substantiated with evidence of concealment to sustain additions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2199/LB bf 1995, decision dated: 18-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Saeed, C. A. for Appellant. Muhammad Mubeen Malik, D.R.for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 138 = 1997 SLD 138 = 1997 PTD 1120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Receipts for Vacation of Premises and Turnover Tax\nLegal Issue: Applicability of Section 66-A to impose turnover tax on travel agents.\nConclusion:\n1.\nVacation Receipts: I.A.C.’s invocation of Section 66-A was unnecessary for taxing receipts for vacating premises.\n2.\nTurnover Tax: The Tribunal clarified that turnover for a travel agent includes only commissions, not the total receipts collected on behalf of principals.\nKey Takeaway: Turnover tax for travel agents applies to their commission earnings, not gross receipts.\nCitation:\n•\n1994 PTD (Trib.) 758.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,12(16),80D,13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.6250/LB of 1995, decision dated: 15-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MALIK MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawar Mir in person. Zafar Ahmad, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 139 = 1997 SLD 139 = 1997 PTD 1124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Gross Profit Rate and Rejection of Sales Estimates\nLegal Issue: Validity of estimating sales and gross profit rate based on unverifiability and history.\nConclusion:\n1.\nRejection of Sales: The Assessing Officer rejected declared sales based on non-maintenance of a stock register and low gross profit rate.\n2.\nTribunal’s Directive: The Tribunal upheld reduced gross profit rates due to excessive application by the Assessing Officer but directed further review for accuracy.\nKey Takeaway: Sales estimates and gross profit rates must consider business history and objective facts.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5480/LB, 5481/LB, 4434/LB and 4435/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 14-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Ali Sheikh, D.R. for Appellant. Shams-ud-Din Qadri for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 140 = 1997 SLD 140 = 1997 PTCL 1 = 1997 PTD 1127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Adjustments\nLegal Issue: Whether a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme qualifies for adjustments based on disclosed perquisites.\nConclusion:\nThe assessee’s return was ineligible for the Self-Assessment Scheme as perquisites were disclosed for directorship in multiple companies, requiring adjustments under Section 59(3).\nKey Takeaway: Disclosure of certain benefits can disqualify eligibility under the Self-Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,59(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.505/LB, 9619/LB of 1993 and 5637/LB of 1995, decision dated: 30-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MEHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahas, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 141 = 1997 SLD 141 = 1997 PTD 1133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessment and Definite Information\nLegal Issue: Legality of initiating additional assessment without notice and definite information.\nConclusion:\n1.\nNotice Not Required: Prior notice is unnecessary for initiating Section 65 proceedings.\n2.\nDefinite Information: Additional assessment was invalid where definite information was absent, particularly when unrelated income sources were scrutinized.\nKey Takeaway: Additional assessments require specific and definite information; general suspicion is insufficient.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,50(1),59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.6135/IB of 1995, decision dated: 23rd January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, F.C.A. for Appellant. Malik Mubeen, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 142 = 1997 SLD 142 = 1997 PTD 1138 = (1996) 76 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Retrospective Taxation on Contractors\nLegal Issue: Validity of applying enhanced tax rates retrospectively under the First Schedule.\nConclusion:\n1.\nRetrospectivity: Tax liability arises on receipt of payment, not on the date of contract execution.\n2.\nEnhanced Rates: Tax on contractors applies to payments received post-amendment, not prior contracts.\n3.\nJudicial Interpretation: Retrospective application requires explicit statutory language and cannot burden vested rights.\nKey Takeaway: Taxable events are tied to payment receipts, not contract execution, ensuring fairness in retrospective amendments.\nCitation:\n•\nAltaf Construction Company v. CBR, 1996 PTD 804.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,FirstSched,80C(2),80C & FirstSchedparaCCC ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5501 of 1996, decision dated: 3rd October, 1996, hearing DATE : 25-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butt and Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SARWAR & CO. (PVT.) LTD. Through Muhammad Sarwar Bhatti, Chief Executive\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD through Chairman and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 143 = 1997 SLD 143 = 1997 PTD 1143 = (1996) 75 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of Statutes\nTopic: Principles of Statutory Interpretation\nLegal Principle:\n•\nA provision of law must be interpreted in the context of the entire statutory scheme, reflecting the legislative intent and the spirit of the law.\n•\nInterpretation is particularly critical in fiscal statutes, where provisions must be understood within the framework of the broader legislative scheme.\nKey Takeaway: The holistic examination of statutory provisions ensures consistency and adherence to legislative intent.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,80C & 2(6),50(8)(b) & S.50(9)(b),80C(1)(2),(3)and(4),9,50(5),80C(5) & 13,55,56,65 ", + "Case #": "T.A. No. 1960/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 1st January, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Appellant. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 144 = 1997 SLD 144 = 1997 PTD 1184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Deemed Income – Gifted Amounts and Disallowed Additions\nTopic: Source of Investment and Deemed Income under Section 13(1)(aa)\nLegal Principle:\n•\nIf an assessee claims an investment as a gift from a donor and the donor acknowledges the gift and provides an explanation of its source, the liability to account for the amount shifts to the donor.\n•\nDisallowing the assessee's claim based on unrelated issues is unjustified.\nKey Takeaway: The onus lies on the donor once they admit to the gift and explain its source; the assessee cannot be penalized for discrepancies in the donor's account.\nCase References:\n•\n1990 PTD (Trib.) 774\n•\nDhan Rajmal & Sons v. C.I.T., 1985 PTD 433", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),146 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2135 /LB of 1996, decision dated: 29-01-1997, hearing DATE : 19-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ajmal Khan for Appellant. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 145 = 1996 SLD 145 = 1996 PTD 1196 = (1995) 213 ITR 299 = (1995) 74 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Stay of Recovery Proceedings\nTopic: Penalty and Judicial Principles for Granting Stay\nLegal Principle:\n•\nTribunals possess implied powers to stay recovery proceedings during the pendency of appeals but must exercise this judiciously based on established principles.\n•\nRejection of a stay application requires clear reasons grounded in judicial norms.\nKey Takeaway: Vague or insufficient reasons for rejecting stay applications undermine judicial standards and invite High Court intervention.\n(b) Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction\nTopic: Judicial Directions by the High Court\nLegal Principle:\n•\nThe High Court generally avoids interference in ongoing judicial proceedings but may intervene when judicial authorities act against established canons, causing potential injustice.\nKey Takeaway: High Courts ensure adherence to judicial standards to prevent miscarriage of justice.\nCase Reference:\n•\nI.T.O. v. M.K. Muhammad Kunhi (1969) 71 ITR 815 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1103 of 1994, decision dated: 5-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " K.L. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.D. Sriwastava for Petitioner. Ashok Kumar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SHIV SHAKTI RUBBER AND CHEMICALS WORKS\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 146 = 1997 SLD 146 = 1997 PTD 1201 = (1996) 222 ITR 583", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Real Income and Its Applicability\nTopic: Real Income in Mercantile Accounting\nLegal Principles:\n1.\nIncome must be judged based on its real accrual or receipt.\n2.\nThe concept of real income cannot override statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act.\n3.\nIncome waived after the end of the accounting year, without commercial justification, is assessable.\nKey Takeaway: Waiver of income must be supported by valid commercial considerations; otherwise, it is taxable.\n________________________________________\n(b) Case of Loan Interest Waiver\nTopic: Assessment of Accrued Interest\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee waived interest on a loan given to a firm where shareholders/directors had a stake.\n•\nWaivers for three years occurred after the accounting years ended.\nHeld:\n•\nFor three assessment years, the interest was taxable due to lack of commercial justification.\n•\nFor the fourth year, the waiver before the accounting year's end was accepted as valid.\nKey Takeaway: Mercantile system taxpayers must show bona fide commercial reasons for income waivers to avoid tax liability.\nCase References:\n•\nMorvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC)\n•\nShiv Parkash Janakraj & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 872 (reversed).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=256(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1906 to 1918 of 1979, decision dated: 30-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (B. S. Ahuja and S. N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant.\nG. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and K. B. Rohtagi, Advocates with him) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHIV PRAKASH JANAK RAJ & CO. (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 147 = 1997 SLD 147 = (1995) 74 TAX 28 = 1997 PTD 1213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6QlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Total income-Inclusions in total income-Law applicable to assessment-Gift of money to wife in January, 1974-Amount invested in firm-Income from firm earned by wife not includible in total income of assessee-Explanation 3 to S.64(1) inserted w.e.f. 1-4-1967 not applicable-¬Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 64.\n \nThere is nothing in section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or the Explanation which was inserted by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1975, to indicate that it was retrospective in nature and, therefore, the said Explanation cannot be considered for deciding the clubbing of income in respect of investment made prior to the coming into force of the amendment\n \nThe assessee had made a gift of Rs.5,000 in January, 1974, to his wife without adequate consideration. She had invested it in a firm. The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee's wife had to be included in the total income of the assessee. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the transfer in question having been made in January, 1974, the provisions of the amended subsection (1) of section 64 alongwith Explanation 3 which became operative from April 1, 1976, were not applicable. The income of the assessee's wife from the firm was not includible in his total income.\n \nCIT v. Prahladrai Agarwala (1989) 177 ITR 398 (SC) and CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh (1970) 77 ITR 27 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=64 ", + "Case #": "S.J.C. No. 12 of 1990, decision dated: 21st December, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " G. B. PATNAIK AND P. C. NAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Patnaik for the Assessee\nStanding Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GURU CHARAN SINGH\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 148 = 1997 SLD 148 = (1995) 74 TAX 57 = 1997 PTD 1221 = (1995) 213 ITR 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Penalty-Concealment of income-Burden of proof-Dispute regarding source of investment in machinery in assessment proceedings -Assessee agreeing to inclusion of certain amount in his assessment-Revenue not discharging the burden of proving that the amount represented concealed income of the relevant accounting year-Penalty could not be imposed-¬Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 271(1)(c).\n \nDuring the relevant accounting year, the assessee had installed machinery in his business at a cost of Rs.2,32,500. The contention of the assessee was that the assessee had obtained a loan of Rs.2,30,000 from the Gujarat State Financial Corporation in order to purchase this machinery. The Income-tax Officer summoned G and certain statements were recorded. The assessee, however, did, not avail,of the opportunity of cross-examining the persons whose statements were recorded. However, the matter was settled before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and a sum of Rs.40,000 was taken as income from the undisclosed sources. The Income-tax Officer thereafter made the assessment afresh on the basis of the settlement and included therein a sum of Rs.40,000 on account of \"\"income from undisclosed sources\"\" and proceedings for levy of penalty were initiated. The matter went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal specifically found that in the present case simply because the assessee agreed that he should be taxed on the amount of Rs.40,000 which was spent by him from outside the books and the source of which he could not explain, it did not follow that the amount of Rs.40,000 was the undisclosed income of the assessee in the assessment year 1970-71. It deleted the penalty. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the admission of the assessee that he had no proper explanation for the amount of Rs.40,000 did not ipso facto absolve the Revenue of its burden of proving that the amount of Rs.40,000 was the income of the assessee for the year 1970-71 and/or there was any fraud or negligence on his part to invoke the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty.\n \nCIT v. Vinaychand Harilal (1979) 120 ITR 752 (Guj.) rel.\n \nCIT (Addl.) v. Chandravilas Hotel (1987) 165 ITR 300 (Guj.) and CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. (1970) 78 ITR 474 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.41 of 1982, decision dated: 7-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": " SUSANTA CHATTERJI AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.J. Shelat instructed by Messrs R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNAVNITLAL POCHALAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 149 = 1997 SLD 149 = (1995) 74 TAX 181 = 1997 PTD 1231 = (1995) 213 ITR 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Penalty – Concealment of Cash Credits\nTopic: Applicability of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c)\nLegal Principle:\n•\nWhen a return is filed after the introduction of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c), the Explanation applies.\n•\nPenalty for concealment is valid if cash credits are added as unexplained income.\nCase Details:\n•\nCash credits in partners' accounts were added as unexplained income for the assessment year 1963-64.\n•\nThe Tribunal initially set aside the penalty.\n•\nThe High Court ruled the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) applied, upholding the penalty.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nPenalty is valid under Section 271(1)(c) if the burden of proving the genuineness of income remains unmet.\nCase References:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Jeevan Lal Shah (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.277 of 1977, decision dated: 28-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": " K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND D.K., JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajendra with D.N. Mathotra for the Commissioner\nNemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSh. THAKUR DASS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 150 = 1997 SLD 150 = (1995) 74 TAX 67 = 1997 PTD 1238 = (1995) 213 ITR 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income – Accrual and Receipt\nTopic: Taxability of Compensation Claims\nLegal Principle:\n•\nIncome is taxable only when it is received, deemed received, accrued, or deemed accrued.\n•\nClaims for compensation that are uncertain or undetermined are not taxable until realized.\nCase Details:\n•\nThe assessee claimed compensation for closure of liquor shops due to government orders.\n•\nThe Tribunal excluded ₹9,90,000 from taxable income as the claim had not been determined.\n•\nThe High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nClaims that are not finalized or determined do not constitute income under Sections 2(45), 4, and 5 of the Act.\nCase Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.48 of 1.987, decision dated: 21st July, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND V.G. PALSHIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.S. Shishodia, Senior Advocate with S. Bhandawat for the Commissioner\nJ.L. Dagga for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nREHMAT KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 151 = 1997 SLD 151 = 1997 PTD 1241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Distinction Between Sections 23(1)(xv) and 23(1)(xviii)\nTopic: Admissible Deductions Under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nLegal Principle:\n•\nSection 23(1)(xv): Covers expenses incurred for training schemes approved by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR).\n•\nSection 23(1)(xviii): Applies as a residuary clause, allowing deductions for expenses wholly or exclusively for business or professional purposes, excluding capital or personal expenses.\nCase Details:\nExpenses related to training of an employee abroad under a government-approved scheme were allowed under Section 23(1)(xviii).\nCase References:\n•\nCIT, East Pakistan v. Messrs Engineers Limited, Dacca PLD 1967 SC 524\n•\nPackages Limited v. CIT 1993 PTD 753\n________________________________________\n(b) Admissibility of Training Expenses\nTopic: Expenses for Overseas Employee Training\nLegal Principle:\n•\nTraining expenses for employees abroad under an approved scheme qualify for deductions under Section 23(1)(xviii).\nCase References:\n•\nIndustrial Engineer Agencies v. CIT 1992 PTD 954\n•\n1991 PTD (Trib.) 531\n________________________________________\n(c) Disallowance of Royalty Payments\nTopic: Inadmissible Deduction\nLegal Principle:\n•\nRoyalty payments disallowed without proper notice to the assessee are invalid.\n•\nAdvance tax deducted from royalty payments at the time of payment fulfills the compliance requirement.\nKey Takeaway:\nDisallowance of royalty payments without adequate reasoning or notice violates procedural fairness.\n________________________________________\n(d) Definition of Paid in Section 23(1), Explanation (b)\nTopic: Timing of Payments for Deductions\nLegal Principle:\nThe term paid in Section 23(1) includes expenses incurred according to the accounting method used for income computation.\n________________________________________\n(e) Interpretation of Time of Payment in Section 50(3)\nTopic: Deduction of Tax at Source\nLegal Principle:\nThe requirement to deduct tax at the time of payment under Section 50(3) aligns with the broader definition of paid under Section 23(1), Explanation (b).\n________________________________________\n(f) Provision for Royalty and Tax Deduction\nTopic: Timing of Royalty Provision and Tax Deduction\nLegal Principle:\nSection 24, Explanation (b), allows provisions for expenses and tax deductions at the source to be created even if payments occur after the accounting period closes.\n________________________________________\n(g) Deduction of Royalty Payments\nTopic: Allowability of Royalty Payments in Mercantile Accounting\nLegal Principle:\n•\nRoyalty expenses are deductible either in the year of provision creation or when paid, as long as tax is deducted at the source.\n•\nDisallowance due to timing discrepancies without substantive reasoning is invalid.\nCase References:\n•\nCIT, Lahore v. Mst. Wazir-un-Nisa Begum 1972 SCMR 116\n•\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 411\n________________________________________\n(h) Interest on Borrowed Capital\nTopic: Admissibility of Interest as a Deduction\nLegal Principle:\nInterest on borrowed capital is deductible unless there is evidence of non-business use, lack of actual payment, or a deficiency in the borrowing process.\nCase References:\n•\nMessrs Packages Limited v. The CIT 1993 PTD 758\n•\nCIT v. Khairpur Textile Mills 1989 SCMR 61\n________________________________________\n(i) Burden on Assessing Officer to Identify Non-Business Use\nTopic: Burden of Proof in Disallowing Interest Deduction\nLegal Principle:\nThe Assessing Officer must explicitly identify the portion of borrowed funds not used for business purposes to disallow interest claims. General remarks or assumptions are insufficient.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nInterest deduction claims require meticulous scrutiny, including tracing borrowed funds and identifying their exact use.\n•\nVague objections are legally unsustainable.\nCase References:\n•\nCIT v. Sheikh Muhammad Ismail 1986 SCMR 968\n•\n1994 PTD Note 110", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(1)(xv),23(1)(xviii),23,24,23(1),50(3),24(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5931/LB of 1991-92, 6785/LB and 730/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 11-04-1997, hearing DATE : 16-09-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R. for Appellant.\nNasim Zafar, I.T.P. for Respondent.\nB.R. Dey, K.K. Nandy and H. Talukdar for the Assessee\nG.K. Joshi and K. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 152 = 1997 SLD 152 = 1997 PTD 1257 = (1996) 221 ITR 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Capital Gains – Transfer Under Land Acquisition Act\nTopic: Taxation Year for Capital Gains in Urgency Cases\nLegal Principle:\n•\nUnder Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in cases of urgency where the Government takes possession of land before awarding compensation, the date of possession is considered the date of transfer for capital gains taxation.\nCase Details:\n•\nWhen land is acquired urgently by the Government, capital gains are chargeable in the year possession is taken, even if the compensation is awarded later.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nThe date of possession, not the compensation award, determines the taxing year for capital gains.\nCase Reference:\n•\nKaramarkar M. B. and D. L. Gokhale v. CIT (1984) 140 ITR 234 (Bom.) distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.23 of 1993, decision dated: 31st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "B.C. GUPTA & SONS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 153 = 1997 SLD 153 = 1997 PTD 1263 = (1996) 221 ITR 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Capital Gains – Contribution of Capital by Partner\nTopic: Exemption Under Section 2(14)(i) of the Income Tax Act\nLegal Principle:\n•\nAssets declared under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975, are excluded from the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14)(i).\n•\nContribution of such assets to a firm does not attract capital gains tax.\nCase Details:\n•\nThe assessee disclosed ₹22,440 worth of precious stones under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975.\n•\nIn the subsequent year, the stones were contributed as capital to a firm at a value of ₹61,344.\n•\nThe Tribunal held that since the stones were excluded from the definition of capital assets, no capital gains tax was applicable.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nAssets disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme are exempt from capital gains tax upon subsequent transfer.\nCase Reference:\n•\nRamal Chordia v. CIT (1995) 215 ITR 52 (Raj) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.23 of 1984, decision dated: 27-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND M.A. A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.S. Gupta for the Commissioner\nN.M. Ranka for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRAKASH CHAND DHADDA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 154 = 1997 SLD 154 = 1997 PTD 1265 = (1996) 75 TAX 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax – Filing Returns for Periods Exceeding 18 Months\nTopic: Filing Returns Beyond One Year\nLegal Principle:\n•\nFiling a return for more than one year is unsupported by the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and is inconsistent with its scheme.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nReturns must be filed in compliance with statutory timeframes.\n________________________________________\n(b) Industrial Undertaking – Exemption Eligibility\nTopic: Exemption for Industrial Undertakings\nLegal Principle:\n•\nEntitlement to exemption is a mixed question of law and fact.\n•\nFailure to rebut allegations (e.g., understatement of imports) can lead to disqualification from exemptions.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nClear fulfillment of all conditions is necessary for exemptions under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n________________________________________\n(c) Rules of Evidence – Distinction Between Estoppel and Admission\nTopic: Applicability of Estoppel and Admissions\nLegal Principle:\n•\nEstoppel applies when one party’s actions lead another to act in reliance.\n•\nAdmissions of law are not covered under the rules of evidence.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nEstoppel and admissions have distinct applications and consequences in legal proceedings.\n________________________________________\n(d) Revisional Powers – Scope and Limits\nTopic: Powers of Revision Under Section 66-A\nLegal Principle:\n•\nRevisional authorities (e.g., Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) can examine points of law and fact.\n•\nRevisional jurisdiction can include material not originally on record.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nRevisional powers are broad but must align with statutory limits.\nCase Reference:\n•\nCIT, Lahore v. M. Iqbal Saigal PLD 1976 Lah. 547 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,SecondSchedPartI,Cl.125(b),66A, Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=30,36,45,114 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.7927/LB, 7929/LB of 1996 and 7928/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 2-04-1997.hearing DATE : 30-01-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Athar Saeed and Nadeem Ahmad, I. T. P. for Appellant. Shahbaz Butt, L.A. and Asad Ali Jan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 155 = 1997 SLD 155 = 1997 PTD 1282 = (1997) 223 ITR 796", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Pension and Annuity – Rights and Modifications\nTopic: Approved Superannuation Funds and Rights of Pensioners\nLegal Principle:\n1.\nRetired Employees and Annuity Rights:\no\nAnnuity rights and quantum crystallize at the time of annuity purchase.\no\nImprovements in pension schemes made post-retirement are not applicable to already retired employees.\n2.\nPower of Central Board and Rules’ Validity:\no\nRule 11(1)(cc) of Part B of Schedule IV to the Income Tax Act is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.\no\nRules ensuring fund safety, such as investments in Life Insurance Corporation-backed annuities, provide security to beneficiaries.\n3.\nNo Discrimination Among Classes of Pensioners:\no\nExisting pensioners form a distinct class, and modifications do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.\n4.\nInvestment Regulation and Annuity Security:\no\nAnnuities purchased from the Life Insurance Corporation ensure safety and compliance with statutory objectives.\nCase Reference:\n•\nNakara D.S. v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130 distinguished.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nRules protecting fund security and denying retroactive benefits to retired employees are constitutional.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition (C) No. 1640 of 1986, decision dated: 4-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. AHMADI, C.J.-I, K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND MRS. SUJATHA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "SASADHAR CHAKRAVARTY and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 156 = 1997 SLD 156 = 1997 PTD 1293 = (1997) 223 ITR 809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Amalgamation of Companies – Effective Date of Transfer\nTopic: Determination of Transfer Date in Amalgamation\nLegal Principle:\n1.\nSpecified Date in Scheme Prevails:\no\nIf the scheme specifies a transfer date, and the court does not alter it, that date is the effective date of amalgamation.\n2.\nIncome of Subsidiary Post-Transfer:\no\nIncome generated by a subsidiary after the transfer date is treated as income of the holding company.\n3.\nNotices for Filing Returns Post-Transfer Date Invalid:\no\nSubsidiary companies amalgamated as of the transfer date cannot be independently served notices for tax returns for periods after that date.\nCase Details:\n•\nA subsidiary company merged with its holding company as per a court-approved scheme. The scheme specified January 1, 1982, as the transfer date. The High Court’s decision that the amalgamation was effective only after court sanction was overturned.\nKey Takeaway:\n•\nTransfer or amalgamation date specified in a scheme governs tax obligations unless explicitly altered by the court.\nCase References:\n•\nMarshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1992) 195 ITR 417 reversed.\n•\nRaghubar Dayal v. Bank of Upper India Ltd. AIR 1919 PC 9 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1661 and 1662 of 1992, decision dated: 27-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Poddar, B.V. Desai, Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, P.J. Mehta and Ms. Meeta Sharma Advocates for Appellant\nDr.R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (C. Ramesh and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MARSHALL SONS & CO. INDIA LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 157 = 1997 SLD 157 = 1997 PTD 1309 = (1995) 213 ITR 101 = (1996) 76 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6R1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Contribution to Public Welfare Fund\nIssue: Whether contributions made to a public welfare fund, which are directly related to the carrying on of business, can be treated as a deductible expense under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nFacts: The appellant, engaged in rice export, was required to make a payment to the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Fund to obtain an export permit. The amount paid was a voluntary contribution under a scheme involving the District Collector. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the deduction, while the Tribunal allowed it. The High Court, however, held that the contribution was opposed to public policy.\nConclusion: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision. It held that contributions made to a public welfare fund that benefits the public, even if not mandatory, are allowable as a business expenditure under section 37(1) if made for commercial expediency. The mere fact that the donation led to government benefits or patronage does not invalidate the claim. Payments made to public welfare funds for commercial considerations are deductible.\nCitations:\n•\nAddl. CIT v. Kuber Singh Bhagwandas (1979) 118 ITR 379 (MP)\n•\nAtherton v. British Insulated and Hesby Cables Ltd. (1925) 10 X 155 (HL)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. B.M.S. (P.) Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 321 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Dhandayuthapani Foundry (1980) 123 ITR 709 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 40 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 5623 and 5624 of 1983 with Civil Appeals Nos.5625, 5626, 5627, 5628, 5629, 5630, 5631, 5632, 5633, 5634, 5635, 5636. 5637 and 5637-A of 1983, decision dated: 25-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " J.S. VERMA AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Subba Rao, Advocate for Appellant\nDr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (B.S. Ahuja, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Sri VENKATA SATYANARAYANA RICE MILL CONTRACTORS CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 158 = 1997 SLD 158 = (1995) 74 TAX 60 = 1997 PTD 1319 = (1995) 213 ITR 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Reference and Deductions for Company in Liquidation\nIssue (a): Whether expenses related to the administration of a company in liquidation can be deducted from the interest earned by the official liquidator.\nFacts: The company in liquidation earned interest on fixed deposits, and the question arose whether the administrative expenses incurred during liquidation could be deducted from this interest for tax purposes.\nConclusion: The Tribunal's decision to allow deductions for administrative expenses was a legal question, and the High Court held that the question of whether the deductions should be allowed is a question of law. The case also raised procedural concerns about the use of the reference procedure under section 256 of the Income Tax Act.\nCitations:\n•\nVijaya Laxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 641 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.3348 of 1992-S, decision dated: 6-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " T.L. VISWANATHA IYER AND MRS. K. K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K. Ravindranatha Menon with N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner\nG. Sivarajan for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nWANDOOR JUPITER CHITS (P.) LTD. (In liquidation)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 159 = 1997 SLD 159 = 1997 PTD 1322 = (1996) 221 ITR 601 = (1996) 75 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Sale of Old Rubber Trees and Capital Gains\nIssue (a): Whether capital gains arise from the sale of old and unyielding rubber trees.\nFacts: The assessees sold old rubber trees that were no longer yielding. The Kerala High Court held that capital gains arose from such sales. The assessees appealed to the Supreme Court, and during the pendency of the appeal, the Revenue filed special leave petitions against a similar case. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's petitions, which implied the Revenue had accepted the position that no capital gains arose from the sale of such trees.\nConclusion: The Supreme Court granted leave and ruled in favor of the assessees, confirming that no capital gains arose from the sale of old, unyielding rubber trees. Furthermore, the rubber replanting subsidy received from the Rubber Board was not a revenue receipt and thus not taxable.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1989) 178 ITR 181 (Ker.)\n•\nKanthimathy Plantations Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1990) 184 ITR 1 (Ker.)\n•\nCIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (1987) 167 ITR 666 (Ker.)\n(b) - Income Tax: Rubber Replanting Subsidy\nIssue (b): Whether the rubber replanting subsidy is a revenue receipt and subject to taxation.\nFacts: The Rubber Board provided subsidies to rubber planters for replanting, and the question arose whether such subsidies were considered revenue receipts under the Indian Income Tax Act.\nConclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that the rubber replanting subsidy received by planters was not a revenue receipt, confirming that it was not taxable as income. This position was consistent with previous judgments.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. (1989) 178 ITR 181 (Ker.)\n•\nKanthimathy Plantations Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1990) 184 ITR 1 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.9188 to 9190 of 1996 with Civil Appeals Nos.9191 to 9203 and 9205 to 9220 of 1996, decision dated: 16-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.B. Pai and K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocates (C.N. Sreekumar, Ms.. Ritin Rai, Ms. Meera Mathur for Messrs JBD & Co. and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with them) for the Appearing Parties", + "Party Name:": "KALPETTA ESTATES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 160 = 1997 SLD 160 = (1995) 74 TAX 164 = 1997 PTD 1328 = (1995) 213 ITR 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Penalty—Concealment of Income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nCase Summary: In this case, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) made additions to the income of the assessee due to inflation in purchases and discrepancies in cash credits. Following this, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging concealment of income and inaccurate particulars. However, the assessee explained that these discrepancies were due to genuine mistakes, including errors in totalling and ledger entries.\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) agreed with the assessee, stating that the discrepancies were caused by a bona fide mistake and not by fraud or gross neglect. Furthermore, the AAC pointed out that the ITO had applied a gross profit addition under Section 145, thereby negating the need for separate additions related to the discrepancies. The AAC concluded that the assessee had not willfully or fraudulently furnished inaccurate particulars, and therefore, the penalty was unwarranted.\nThe Tribunal, upholding the AAC's decision, found no evidence of fraud or willful neglect. The Tribunal also observed that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) could not be applied for the first time at the appellate stage.\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the penalty, affirming that the discrepancies did not result from fraud, gross negligence, or willful neglect on the part of the assessee. The Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) could not be invoked for the first time at the appellate level, and no penalty was warranted based on the material facts.\nKey References/Citations:\n•\nCIT v. G.L. Textiles (1977) 109 ITR 37 (All.)\n•\nCIT v. Hari Ram Sri Ram (1987) 167 ITR 578 (All.)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Muhammad Shafi Muhammad Nabi (1991) 192 ITR 102 (All.)\n•\nCIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 182 of 1978, decision dated: 6-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " V.A. MOHTA AND G.D. PATIL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.N. Chandurkar for the Commissioner,L.S. Dewani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBOMBAY PIPE TRADERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 161 = 1997 SLD 161 = (1995) 74 TAX 183 = 1997 PTD 1334 = (1995) 213 ITR 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Advance Tax—Interest Payable by Government under Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nCase Summary: This case involved the payment of advance tax by the assessee, which was made after the prescribed due date but within the same financial year. The issue at hand was whether the delay in paying the installment would affect the entitlement to interest under Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nThe court held that although the payment was made after the due date, it still qualified as an advance tax installment for the purposes of interest under Section 214. The interest was to be granted for any amount of advance tax paid during the financial year, irrespective of whether the payment was made after the prescribed due date, as long as it occurred within the financial year.\nConclusion: The court ruled that the installment of advance tax, even if paid late but within the same financial year, is entitled to interest under Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The financial year serves as the relevant unit for assessing the entitlement to interest, and the delay in payment does not disqualify the assessee from receiving the interest.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No. 130 of 1979, decision dated: 5-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN, C.J. AND A.K. GANGULY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthy, Senior Advocate, and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKHARSAWAN MINERAL CONCERN P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 162 = 1997 SLD 162 = 1997 PTD 1337 = (1995) 213 ITR 538 = (1996) 75 TAX 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax—Reassessment—Failure to Disclose Material Facts Necessary for Assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nCase Summary: In this case, the assessee had shown certain hundi loans in the return for the assessment year 1959-60, which were later discovered to be bogus during the assessment for the next year. The ITO, based on this discovery, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 for the year 1959-60, as the loans were material facts necessary for a proper assessment.\nThe court examined whether the reassessment was valid under Section 147, which allows reopening of an assessment if the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The court concluded that the assessee had not disclosed the loans fully and truly, and the loans in question were false. The ITO’s belief that income had escaped assessment was reasonable, and the reassessment proceedings were therefore validly initiated.\nThe court stressed that the obligation to disclose all material facts truthfully and fully rests with the assessee. A partial or false disclosure is treated as an omission, and it is a material factor in deciding whether the assessment should be reopened.\nConclusion: The court upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the ITO under Section 147, stating that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truthfully all material facts. The bogus loans were material facts that led to the reassessment, as income had escaped assessment due to the false disclosure.\nKey References/Citations:\n•\nPhool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC)\n•\nBarum Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board (1966) 36 Com. Cas. 639; AIR 1967 SC 295; (1966) Supp. SCR 311\n•\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1961) 41 I.T.R. 191 (SC)\n•\nCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1991) 191 ITR 662 (SC)\n•\nChhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC)\n•\nI.T.O. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)\n•\nI.T.O. v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad (1989) 176 ITR 529 (SC)\n•\nI A.C. of I.T. v. VIP Industries Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 661 (SC)\n•\nVIP Industries Ltd. v. IAC (1991) 187 ITR 639 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1562 of 1977 with Civil Appeals Nos.2101 to 2103 of 1980, decision dated: 16-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jaideep Gupta, Advocate for Khaitan & Co., Advocates for Appellants\nB.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (B.S Ahuja and S.N Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SRI KRISHNA PVT LTD. and others\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1974 163 = 1974 SLD 163 = (1995) 74 TAX 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Deduction of tax at source - Interest - Failure to deduct tax - Levy of interest is mandatory - Payment of tax subsequently by recipient - Not relevant - Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 194A & 201.\nThe Supreme Court in this case clarified that under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the levy of interest is mandatory when tax is not deducted at source. Section 201(1A) mandates the payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the tax was due to be deducted until the date it is actually paid. It emphasized that the recipient's later payment of tax does not absolve the payer from the interest liability for the delayed deduction. Therefore, the payer remains liable for interest even if the recipient eventually pays the tax on the income.\nConclusion: Interest must be paid on the delayed deduction of tax, regardless of subsequent payment by the recipient.\nCase Referenced: CIT v. Kannan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd. (1986) 91 ITR 477 (Ker.)\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax - Depreciation - Investment allowance - Actual cost - Subsidy received from Government not deductible from cost for depreciation purposes - Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 43.\nIn this case, the issue revolved around the treatment of government subsidies in calculating the actual cost for depreciation and investment allowance purposes. The Court ruled that subsidies received from the Central or State Government cannot be deducted from the cost of plant, machinery, or buildings for the purposes of calculating depreciation or investment allowance.\nConclusion: Government subsidies cannot reduce the cost of assets for tax purposes when calculating depreciation and investment allowance.\nCase Referenced: CIT v. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 494 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No.24 of 1988, decision dated: 21st July, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND V. G. PALSHIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.S. Shishodia, Senior Advocate with S. Bhandawat for the Commissioner. Vineet Kothari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRATHI GUM INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 164 = 1997 SLD 164 = 1997 PTD 1356 = (1996) 76 TAX 203 = (1997) 223 ITR 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Special deduction - Technical fees received from foreign enterprise - Income received in convertible foreign exchange - Reinsurance broker - Commission retained is income received in convertible foreign exchange - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 80-O - CBDT Circular No. 731.\nThis case dealt with the eligibility of a reinsurance broker for the deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act. The Court ruled that income received by the broker in foreign currency, expressed and remitted through the Reserve Bank of India, qualifies as income received in convertible foreign exchange for the purposes of the deduction. It emphasized that a formal remittance is not necessary, and the brokerage retained in foreign exchange itself qualifies.\nConclusion: The retention of commission in foreign exchange entitles the broker to deductions under Section 80-O, regardless of a formal remittance to the foreign reinsurer.\nCase Referenced: Pertron Engineering Construction P. Ltd. v. C.F.T.D.T. (1989) 175 ITR 523 (SC) distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.933 of 1989, decision dated: 30-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S.Rajapnjs, Advocate with him) for Appellant\nJ. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (S. N. Terdy and R. Satish, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "J. B. BODA & CO. (PVT.) LTD.\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 165 = 1997 SLD 165 = (1995) 74 TAX 70 = 1997 PTD 1366 = (1995) 213 ITR 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Reference - Law applicable to assessment - Retrospective amendment of law - High Court must apply law as amended - Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 256.\nThe issue was whether a retrospective amendment in the law affects the High Court’s decision when a case is referred after the amendment. The Court held that the High Court must apply the law as amended retrospectively, not the law as it existed at the time of the Tribunal’s decision.\nConclusion: In references under Section 256, the High Court must apply the law as amended retrospectively, even after the Tribunal’s decision.\nCases Referenced: CIT (Addl.) v. M.J. Devida (1977) 109 ITR 484 (AP); Sterling Foods v. CIT (1991) 190 ITR 275 (Kar.)\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax - Capital gains - Agricultural income - Law applicable to assessment - Income derived from sale of agricultural land - Capital gains taxable - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(1-A), 2(14)(iii) & 45.\nThis case involved determining whether the sale of agricultural land could qualify as agricultural income and, thus, be exempt from capital gains tax. The Court ruled that income derived from the sale of agricultural land referred to under Section 2(14)(iii) is not agricultural income and is taxable under the head capital gains. \nConclusion: Capital gains tax applies to the sale of agricultural land, and such income is not exempt as agricultural income under Section 2(14)(iii).\nCases Referenced: Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar, Second I.T.O. (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom.); CIT v. Mrs. Kamla S. Asrani (1991) 189 ITR 359 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Reference No. 149 of 1985, decision dated: 26-08-1992", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. KAZIAMUNNISA BEGUM and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 166 = 1997 SLD 166 = 1997 PTD 1370 = (1997) 223 ITR 297 = (1996) 76 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Recovery of tax - Attachment and sale of immovable property - Tax Recovery Officer’s sale upheld - No legal interest by agreement to sell - Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.222, Sched. II, Rules 2, 16, 48, 51 & 60.\nThis case addressed the question of whether an intending purchaser under an agreement to sell had the legal right to challenge the auction sale of property for tax recovery. The Court ruled that the attachment by the Tax Recovery Officer related back to the notice issued in 1973, and thus, the intending purchaser, who did not have legal interest in the property, had no standing to challenge the sale.\nConclusion: A mere agreement to sell does not confer legal interest in the property, and the intending purchaser cannot challenge an auction sale for tax recovery.\nCase Referenced: T.R.O. v. K. Basavarajappa (1992) 197 ITR 398 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.13049 and 13050 of 1996, decision dated: 11-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " DR. A. S. ANAND AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate (A. V. Palli and Mrs. Rekha Palli, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Harish N. Salve and Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocates (A.A. Kulkarni, Mukhul Mudgal, Y.P. Mahajan, B.K. Prasad and S. N. Terdol, Advocates with them) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "K. BASAVARAJAPPA\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY COMMISSIONER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 167 = 1997 SLD 167 = 1997 PTD 1380 = (1996) 221 ITR 59 = (1996) 75 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6SFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Income-tax (Tamil Nadu) - Assessment - Burden of proving source of funds for acquisition of lands - Income from lands in wife’s name includible in husband's income - Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955, S.17.\nIn this case, the Commissioner revised separate agricultural income-tax assessments of a husband and wife, clubbing the income from the wife’s land into the husband’s income. The Court ruled that since the wife failed to prove the independent source of funds for the property acquisition, the income from her land was to be included in the husband's total income.\nConclusion: The burden of proving the independent source of funds for acquiring property lies on the wife. Without evidence, the income from such land will be clubbed with the husband's income.\nCases Referenced: CIT v. Krishna Mining Co. (1972) 83 ITR 860 (AP); Ganga Ram Balmokand v. CIT (1937) 5 ITR 464 (Lah.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T. C. R.P. Nos.63 to 66 of 1993 (Refs. Nos.55 to 58 of 1993), decision dated: 26-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND VENKATACHALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Mani for Petitioners\nMrs. Chitra Venkataraman for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GANGA BAI and another\nVs\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 168 = 1997 SLD 168 = 1997 PTD 1386 = (1997) 223 ITR 1 = (1996) 76 TAX 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Plant and Machinery in Hotels\nIn this ruling, the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for depreciation on plant and machinery, irrespective of the type of activity or premises where they are installed. Hotels, regardless of being classified as approved, are eligible for depreciation on machinery and plant. The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Appendix I, Part I, Item III, sub-items (iii) & (iv)), provide for depreciation allowances under two conditions:\n1.\nExtra Shift Depreciation Allowance: If the machinery works in shifts, it qualifies for extra shift depreciation, even in hotels operating 24 hours a day with different shifts of workers, making them eligible for this allowance.\n2.\nExtra Depreciation for Approved Hotels: If a hotel is an approved hotel, it qualifies for additional depreciation under sub-item (iii). This does not affect eligibility for extra shift depreciation under sub-item (iv). Therefore, a hotel is entitled to both allowances: extra shift depreciation and extra depreciation for approved hotels.\nCase Citation: S.P. Jaiswal Estates (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 145 (CO) and S.P. Jaiswal Estates (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 603 (CP) imply that hotels can claim both types of depreciation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4167 of 1994, decision dated: 8-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Ravinder Nath, H.K. Puri, Ujjo Banerjee, Rajesh Srivastava and Rajinder Narain and Co., Advocates VA him) for Appellant. K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and B. Krislo Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 169 = 1997 SLD 169 = 1997 PTD 1390 = (1996) 221 ITR 557 = (1996) 75 TAX 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "– Agricultural Income Tax and Rectification of Mistakes\nIn this ruling, the court clarified that only an apparent error of law or fact can be rectified. If the law requires interpretation of a section's meaning, the error is not rectifiable unless it is clearly apparent.\nThe key points include:\n•\nThe Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, though similar in their names, differ in their provisions, especially in how they treat agricultural losses.\n•\nThe Supreme Court decision in Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 82 applied to the Indian Income Tax Act but does not apply directly to the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act because of the differences in the scope of these laws.\n•\nThus, rectification of the order based on an interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Indian Income Tax Act was not valid in this context.\nCase Citation: Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 82.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.9168 of 1996, decision dated: 15-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Joseph Vellappally, Senior Advocate (M.P. Vinod, Advocate with him) for Appellant. G. Prakash, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "POOTHUNDU PLANTATIONS (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nAGRICULTURAL Income Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 170 = 1997 SLD 170 = 1997 PTD 1394 = (1997) 223 ITR 163 = (1996) 76 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surtax Rectification\nIn this case, a company assessed for surtax under the Indian Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was rectified twice. The sequence of events involved:\n•\nAn initial surtax assessment in 1965.\n•\nA subsequent income-tax reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which added an income tax liability.\n•\nA rectification of the surtax assessment based on the reassessment.\n•\nA subsequent cancellation of the reassessment by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, leading to a second rectification of the surtax assessment, removing the income-tax adjustment.\nThe court held:\n1.\nRectification was valid: Since the income tax reassessment was integral to the surtax assessment, any change in the income-tax order had to be reflected in the surtax assessment.\n2.\nNo limitation issue: The second rectification was not subject to the usual limitation, as it aimed to correct the earlier rectified order, not the original 1965 assessment.\nCase Citation: Waldies Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1978) 115 ITR 286 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1790 of 1979, decision dated: 20-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K. Mukherjee and S.K. Bandyopadhya, Advocates for Appellant. P.A. Chaudhary (B.S. Ahuja), Advocates, for S.N. Terdol, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "WALDIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 171 = 1997 SLD 171 = 1997 PTD 1399 = (1997) 223 ITR 656 = (1996) 76 TAX 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Purchase of immovable property by the Central Government – Tender of consideration to be made within prescribed time – Issue of cheque to a different legal entity – Abrogation of purchase order\nThe appellant, a partnership firm PR, entered into an agreement for the purchase of property for Rs.3.6 crores. The requisite Form No. 37-I was filed, and the appropriate authority passed an order for compulsory purchase of the property under Section 269-UD(1) of the Income Tax Act. A cheque for Rs.3.58 crores was issued by the Central Government, but the cheque issued to the appellant was in the name of PR Ltd., a different legal entity, instead of PR, the partnership firm. Furthermore, the cheque amount was incorrect, as it was for Rs.60 lakhs instead of Rs.66 lakhs, as per the agreement.\nOn these grounds, the appellant returned the cheque, asserting that the purchase order stood abrogated due to non-compliance with Section 269-UG(1). The Supreme Court ruled that the cheque issued to PR Ltd. was not a valid tender to the appellant firm, as it referred to a different legal entity. The non-compliance with the requirements of Section 269-UG(1) led to the abrogation of the purchase order.\nRelated case: Davies v. Elsby Brothers Ltd. (1960) 3 All ER 672 (CA).\nIncome-tax – Tender of Consideration by Central Government – Post as Mode of Payment – Validity of Tender\nWhere there is no specific mode of payment stipulated, the reasonable inference is that payment would be made via cheque, and the post office becomes the agent for the payee when the cheque is sent through post. In this case, the cheques were sent by post on May 31, 1995, within the prescribed time, and therefore, the tender of the amount was valid. Even though there were discrepancies in the amounts tendered to various parties, including the appellant, it was deemed to be an internal arrangement among the payees and did not invalidate the tender.\nRelated cases: C.I.T. v. Patney & Co. (1959) 36 ITR 488 (SC); Shri Jagdish Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1959) 37 ITR 114 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 14554 of 1996, decision dated: 18-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.S. Nariman, Senior Advocate (Subhas Sharma, P.H. Parkekh, Jay Munim and Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Dr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra, B.K. Prasad, S.N. Tordol and Mukul Mudgal, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PRIMA REALTY\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 172 = 1997 SLD 172 = 1997 PTD 1408 = (1996) 75 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance – Rejection of Accounts – Hotel Business – Validity of Additions Based on Assessed Revenue\nThe appellant, engaged in the hotel business, declared a room revenue increase of 7.22%, which the Assessing Officer found unsubstantiated, leading to the rejection of the declared accounts and an estimated increase of 20%. The Assessing Officer based this on whims and surmises without citing specific defects in the accounts. However, the appellant provided sufficient supporting evidence that the sales were verifiable through the Arrival and Departure Register and invoices.\nThe Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer’s rejection of the accounts was unjustified, as the appellant's explanation and evidence supported the declared revenue. The addition to income was, therefore, deleted by the Tribunal.\nRelated case: C.I.T., Companies 11, Karachi v. Krudd Sons Ltd. 1991 SCMR 229 = 1994 PTD 174.\n________________________________________\nIncome-tax Ordinance – Rejection of Accounts – Conditions for Rejection\nMerely the unverifiability of part of the sales or purchases does not justify the rejection of accounts. It must be established that the assessee failed to provide the necessary details or evidence of transactions. The rejection of book versions based on unfounded opinions of expense inflation or sales suppression is also unjustified unless these are proven errors.\n________________________________________\nIncome-tax Ordinance – Rejection of Accounts – Disallowance of Staff Salaries\nThe Assessing Officer had disallowed the staff salary payments, despite evidence of payments made through the bank. Since no specific request for verification of this evidence was made by the Assessing Officer, the disallowance was deemed unwarranted and was not upheld.\n________________________________________\nIncome-tax – Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure – Hotel Business\nExpenditures for replacing items such as china, glass, silverware, linen, and uniforms in a hotel are considered revenue expenditures, even though the Assessing Officer initially disputed this. Such expenditures have consistently been allowed as revenue in the hotel industry, and therefore, the disallowance of a single rupee was unjustified.\n________________________________________\nIncome-tax – Add Back of Advertisement and Publicity Expenditures\nThe Assessing Officer had no findings to show that the advertisement and publicity claims by the assessee were unvouched or unverifiable. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the add-back.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1055/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 21st March, 1997, hearing DATE : 18-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 173 = 1997 SLD 173 = 1997 PTD 1425 = (1996) 75 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Administration of justice:\n•\nAn assessee is allowed to invoke any beneficial provision of law at any stage of the assessment process, even if it was not invoked at an earlier stage. The law permits the invocation of provisions that might benefit the taxpayer, irrespective of when they are brought up.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Second Schedule, Part IV, Clause (6) - Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates:\n•\nTax benefits related to Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates (FEBs) cannot be granted to two different persons for the same investment. This is due to the lack of a system to identify the holder of such certificates, as the office of issue cannot track the recipients without proper registration or application. Therefore, the same person cannot claim the tax benefit multiple times.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Second Schedule, Clause (171) & Part IV, Clause (6) - Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates:\n•\nThe provisions of Clause (171) and Clause (6) in the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance are distinct and do not conflict with each other. Clause (6) relates to holding Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates, ensuring that the authorities will not question the investment as long as the certificates are held. On the other hand, Clause (171) deals with exemption from tax upon the encashment of these certificates, ensuring that the funds received on encashment will not be questioned by the authorities.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates Exemption:\n•\nIf an assessee does not hold Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates by the end of the income year or has not received the amount from encashment, they are not entitled to the exemptions available under Clause (171) of Part I or the immunity from tax provisions under Section 13 of the Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartI,Cl(171) & PartIV,Cl.(6) Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificates Rules, 1985=Rr.5,6,7 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.557/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 27-01-1997, hearing DATE : 15-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AND S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 174 = 1997 SLD 174 = 1997 PTD 1435 = (1996) 75 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 9 - Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 165-A:\n•\nLegal or juridical persons created by statute under the Federal or Provincial Government to conduct business or provide services cannot claim exemption from income tax, as Article 165-A of the Constitution of Pakistan has taken away such exemptions. Therefore, such entities must comply with income tax obligations under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 133 & 134 - Powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal:\n•\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot exceed the powers provided under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Specifically, it is not authorized to examine the constitutional validity of provisions of the Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9,133,134 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1881/LB of 1987-88 and 1798/LB of 1988/89, decision dated: 20-03-1997, hearing DATE : 13-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zafar Iqbal Khan for Appellant. Shahbaz Butt, L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 175 = 1997 SLD 175 = 1997 PTD 1447 = (1996) 75 TAX 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Third Schedule, Rule 8(8)(a) - Lease of Vehicles - Depreciation Allowance:\n•\nIf a vehicle leased to a person is transferred to the lessee or their nominee after the lease period ends, the vehicle will no longer be considered as one that is plying for hire. As a result, depreciation for tax purposes will be limited in accordance with Rule 8(8)(a) of the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched,R.8(8)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 105/KB and 400/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 18-03-1997, hearing DATE : 17-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 400/KB of 1993-94). Akbar G. Merchant and Miss Yasmin Ajani for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 400/KB of 1993-94)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 516 = 1997 SLD 516 = 1997 PTCL 43 = 1997 PTD 1454 = (1996) 76 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 23 - Deduction - Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure - Borrowed Capital:\n•\nInterest on borrowed capital used to acquire a capital asset is considered a capital expenditure during the pre-production period, meaning before the business commences. Once the business starts operations, this interest becomes a revenue expenditure. Therefore, the classification of interest as either capital or revenue expenditure depends on whether the business has begun.\n(b) Income-tax - Deduction - Interest on Borrowed Capital - Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure:\n•\nThe term commencement of business has a broad meaning and should be interpreted with respect to the entire business operation, not just individual assets. If the business has not yet commenced and is still in the process of setting up assets such as machinery, the interest on borrowed capital during this period is treated as capital expenditure. However, once the business starts, interest paid on borrowed capital used for acquiring new assets for expansion or new projects is treated as a revenue expenditure. The key consideration here is the continuity of the business, including unity in management, control, and organization, rather than the separate creation or acquisition of each asset.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\nChalla Pali Sugars Ltd. (1975), C.I.T. v. Alambic Glass Industries Ltd. (1976), C.I.T. v. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd. (1967), Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1970), C.I.T. v. Shah Theatres Ltd. (1988), Kanhiram Ramgopal v. C.I.T. (1988), and Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (1975).\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 23(1)(vii) - Deduction - Interest on Borrowed Capital - Composite Business:\n•\nFor an assessee carrying on one composite business, interest on borrowed capital qualifies as a revenue expenditure. This interest is deductible as a straight deduction, regardless of whether the borrowed funds are used for acquiring new assets or for other business expenses.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 23(1)(v) - Depreciation - Equipment for Extension of Business:\n•\nDepreciation is allowed on equipment that is acquired or used for the extension of an existing business. In such cases, the expenditure should not be capitalized but depreciated according to the relevant provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23(l)(vii),23(1)(v) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1143/LB to 1145/LB, 2610/LB and 4060/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 24-01-1997, hearing DATE : 21st November, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELAHI SHAIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, L.A., Qadrul Jalil, D.R. and Amjad Ali, D.R. for Appellant. Khalifa Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 177 = 1997 SLD 177 = 1997 PTD 1466 = (1996) 75 TAX 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 156 - Rectification of Mistakes:\n•\nThe power of rectification under Section 156 is limited to mistakes that are apparent on the record, meaning mistakes that are so obvious that they are visible on the surface without needing further investigation or evidence. A mistake that is not readily apparent, and requires analysis or the consideration of additional evidence, cannot be rectified under this section. Rectification may be initiated either suo motu or upon being brought to the notice of the assessing officer by the assessee. The power is restricted to mistakes that are clearly identifiable upon reviewing the order, and any in-depth review or reassessment does not constitute rectification.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\n1992 PTD 570 = 1992 SCMR 687, 46 ITR 609 (SC), 62 ITR 558 (Punjab HC), 1987 PTD (Trib.) 539, 22 ITR 539 (Allahabad HC), 29 ITR 252 (Andhra Pradesh HC).\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 65, 62, & 63 - Re-opening of Assessment:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer is required to complete the assessment under Sections 62 and 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance. It is not in line with the policy of law to allow the reopening of the assessment under Section 65 solely because the officer did not apply their mind earlier. Reopening should be based on valid grounds and not just due to oversight.\nRelevant Case Law:\n•\n1987 PTD (Trib.) 539.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 132 - Decision in Appeal:\n•\nUnder Section 132, which deals with the powers of the Appellate Additional Commissioner, the Assessing Officer is not empowered to make an assessment order. This provision specifically relates to the appellate process and does not grant the Assessing Officer powers to finalize the assessment.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 132 - Decision in Appeal and Deferment of Re-assessment:\n•\nIf a first appeal is decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], where certain issues are set aside and some additions are deleted, and these findings are challenged in a second appeal by both the assessee and the department, it is proper for the Assessing Officer to defer re-assessment on the set aside issues. This deferral ensures that the demand and collection register reflects the correct position until a final decision is made by the Appellate Tribunal. This deferral helps avoid incorrect statistics and ensures that the demand register is accurate.\n(e) Words and Phrases - Decide - Connotation:\n•\nThe term decide encompasses actions such as adjudicating, exercising discretion, forming an opinion, making a choice, finalizing an issue, and giving a verdict. If these elements are not present, then the action cannot be classified as a decision.\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Act to Decide - What Includes:\n•\nAn act to decide includes activities like adjudication, discretion, forming an opinion, finalizing issues, and issuing a verdict. If these activities are not present, it cannot be considered a decision.\n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 132 - Decision in Appeal - Deferment of Decision:\n•\nWhen the Assessing Officer makes an order under Section 132, observing that the addition is deleted temporarily due to the issues being set aside by the CIT(A) until a re-assessment is done, this is not a final decision but a deferral of the decision. The officer is not making a determination on those issues, but simply delaying a decision until further actions are taken under Sections 132/62.\n(h) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Rectification of Mistake - Section 156:\n•\nWhen the Assessing Officer, under Section 132, states that the addition is deleted due to the setting aside of issues by the CIT(A), and the decision is deferred, it is not considered a decision, but a mere deferral of the decision. If the Tribunal rules that the officer has re-decided the issues, it would be considered a mistake that requires rectification because the officer did not provide a full opinion or decision.\n(i) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 62, 65, & 156 - Assessment and Rectification of Mistakes:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer is required to make a complete assessment based on the total income of the assessee. It is not permissible for the officer to make piecemeal assessments. If the officer addresses only one part of the income and defers the rest, he cannot rely on Section 65 (re-opening) or Section 156 (rectification) for such a practice.\n(j) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 62 & 156 - Assessment with Subject to Rectification:\n•\nAn assessment order that states that the findings are subject to rectification is not allowed under the law. Rectification under Section 156 is for mistakes on the record, and it is not meant for allowing an officer to revisit or make an incomplete decision based on subjective interpretations.\n(k) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 62, 63, & 132 - Assessment Orders in Consequence of Appellate Authority's Decision:\n•\nThe principle that assessments cannot be made piecemeal applies to the original assessment only, not to subsequent assessments in consequence of appellate decisions. If issues are confirmed, deleted, or set aside in the first appeal, and second appeals are pending, the officer may defer decisions on unresolved issues. However, the officer should modify the assessment for settled issues so that the correct state of demand is reflected.\n(l) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 132, 62, & 63 - Deferment of Findings on Set Aside Issues:\n•\nIf the Assessing Officer defers his findings on set-aside issues while making an order under Section 132, this is not considered a re-decision of those issues. A decision is only made when the officer has fully adjudicated the issues, formed an opinion, and supported it with reasons. Deferment of issues pending a final decision is allowed and does not constitute a fresh assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,65,62,63,132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1836/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 21st March, 1997, hearing DATE : 7-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem Ahmed for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 178 = 1997 SLD 178 = 1997 PTD 1491 = (1996) 221 ITR 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Exemption - University or Educational Institution - Condition Precedent\nSection 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the exemption of income from any University or educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for profit. This exemption applies to any person, which includes individuals or entities engaged in business. However, for an entity to qualify for the exemption under Section 10(22), it must be an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes within India. In this case, the Oxford University Press, though linked to Oxford University, was not considered a university or educational institution existing in India. The Press was engaged in profit-making activities, such as printing and publishing books, which disqualified it from exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The exemption was denied because the Oxford University did not exist in India, and the Press was not engaged solely for educational purposes.\nCase Reference: Oxford University Press v. CIT, [1979] 117 ITR 284 (SC)\n(b) Words and Phrases - Education - Connotation\nThe term education in the context of Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act refers to the process of training and developing the knowledge, skills, mind, and character of students through normal schooling. This excludes broad interpretations, such as the acquisition of knowledge in general, which was seen in other cases, including Secondary Board of Education v. ITO (1972) and Gujarat State Cooperative Union v. CIT (1992), where broader interpretations were rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.82 of 1984, decision dated: 21st December, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND M.L. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "TA.U. Khatri with P.S. Jetley instructed by H.D. Rathod for the Commissioner. Sohli Dastur with J.D. Mistry for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 179 = 1997 SLD 179 = 1997 PTD 1503 = (1996) 221 ITR 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Depreciation - Plant - Drawings and Designs\nUnder Section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act, plant includes technical know-how, drawings, and designs used for manufacturing purposes. In this case, H.S. entered into an agreement with a foreign company for technical know-how, including designs, plans, and specifications for manufacturing. The amount paid for acquiring this technical know-how was capitalized, and depreciation was claimed. The Tribunal ruled that the payment of Rs.1.49 crore for acquiring technical know-how was capital expenditure, but it was entitled to depreciation as it constituted plant. The Tribunal's decision was in line with precedents such as Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) and CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (1987), which allowed depreciation on technical know-how.\nCase Reference: H.S. v. CIT, [1979] 157 ITR 86 (SC)\n(b) Income-tax - Capital or Revenue Expenditure - Collaboration Agreement\nPayments made for license fees, engineering services, and foreign technicians' services were treated as revenue expenditure. This ruling followed CIT v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. (1996), where similar payments were classified as deductible expenses under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCase Reference: CIT v. Indian Oxygen Ltd., [1996] 218 ITR 337 (SC)\n(c) Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Tea for Customers\nExpenses incurred by a business for giving tea to customers were considered deductible as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed rulings from cases such as CIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd. (1995) and CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (1974), which allowed such deductions.\nCase Reference: CIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd., [1995] 215 ITR 165 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.232 to 234 of 1981 and 57 and 58 of 1986 and Tax Cases Nos. 17 to 19 of 1983, decision dated: 25-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, C.J. AND S., J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner\nK.N. Jhan, Senior Advocate and Ramesh Kumar Agrawal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMETALLURGICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 180 = 1997 SLD 180 = 1997 PTD 1512 = (1996) 221 ITR 117 = (1996) 75 TAX 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reference - Business Income or Income from Property\nIssue: Whether income from letting out a commercial asset (weaving shed) is business income or income from property.\nCase Summary:\nThe assessee was a company involved in manufacturing hosiery and handloom goods. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, it let out a part of its weaving shed for a rental income of Rs. 77,700. The Income Tax Officer assessed the rental income as business income, but the Commissioner of Income-tax invoked section 263 of the Income Tax Act, directing the officer to assess the income under the head Income from House Property. The Tribunal, however, ruled that the rental income should be classified as business income.\nLegal Analysis and Conclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that the asset leased out was part of the assessee's weaving shed, which was a commercial asset, and therefore, the income derived from its letting out was a natural consequence of exploiting that asset for business purposes. The Tribunal’s view aligned with the principle that a commercial asset can be exploited either by utilizing it for business purposes directly or by leasing it out for income generation. Therefore, the rental income was deemed business income, not income from house property.\nReferences:\n•\nC.E.P.T v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Ajtnera Industries (P.) Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 245 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. National Storage (Pvt.) Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 596 (SC)\n•\nEast India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC)\n•\nKaranpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC)\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s decision to classify the rental income as business income was justified, and no question of law arose for further reference.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 11346 of 1995-S, decision dated: 16-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner\nP.G.K. Warriyar and M.K. Kesavan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMALABAR AND POINEER HOSIERY (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 181 = 1997 SLD 181 = 1997 PTD 1516 = (1996) 221 ITR 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2973\nTopic: Income-tax - Penalty for Late Filing of Returns\nIssue: Whether penalties can be levied on the assessee for late filing of returns when the returns are filed beyond the prescribed period and are invalid.\nCase Summary:\nThe assessee filed belated returns for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76, and penalties were levied under section 271(1)(a) for the delay in filing the returns. The Tribunal found that the returns filed by the assessee were beyond the prescribed time limits and therefore invalid. Moreover, although the Assessing Officer had issued a notice under section 148, the assessee did not file returns in response to the notice. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty could be imposed based on invalid returns.\nLegal Analysis and Conclusion:\nThe Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was based on the fact that the returns filed were invalid because they were filed beyond the prescribed period. According to the Income Tax Act, penalties under section 271(1)(a) can only be levied when the returns filed are valid and within the prescribed time. Since the returns were invalid, no penalty could be justified.\nReferences:\n•\nSection 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s ruling to cancel the penalty was correct, as the returns were invalid due to being filed beyond the prescribed period.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 126 of 1988, decision dated: 7-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Adhikari for the Commissioner\nB.L. Nema for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRATANCHAND MEHTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 182 = 1997 SLD 182 = 1997 PTD 1518 = (1996) 221 ITR 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2974\nTopic: Income-tax - Capital or Revenue Expenditure\nIssue: Whether the expenditure incurred by a finance company on raising capital through the issue of shares is capital or revenue expenditure.\nCase Summary:\nA finance company engaged in leasing and hire purchasing business incurred expenditure related to raising share capital. The Tribunal classified this expenditure as capital in nature, ruling that it resulted in an asset or enduring benefit for the company’s business. The expenditure was related to the creation of share capital, which provided long-term benefits to the business. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure.\nLegal Analysis and Conclusion:\nThe Tribunal differentiated between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure, emphasizing that obtaining capital through the issue of shares provides an enduring benefit to the business, as opposed to borrowing through debentures, which does not provide a lasting asset or advantage. Consequently, the expenditure on raising share capital was rightly classified as capital expenditure and not deductible as revenue expenditure.\nReferences:\n•\nIndia Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Kisenchand Chellaram India (P.) Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 385 (Mad.)\n•\nBharat Carbon and Ribbon Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 239 (Delhi)\n•\nCIT v. Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 59 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC)\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s classification of the expenditure as capital expenditure was correct, as it related to raising share capital, which is an enduring benefit to the business.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petition No.3 of 1995, decision dated: 25-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND VENKATACHALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Balachandran for Petitioner\nN.V. Balasubramaniam for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "METRO GENERAL CREDITS LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 183 = 1997 SLD 183 = 1997 PTD 1521 = (1996) 221 ITR 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2975\nTopic: Income-tax - Business - Racing\nIssue: Whether the activities of acquiring, training, and racing horses constitute a business, and whether losses related to the business and the death of horses can be deducted.\nCase Summary:\nThe assessee was involved in acquiring, training, and racing horses. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, two of the horses became useless, and the assessee claimed deductions for the loss of Rs.18,750 under section 36(1)(vi) and a general business loss of Rs.42,029, totaling Rs.60,779. The Income Tax Officer initially rejected the claim, stating that the activities were not considered business. However, both the first appellate authority and the Tribunal held that the activities did indeed constitute a business, and the loss claimed should be allowed.\nLegal Analysis and Conclusion:\nThe Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee's activities constituted a business was correct. The Income Tax Act defines business inclusively, and the essential criteria for business include a continuous course of activity and a profit motive. The assessee's activities were consistent with business operations, including acquiring and training horses and engaging in races for profit. Furthermore, the claim for deductions due to the death of the horses under section 36(1)(vi) was also justifiable. The loss claimed, including expenses on the horses, was an allowable deduction for the year.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Thagarajan (1981) 129 ITR 115 (Mad.)\n•\nJamal A. Syed Jalal Sahib v. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 660 (Mad.)\n•\nLala Indra Singh In re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (All.)\n•\nCIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. (1932) 2 Comp. Cas. 276\n•\nRogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. v. Secretary of State for India ILR 52 Cal 1\n•\nState of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi & Bros. (1964) 15 STC 644 (SC)\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s decision to allow the loss deductions was correct, and the assessee’s activities constituted a business under the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.624 and Reference No.244 of 1980, decision dated: 18-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND SATHASIVAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK.S. VENKATASUBBIAH REDDIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 184 = 1997 SLD 184 = 1997 PTD 1527 = (1997) 223 ITR 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Firm Registration - Sub-partnerships\nIssue: Whether a sub-partnership can be entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act when it is formed for a different purpose from the main partnership and the partners of the sub-partnership are not partners of the main firm.\nCase Summary:\nA partnership of 17 members was the highest bidder for a business license under the Excise Authorities. One of the partners, P, formed a sub-partnership with nine others to provide capital to the main partnership. The sub-partnership was a distinct entity from the main firm. The respondent-firm applied for registration under the Income Tax Act, but the Income-tax Officer denied the registration, claiming that the sub-partnership violated section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, which prohibits a lessee from having a partner who is not officially recognized as such. However, both the Tribunal and the High Court ruled that the sub-partnership was entitled to registration as it was a separate and valid business entity.\nLegal Analysis and Conclusion:\nThe Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision. The sub-partnership was a distinct legal entity, and the partners of the sub-partnership were not partners of the main firm. Since the sub-partnership did not violate the terms of the Abkari Act and had all the formal requirements of a valid partnership, it was entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act. The agreement to share profits did not make the sub-partnership a partner in the main firm. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the sub-partnership's activities were separate from the main firm's operations.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Degaon Ganga Reddy G. Ramakishna & Co. (1995) 214 ITR 650 (SC)\n•\nBihari Lal Jaiswal v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 746 (SC)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Degaon Gangareddy G. Ramkishan & Co. (1978) 111 ITR 93 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. B. Posetty & Co. (1996) 220 ITR 216 (SC)\n•\nMurlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 323 (SC)\nConclusion:\nThe sub-partnership was entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act, as it was a separate and valid entity from the main partnership.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1209 of 1978, decision dated: 5-11-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " A. M. AHMADI, C.J. I. K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol, Advocate with him) for Appellant.\nV.A. Bobde, Senior Advocate. Amicus curiae.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nB. POSETTY & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 185 = 1997 SLD 185 = 1997 PTD 1537 = (1997) 223 ITR 771 = (1996) 76 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Recovery of Tax - Civil Court Jurisdiction\nIssue: Whether the procedure followed for the recovery of income-tax dues from the estate of a deceased taxpayer before partition is valid, and whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction over such recovery actions.\nCase Summary:\nUpon the death of M, who owed income tax and other dues, his heirs filed a partition suit to divide the estate. The State sought to recover the arrears from the estate before the partition. By mutual consent, the parties agreed to sell part of the estate at a public auction to pay off the arrears. The auction took place, but objections were raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the procedure for recovery under the Income Tax Act. The appellants contended that since the Income Tax Act’s prescribed procedure was not followed, the recovery was without legal authority. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Tax Recovery Officer’s procedure under the Act was not mandatory when the parties had agreed to resolve the tax issue via public auction.\nLegal Analysis and Conclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held that the property could be sold to recover the arrears without strictly following the procedure under the Income Tax Act, as the heirs and the State had consented to this method. The tax dues were a first charge on the deceased's estate, and the recovery was valid. The Civil Court was not precluded from supervising the sale. The Court also found that the Tax Recovery Officer’s actions did not need to follow the formal procedures under section 222 and the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act when the recovery was conducted through the agreement of the parties.\nReferences:\n•\nSection 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nSecond Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nIncome Tax Rules, 1962, Rule 9\nConclusion:\nThe recovery of tax dues from the estate before partition was valid, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction over the sale of property for the purpose of tax recovery.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 13216 and 13217 of 1996, decision dated: 4-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. RAMASWAMY AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. D. Thakur, Senior Advocate (Ramesh Babu M. R. Advocate with him) for Appellants. A.S. Nambiar, S. Balakrishnan, S. Prasad, Mrs.\nRevathy Raghavan, Mrs. Shanta Vesudevan, P.K. Manohar and K.K. Aggarwal, Advocates for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "JANAKI S. MENON and others\nVs\nDr. V.R.S. KRISHNAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 186 = 1997 SLD 186 = 1997 PTD 1542 = (1997) 223 ITR 840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Settlement of cases - Application for settlement\nThe case revolves around the settlement of income-tax cases under Section 245-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee sought to settle its cases for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80 after disclosing its business transactions with the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation and its resultant profits.\nThe Settlement Commission refused to admit the application for the assessment year 1977-78 on the grounds of fraud and concealment of income. For the other two years (1978-79 and 1979-80), the Commission accepted the application. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) had issued a draft assessment order for the assessment year 1977-78 based on findings that the assessee had fabricated accounts and made false sales claims.\nThe key point was that the ITO can continue proceedings even after the submission of a settlement application, and the Commissioner can include material collected after the application was filed in their objections.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Supreme Court upheld that the ITO can continue with the proceedings until the Commissioner’s report is submitted.\n•\nThe assessee’s contention that the ITO had acted unfairly by using facts from the settlement application for the draft order was dismissed. The ITO had already discovered the fraudulent activities before the application was filed.\n•\nThe rejection of the 1977-78 assessment by the Settlement Commission was found justified due to the fraudulent activities.\n•\nThe case also discussed the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which only exercises judicial review over Settlement Commission decisions.\n(b) Income-tax - Settlement of cases - Application for settlement in respect of three assessment years\nThe assessee filed a combined application for settlement for the three assessment years, but the Settlement Commission mistakenly treated each year differently. Given that the same fraudulent activities and concealment of income were common across all three years, the Court ruled that the Settlement Commission had misdirected itself in admitting the application for two years while rejecting it for the third.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Supreme Court concluded that the facts and actions across the three assessment years were intertwined and showed fraudulent intent.\n•\nThe application for all three years should have been dismissed, as the fraud and concealment were consistent across them.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 233 to 235 with 236, 237, 238 and 239 of 1982, decision dated: 10-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish Salve, Senior Advocate (Gaurab Banerjee and- Ms. A.K. Verma, Advocates for M/s. J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates with him) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.233 to 237 of 1982 and Respondents in C.As. Nos.238 and 239 of 1982). J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (B.S. Ahuja and S.NY. Terdol. Advocates", + "Party Name:": "KULDEEP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 187 = 1997 SLD 187 = 1997 PTCL 45 = 1997 PTD 1677 = (1996) 76 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6RlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Intangible Addition - Concept\nAn intangible addition refers to the difference between declared and assessed gross profits, essentially an estimate made by the Revenue to account for profits that may not have been accurately reported by the assessee. The intangible addition is not a recognized term under the Income Tax Ordinance but is a useful concept to describe forced profits that the Revenue assumes an assessee has earned.\nHeld:\n•\nAn intangible addition is considered real income, and therefore it is available to the assessee like any other income that has been declared.\n•\nIt can be used for set-off against unexplained investments or cash credits, provided the assessee can demonstrate that the addition is directly related to the source of income or expenditure.\n•\nThe rule that an intangible addition is real income continues even if the assessee agrees to the higher income during the assessment process.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - S. 13(1)(a) - Deemed income\nUnder Section 13(1)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, the Assessing Officer can deem any unexplained sum credited in an assessee's books as income if the explanation offered by the assessee is unsatisfactory.\n(c) Income-tax - Intangible addition and set-off\nThe concept of intangible addition applies in both the current and subsequent years. It can be set off against any unexplained investments or unproven credits, provided the assessee can substantiate that the intangible addition relates to the disputed amounts.\nHeld:\n•\nThe C.B.R. (Central Board of Revenue) circulars cannot override established principles of law. The assessee’s acceptance of an intangible addition in the current or previous year does not negate its entitlement to claim benefits from such additions.\n•\nThe principle that an amount once taxed should not be taxed again holds true even if the assessee agrees to higher income for tax purposes.\n(d) Income-tax - Intangible Addition - Self-Assessment Scheme\nThe Self-Assessment Scheme does not bar the claim of benefits for intangible additions made in previous years. If such an addition was made, it can still be used in future assessments, even if the self-assessment process does not explicitly address this.\n(e) Income-tax - Intangible addition and sustainability\nIn cases where intangible additions are made, they are treated as real income for the purpose of set-off against future income, provided the addition can be linked to the source or investment in question.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer’s rejection of an intangible addition was found to be legally unsustainable as no evidence was brought forward to suggest that the amount was not available to the assessee for use as capital. Therefore, the appellate authority’s decision to delete the addition was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 135/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 20-05-1997, hearing DATE : 8-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN, NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anayat Ullah Kashani, D.R. for Appellant, Irfan Ullah, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 188 = 1997 SLD 188 = 1997 PTD 1693 = (1996) 76 TAX 213 = 1997 PLD 700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Powers of Income Tax Officer to Re-open Assessments\nDetails:\nUnder Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) has the authority to re-open assessments if income has escaped assessment, or if the total income has been under-assessed or assessed at too low a rate. However, this power is subject to obtaining definite information and prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The term definite information lacks a universal definition and must be construed on a case-by-case basis. It includes factual data or binding judicial decisions but excludes mere changes in departmental interpretations. A completed assessment cannot be re-opened without new facts constituting definite information. \nHeld:\nThe ITO cannot re-open assessments based on a mere change of opinion or departmental circulars. Any reopening must rely on definite information that has come to the officer's possession.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 65(1)-(4).\n•\nBoard of Revenue circulars and their limitations.\n________________________________________\nTopic: Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officers Over Insurance Company Accounts\nDetails:\nSection 26(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, read with Rule 5 of the Fourth Schedule and the Insurance Act, 1938, limits the ITO's jurisdiction to challenge the accounts submitted by an insurance company. These accounts are deemed final for tax computation purposes under Rule 5 of the Fourth Schedule.\nHeld:\nThe ITO cannot go behind the accounts submitted by the insurance company or challenge their integrity. The computation of profits and gains must follow the provisions set forth in the Fourth Schedule.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Phoenix Assurance Company Limited (1991 SCMR 2485).\n•\nCentral Insurance Company v. C.B.R. (1993 SCMR 1232).\n________________________________________\nTopic: Taxability of Interest Income for Insurance Companies\nDetails:\nInterest earned on Khas Deposit Certificates/Defence Savings Certificates by insurance companies forms part of their profits and gains and is subject to tax under the Income Tax Ordinance.\nHeld:\nInterest income earned by an insurance company is taxable as part of its business income.\nCitations:\n•\nCentral Insurance Company Ltd. v. C.B.R. (1993 SCMR 1232).\n________________________________________\nTopic: Interpretation of Statutes - Non-Obstante Clause\nDetails:\nA non-obstante clause overrides conflicting provisions to emphasize its precedence. It does not, however, exclude the applicability of provisions unless expressly stated.\nHeld:\nThe non-obstante clause must be read harmoniously with other statutory provisions to avoid contradictions, applying only to inconsistent clauses.\nCitations:\n•\nPrinciples of statutory interpretation by Maxwell and Bindra.\n________________________________________\nTopic: Dividend Income and Tax Rates for General Insurance Companies\nDetails:\nSection 26(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance governs the computation of profits and gains for insurance businesses, with the tax rates specified in the First Schedule applying. The benefit of lower tax rates on dividend income cannot be denied to general insurance companies without legislative amendments.\nHeld:\nReopened assessments under Sections 65(1) or 66-A of the Ordinance that deprive general insurance companies of tax benefits on dividend income are liable to be set aside. Existing assessments providing such benefits are valid.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. American Life Insurance Company (1967 PTD 427).\n•\nCentral Insurance Company v. C.B.R. (1993 SCMR 1232).\n•\nLakshmi Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1969) 72 ITR 474.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(1),26(a),FourthSched.,R.5,10(7) & FirstSched.,R.6 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.933 to 959, 1118 to 1121, 1135 to 1148 of 1995, decision dated: 3rd June, 1997. dates of hearing: 10th, 11th and 14-04-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Sayeed, Sirajul Haq Memon, Advocates Supreme Court and Naraindas Motiani, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.933 to 940 of 1995)\nFakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Naim Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (In C.As. Nos. 941 to 945 of 1995)\nMuhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Hafiz Abdul Baqi, Advocate- on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.946 to 950 of 1995).\nMuhammad Athar Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate- on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.951 to 954 and 956 to 959 of 1995).\nMuhammad Farid, Advocate (with special permission) and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate -on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 955 and 1137 of 1995).\nFakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate -on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 1118 to 1121 and 1135 of 1995).\nYawar Faruqui, Advocate Supreme Court (written arguments) and Faivnul Haq, Advocate- on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.A. No. 1136 of 1995).\nMuhammad Farid, Advocate (with special permission) and Ahmadullah Faruqui, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 1138 and 1143 of 1995)\nIqbal Nasim Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S.Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C. As. Nos. 1144 to 1148 of 1995).\nShaik Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in all Cases).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs E.F.U. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED\nVs.\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others\nMessrs ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE A-1, KARACHI and others\nMessrs HABIB INSURANCE COMPANY LTD\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE A-1, KARACHI and others\nMessrs EAST WEST INSURANCE CO TD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD ZONE\nMessrs CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE A-1, KARACHI and others\nMessrs NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others\nMessrs INTERNATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE A-1, KARACHI and others\nPAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE A-1, KARACHI and others\nPREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE A-1, KARACHI and others\nMessrs RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE A-1 KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 189 = 1997 SLD 189 = 1997 PTD 1724 = (1998) 77 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Withholding Tax on Bank Deposits and Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nDetails:\n(a) Withholding Tax: No withholding tax deductions could be applied to Call Deposit Receipts (CDRs), Term Deposit Receipts (TDRs), and Short Notice Deposit Receipts (SNDRs) issued by banks before the 1996 amendment to Section 50(2-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n(b) Amendment Purpose: An amendment generally aims to alter the law unless declared clarificatory or declaratory.\n(c) Taxing Statute Interpretation: When two interpretations of a taxing statute are possible, the one favorable to the taxpayer must be adopted.\n•\nHeld: Withholding tax deductions on certain bank receipts issued before the amendment could not be enforced. Favorable interpretation to taxpayers was upheld.\n•\nCitations:\no\nK.G. Old, Principal, Christian Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, PLD 1976 Lah. 1097", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(2B) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6946 of 1996, heard on 15-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and Kh. Haris Ahmad for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 190 = 1997 SLD 190 = 1997 PTD 1727 = (1996) 76 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Definition of Year in Income Tax Ordinance and Unpaid Liabilities\n•\nDetails:\n(a) Definition of Year : The term year in Section 25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance refers to the assessment year rather than the general definition in the General Clauses Act, 1897. The context aligns it with the assessment process.\n(b) Sections Referencing Year : Terms like year or years in other sections of the Ordinance (e.g., 65(1), 66(2), 96(1)) connote assessment years or a 12-month period based on specific contexts.\n(c) Unpaid Liabilities: Liabilities unpaid for three years from the income year in which they were allowed could be treated as business income. The relevant assessment year is the first where this could be determined (e.g., 1988-89 for liabilities allowed in 1984).\n(d) Assessing Officer’s Discretion: The Deputy Commissioner has discretion to deem unpaid liabilities as business income within five assessment years after the first eligible year but must exercise this judiciously.\n(e) Ambiguity: No ambiguity exists in the language of Section 25(c).\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe term year was interpreted as assessment year in the context of Section 25(c).\no\nDiscretion of assessing officers was upheld within defined limits.\no\nAdditions under Section 25(c) were restored if no material facts supported postponement.\n•\nCitations:\no\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 100", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(i),66(2),96(1),64(2)(3),66A(2),99(2),156,25(c) General Clauses Act, 1897=3(59) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.914/HQ of 1988-89, decision dated: 5-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN, S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Appellant\nIqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 191 = 1997 SLD 191 = 1997 PTD 1754 = (1996) 76 TAX 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income Tax Imposition Based on Turnover\n•\nDetails: Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to deliberate on whether the imposition of income tax solely based on turnover, without allowing taxpayers the opportunity to subsequently adjust the tax liability against their actual income, was a permissible exercise of legislative taxation power. This issue relates to the Federal Government's authority under Item No. 47 of Part I, Federal Legislative List in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan.\n•\nHeld: The Court allowed the appeal to proceed, focusing on whether the legislative power exercised under the Federal Legislative List allows such a turnover-based taxation mechanism.\n•\nCitations:\no\nStatutes: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Fourth Schedule, Federal Legislative List, Part I, Item No. 47.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,80CC & 80D Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.4/L of 1997, decision dated: 15-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAEEDULLAH KHAN\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 192 = 1997 SLD 192 = 1997 PTD 1756 = (1996) 221 ITR 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Business Expenditure and Investment Allowance\n•\nDetails:\n(a) Business Expenditure: The case examined whether expenses incurred by a company on the lodging, boarding, and education of orphans as part of a cyclone relief measure, followed by their employment in the company, qualified as business expenditure. The Tribunal found that the expenses were connected to the company’s business because the orphans were trained and absorbed into the workforce as coal miners. However, the question arose whether the expenditure was driven by a genuine business motive or charitable intent, thus qualifying it as a question of law.\n(b) Investment Allowance: The Tribunal evaluated whether the activity of extracting minerals could be classified as production under Section 32-A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. It held that mineral extraction constitutes production as per the commercial understanding of the term, entitling the taxpayer to investment allowance on machinery used in mining operations. The broader interpretation of “production” aligned with legislative usage in related provisions, and no legal question arose from this determination.\n(c) Words and Phrases: The word production was clarified to have a broader connotation than manufacture, encompassing activities like mineral extraction.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Tribunal’s decision regarding business expenditure on orphans raised a question of law due to the unclear business motive behind the expenditure.\no\nThe interpretation of “production” under Section 32-A and the allowance of investment for machinery used in mining were justified.\n•\nCitations:\no\nC.I.T. v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC).\no\nC.I.T. v. Super Drillers (1988) 174 ITR 640 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.30 of 1991, decision dated: 1st November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " P. VENKATA RAMA REDDI AND P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for Petitioner\nA. Satyanarayana Rao and M. Nageshwar Rao for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSINGARENI COLLIERIES CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 193 = 1997 SLD 193 = 1997 PTD 1761 = (1997) 224 ITR 677", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deduction of Tax, Duty, and Retrospective Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nDetails:\n(a) Deduction on Actual Payment: Section 43-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, mandated that certain statutory liabilities, such as excise duty and provident fund contributions, could only be deducted in the year of actual payment, even if incurred under the mercantile system of accounting. However, practical issues arose when businesses collected taxes or incurred liabilities in one financial year but paid them after the accounting year had ended. To address this, the Finance Act of 1987 added a proviso allowing deductions for payments made before the due date of filing income tax returns. Explanation 2, added by the Finance Act of 1989 with retrospective effect, clarified ambiguities in the term any sum payable, ensuring that liabilities paid after the accounting year could still be deducted under specific conditions.\n(b) Reasonable Construction: The retrospective application of the proviso and Explanation 2 was deemed necessary to align Section 43-B with its intended purpose. Earlier judgments had excluded legitimate deductions due to procedural issues. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions addressing unintended consequences and ensuring practical interpretation must be applied retrospectively to achieve fairness and uphold legislative intent.\n•\nHeld:\no\nSection 43-B, along with its proviso and Explanation 2, was harmonized to ensure that taxpayers were not unfairly denied legitimate deductions.\no\nThe proviso and Explanation 2 were treated as retrospective in effect to remedy unintended consequences.\n•\nCitations:\no\nGoodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1991) 188 ITR 402 (SC).\no\nR.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC).\no\nSanghi Motors v. Union of India (1991) 187 ITR 703 (Delhi) (Overruled).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.2 of 1993 with Tax Reference No. 1 of 1994 and Civil Appeals Nos.3175 and 2380 of 1991, decision dated: 10-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. AHMADI, C.J., MRS SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND K. VENKATASWAMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. S. Agarwal. B. V. Desai, P. K. Malik and Ms. Shashi Soharu, Advocates for Petitioner (in T. R. No. 2 of 1993).\nMs. Geetanjah Mohan, Advocate for Appellant (in C. A. No. 3175 of 1991).\nM. S. Siyali and Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocates for Appellant (in C. A. No. 2380 of 1991).\nA. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar, Advocate for B. K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Petitioner (in T. R. No. 1 of 1994 and for Respondent (in T.R. No. 2 of 1993).", + "Party Name:": "ALLIED MOTORS (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 194 = 1997 SLD 194 = 1997 PTD 1771 = (1996) 76 TAX 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Deduction of Tax at Source for Insurance Companies\n•\nDetails: The case addressed whether amounts retained by ceding parties from insurance companies should be treated as commission and whether the assessee (an insurance company) could be held liable for additional tax under Section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The general insurance companies had already declared the commission received from Pakistan Insurance Corporation in their income, and the commission had been taxed accordingly. The tax authorities attempted to recover additional tax from the insurance company, claiming it had defaulted as a tax deductor under Section 52.\n•\nHeld: The court held that since the commission was already declared and taxed in the hands of the general insurance companies, the assessee could not be treated as in default. The demand for additional tax from the assessee was unjustified.\n•\nCitations:\no\n1994 PTD (Trib.) 1278\no\nI.T.A. No. 1210/KB of 1986-87\no\nC.I.T. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 818\no\nOther references include Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1983) 140 ITR 832, and C.I.T. v. Shri Synthetics Ltd. (1985) 15 ITR 634.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4A),52 Pakistan Insurance Corporation Act, 1952=26,27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2126/KB to 2128/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 9-06-1997, hearing DATE : 6th January and 10-05-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIB ULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABDUL RASHEED QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid and Muhammad Saeed for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 195 = 1997 SLD 195 = 1997 PTD 1787", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Taxation of Joint Business Ventures as Body of Individuals\n•\nDetails:\n(a) Status of Assessment: After the death of an individual who carried on business, his widow continued the business jointly with their minor children. The widow claimed separate taxation of the income among the heirs, but the Income Tax Officer assessed the income as a single unit, classifying it as a body of individuals (BOI). The Tribunal and High Court upheld this classification, emphasizing that the joint activity of carrying on the business qualified as a BOI.\n(b) Definition of BOI and AOP: The terms body of individuals and association of persons (AOP) under Section 2(31)(v) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, were clarified. The BOI encompasses individuals working together in a joint enterprise for profit. This broader definition ensures that combinations, whether incorporated or not, engaged in profit-yielding ventures, are taxed as single units.\n(c) Representative Assessee Provisions: Section 161 of the Indian Income Tax Act is an enabling provision allowing income to be taxed on representative assessees. However, in cases where a BOI is formed, such as when a widow carries on business jointly with minors, the BOI is the taxable entity, and the mother cannot insist on separate assessment for herself and her children.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe widow and her children were rightly assessed as a BOI for the profits from the business.\no\nThe joint business venture of the family constituted a single taxable unit under the Income Tax Act.\no\nRepresentative assessee provisions were not applicable in this case.\n•\nCitations:\no\nRe: B.N. Elias (1935) 3 ITR 408 (Cal.)\no\nMeera & Co. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 564\no\nOther references include Muhammad Noorullah v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 115 (SC) and J.V. Saldanha v. CIT (1932) 6 ITC 114 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1297-1301 of 1980, Civil Appeals Nos. 1664 to 1666 of 1986, 4363 to 69 of 1985 and 1694 of 1995, decision dated: 11-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma, S. K. Bagga, T. A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocates (B. S. Ahuja, Seeraj Bagga, Ms. Tanuj Bagga, Ms. S. Bagga and Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocates with them) for Appellants. Dr. R. R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and V. K. Verma, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MEERA AND COMPANY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nN.P. SARASWATHI AMMAL and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 196 = 1997 SLD 196 = 1997 PTD 1805", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2988\nTopic: Self-Assessment Scheme - Selection for Total Audit\nDetails:\nThe assessee, under the Self-Assessment Scheme (1994-95), was selected for total audit. The assessee challenged this selection in the High Court, arguing that pre-conditions for such selection were not fulfilled. Specifically, the requirement of definite information based on material evidence had been omitted by Circular 9 of 1994.\nHeld:\nThe High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, ruling that the selection for total audit did not require pre-conditions as per the amended scheme. The petition lacked substance.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-Tax, Companies-II and another PLD 1992 SC 847\n•\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. N.V. Philip's Gloeilampenfabriaken PLD 1993 SC 434 = 1993 PTD 865\n•\nOther cases referenced: Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd., Chappal Builders, Grays of Cambridge (Pak) Ltd., Sameer Electronics, and others.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 17, 20, 22, 23, 53 and 54 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd October, 1996, hearing DATE : 7-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem Jan Khan for Petitioner.\nEid Muhammad Khan Khattak for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs REHMANIA HOSPITAL\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 197 = 1997 SLD 197 = 1997 PTD 1810 = (1997) 224 ITR 560", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6S1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2989\nTopic: Reassessment and Recovery under Indian Income Tax Act, 1922\nDetails:\nA public limited company engaged in stone quarrying disputed reassessment proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, for various assessment years. The dispute involved whether the royalty paid to the State of Rajasthan, inclusive of income tax, was deductible, and if the reassessment proceedings were valid due to alleged failure to disclose material facts.\nHeld:\n1.\nReassessment for 1950-51 to 1956-57 under section 34(1)(a) was invalid due to the absence of omission to disclose material facts.\n2.\nReassessment for 1954-55 to 1956-57 could be justified under section 34(1)(b) based on conditions met for shorter limitation periods.\n3.\nPenal interest levied under sections 18-A(6) and 18-A(8) could be contested in appeals against assessments.\n4.\nQuestions on the tax credit and deduction of excess royalty payments were remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in light of prior rulings and additional materials.\nCitations:\n•\nAssociated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 868 (reversed and affirmed on different points)\n•\nOther cases referenced: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., Gotan Lime Syndicate, Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd., United Mercantile Co. Ltd., and others.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 685 of 1980, decision dated: 5-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. K. Mehta and Ms. Manika Mehta, Advocates for Appellant\nS. Rajappa, Advocate for S. N. Terdol, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (KOTAH) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 198 = 1997 SLD 198 = 1997 PTD 1918 = (1997) 224 ITR 604", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Special Deduction for Cooperative Societies under Income Tax Act\nDetails: The case clarified the interpretation of gross total income as defined in Section 80-B(5) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. It emphasized that before allowing deductions under Section 80-P, the Income-tax Officer must set off the carried-forward losses of previous years as per Section 72. The Court ruled that the gross total income for deductions is to be computed after accounting for such losses.\nHeld: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, upholding that the Income-tax Officer had correctly set off previous losses against the income before disallowing deductions under Section 80-P due to excess losses.\nCitations:\n•\nDistributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC)\n•\nH.H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 433 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Katpadi Cooperative Timber Works Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 287 (Mad.), impliedly overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5912 of 1983, decision dated: 5-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Radhakrishna, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nMrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKOTAGIRI INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE TEA FACTORY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 199 = 1997 SLD 199 = 1997 PTD 1829 = (1996) 76 TAX 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2991\nTopic: Additional Assessment and Constitutional Petition under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nDetails: The assessee challenged a notice under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, via a constitutional petition instead of utilizing statutory remedies like appeal, revision, or reference. The notice was issued regarding investment in property and its justification.\nHeld: The Court dismissed the constitutional petition, emphasizing that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking judicial intervention.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.O. v. M/s. Chapple Builders Ltd. 1993 SCMR 1108\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Companies-II v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf), Karachi PLD 1992 SC 847\n•\nMessrs Sameer Electronics v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10, Zone 'A,' Lahore 1996 PTD 36", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Petition No.50 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem Jan Khan for Petitioner.\nEid Muhammad Khan Khattak for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Dr. ZAFAR ALI KHAN\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 200 = 1997 SLD 200 = 1997 PTD 1836 = (1997) 224 ITR 595 = (1998) 77 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2992\nTopic: Firm Registration and Sharing of Losses\nDetails: The case addressed the registration of a firm under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, where the partnership deed did not specify how losses would be shared. The firm included a minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership, and the Income-tax Officer initially rejected the registration. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the deed and supporting application adequately provided the proportion of losses to be borne by the major partners.\nHeld: Reversing the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the firm was entitled to registration. It concluded that the partnership deed, when construed reasonably, implied the loss-sharing ratio consistent with the partners' capital contributions and profits ratio.\nCitations:\n•\nMandyala Govindu & Co. v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nAddl. CIT v. Progressive Financiers (1979) 118 ITR 18 (reversed)\n•\nCIT v. Shah Jethaji Phulchand (1965) 57 ITR 588 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=184,185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1568 (NT) with 2439 and 2439-A of 1981, decision dated: 20-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate for Appellant\nK.N.Shukla, Senior Advocate (T.C. Sharma and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PROGRESSIVE FINANCERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 201 = 1997 SLD 201 = 1997 PTD 1845 = (1996) 76 TAX 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maintainability of Constitutional Petition in Tax Matters\nDetails: The assessee, under the Self-Assessment Scheme, had their case selected for a total audit, resulting in an ex parte assessment. The First Appellate Forum set aside the assessment order for a fresh review, directing proper consideration of the assessee’s position. Instead of participating in the reassessment proceedings, the assessee filed a constitutional petition in the High Court.\nHeld: The court ruled that the assessee could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction without first exhausting remedies such as appeal, revision, or reference under the relevant statute.\nCitations:\n•\nAdamjee Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pakistan, 1993 SCMR 1798\n•\nMuhammad Arif Dar v. Income-tax Officer, PLD 1989 SC 109\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf), PLD 1992 SC 847\n•\nIncome-tax Officer v. Messrs Chapple Builders, 1993 SCMR 1108", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.11 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd October, 1996, hearing DATE : 7th,October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem Jan for Petitioner.\nEid Muhammad Khan Khattak for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs REHAMNIA HOSPITAL\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 202 = 1997 SLD 202 = 1997 PTD 1850 = (1996) 76 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #2994\nTopic: Addition of Income Based on Surmises and Conjectures\nDetails: The tax department attempted to add income under S.13(1)(e) of the Income Tax Ordinance, citing the taxpayer’s high standard of living and residence in a posh locality.\nHeld: The court held that additions to income cannot be made based on assumptions or conjectures. The department must present concrete evidence of expenditures or establish unavoidable inferences. The onus of proof lies entirely with the department, and without discharging this burden, no addition is permissible.\nCitations: 1987 PTD (Trib.) 300", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.488/HQ of 1989-90, decision dated: 19-05-1997, hearing DATE : 16-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND NAZEER AHMED SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Nasir Bukhari, D.R. for Appellant.\nArif Muhammad Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 203 = 1997 SLD 203 = 1997 PTD 1852 = (1997) 224 ITR 687 = (1998) 77 TAX 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #2995\nTopic: Prosecution for False Statements in Income Tax Returns\nDetails: The assessee filed a return showing income from a firm that was later deemed not genuine, leading to an addition to their income. However, the Tribunal ruled that there was insufficient evidence to hold the assessee as the business owner, nullifying the addition.\nHeld: Since the Tribunal overturned the addition and the foundational finding of a false statement, the prosecution could no longer be sustained. Criminal proceedings were quashed.\nCitations:\n•\nUttam Chand v. I.T.O., (1982) 133 ITR 909 (SC)\n•\nP. Jayappan v. S. K. Perumal, (1984) 149 ITR 696 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.3 of 1982, decision dated: 24-11-1993", + "Judge Name:": " K., JAYACHANDRA REDDY, AND G.N. RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.K. Jain for Appellant\nA. Raghuvir for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "G.L. DIDWANIA and another\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 204 = 1997 SLD 204 = (1995) 72 TAX 20 = 1997 PTD 1855 = (1994) 205 ITR 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Eligibility for Special Deduction under Section 80-J\nDetails: The Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation took over several sick cashew factories (mostly on lease) and sought deductions under S.80-J for newly established industrial undertakings.\nHeld: The court ruled that the deduction under S.80-J is available only for newly established undertakings, not for entities acquiring existing ones. The lease of factories constituted a transfer, and the operations were deemed a reconstruction of existing businesses. Additionally, as the factories had been operational for decades, the five-year eligibility period had long expired.\nCitations:\n•\nBajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT, (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Travancore Rayons Ltd., (1987) 164 ITR 134 (Ker.)\n•\nTextile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, 1977 107 ITR 195 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.22 and 156 of 1982, 118 and 120 of 1981, decision dated: 6-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " T.L. VISWANATHA LYER AND L, MANOHARAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Sivarajan, C. Kochunni Nair and K. Sreedharan for the Assessee\nP.K. Ravindranatha Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 205 = 1997 SLD 205 = 1997 PTD 1868", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2997\nTopic: Deemed Dividend under Income Tax Act – Accumulated Profits from Capital Reserve\nDetails:\nThe respondents, shareholders of a transport business company, received dividends during the company's liquidation. A portion of the company’s reserve, comprising profits from the sale of capital assets taxed under Section 41(2), was considered by the Income-tax Officer as part of accumulated profits for deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(c). However, appellate authorities and the High Court held that these profits, being a legal fiction, did not qualify as commercial profits and could not be treated as accumulated profits.\nHeld:\nThe matter was referred to a larger bench for deeper analysis of Sections 2(22)(c) and 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and comparison with similar provisions under the 1922 Act.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.2(22)(c) & 41(2)\n•\nCambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 113 ITR 84 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Bipinchandra Maganlal & Co. Ltd., 41 ITR 290 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd., 53 ITR 250 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2141 to 2143 with 2144 to 2146, 2147 to 2149, 2150 to 2152, 2153 to 2155, 4204 of 1982, 3274 of 1984, decision dated: 4-02-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S.Rajappa and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant. J. Ramamurthy and T. A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocates A.T.M. Sampath and Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocates with them) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nURMILA RAMESH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 206 = 1997 SLD 206 = 1997 PTD 1883 = (1997) 224 ITR 371 = (1998) 77 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxable Business Income from Share Exchange\nDetails:\nThe appellant, a dealer in shares, exchanged shares in one company (valued at cost) for shares in a new company. The new shares had a higher market value than the book value of the original shares. The Income-tax Officer taxed the difference as business profit, upheld by appellate authorities and the High Court.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court affirmed that the exchange constituted a realization of the security, and the profit (difference in market value) was rightly assessed as business income.\nCitations:\n•\nOrient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 131 ITR 477\n•\nWestminster Bank Ltd. v. Osler, 1 ITR 63 (HL)\n•\nCalifornian Copper Syndicate v. Harris, 3 TC 139", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 353 (NT) of 1981, decision dated: 21st January, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.K. Puri, Advocate for Appellant\nB.S. Ahuja and N.K. Prasad, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ORIENT TRADING CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 207 = 1997 SLD 207 = 1997 PTD 1889", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cmt6TFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 2999\nTopic: Ex-Parte Assessment and Remand for Fresh Decision\nDetails:\nAn ex-parte assessment against the assessee was upheld by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal noted the assessee’s appeal as half-hearted and confirmed the best judgment assessment. However, upon the assessee’s request and the Department’s agreement, the case was remanded for further investigation to meet the ends of justice.\nHeld:\nThe case was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: S.63", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2741/LB, 2742/LB and 2743/LB of 1995, decision dated: 1st February, 1996, hearing DATE : 24-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Ikram-ul-Haq for Appellant.\nJavaid-ur-Rehman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 208 = 1997 SLD 208 = 1997 PTD 1892", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Sales Estimation and Profit & Loss Account Add-backs\nDetails:\n(a) Issue of P & L Add-backs: The Tribunal remanded the case for verification of sales and income from repairs. Despite this, the Assessing Officer re-applied add-backs, which were reduced by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal ruled that the revenue unnecessarily pursued the P & L add-backs issue.\n(b) Estimate of Sales: The appellant's declared sales were rejected without justification, even after furnishing complete details. The Tribunal found no basis for rejecting the declared turnover, especially as the business had significantly declined.\nHeld:\nThe I.T.O.’s sales estimate and rejection of declared turnover were unwarranted. The case emphasized the necessity of adhering to facts during assessment.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979: S.22, S.32(3)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.398/LB/1 of 1992-93, decision dated: 17-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Ch., F.C.A. for Appellant Mirza Ghazanfar Baig, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 209 = 1997 SLD 209 = 1997 PTD 1895 = (1997) 224 ITR 724", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Non-resident – Income deemed to accrue or arise in India.\nDetails:\nA Japanese company and an Indian company entered into a technical collaboration agreement to start manufacturing bearings in India. The agreement had two parts:\n1.\nSale of trade secrets and know-how, executed in Japan for a stipulated sum of $165,000 (free of Indian Income-tax).\n2.\nRendering technical assistance and training in India, with royalties subject to Indian Income-tax.\nThe Indian Income-tax Department contended that the $165,000 was taxable in India.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court affirmed the Calcutta High Court's decision that the income of $165,000 for the sale of trade secrets did not accrue in India as the transaction occurred in Japan. Thus, it was not taxable under Indian law.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 9\n•\nI.T.O. v. Shriram Bearings Ltd. (1987) 164 ITR 419", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2350 of 1986 and 6943 of 1995, decided on, 26-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (B. S. Ahuja and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellants\nM.S. Syali, Sathyen Sethi, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocates for Respondent\nCh. Inayat Ullah, Advocate and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate off Record. S. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate on-Record", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER and others\nVs\nSRI RAM BEARINGS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 210 = 1999 SLD 210 = 1999 PTD 1897 = (1997) 224 ITR 591 = (1998) 77 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Business Expenditure – Mercantile system of accounting.\nDetails:\nThe appellant, engaged in manufacturing and selling biris, followed the mercantile system of accounting. Sales tax liabilities arose due to retrospective assessments for sales made between December 14, 1957, and June 30, 1958. After a prolonged legal battle, the appellant paid ₹1,91,887 in 1968 and claimed it as a deductible expense for the assessment year 1968-69.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court affirmed that under the mercantile system, liability arises when the sales occur, not when payment is made. Hence, the expenditure could not be claimed as deductible for the assessment year 1968-69.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37\n•\nCIT v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1996) 218 ITR 164 (SC)\n•\nHaji Lal Muhammad Biri Works v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 718\n•\nChowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 87 ITR 542\n•\nKedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3922 of 1983, decision dated: 19-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajiv Datta, Vipin Nair and D. R. Nigam, Advocates for Appellant\nK. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K. N. Nagpal, C. Radhakrishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Haji LAL MUHAMMAD BIRI WORKS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 211 = 1997 SLD 211 = 1997 PTD 1924 = (1997) 224 ITR 610 = (1998) 77 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Appellate powers of Appellate Assistant Commissioner.\nDetails:\nDuring reassessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer added ₹2,45,000 related to ostensible Hundi loans. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), on appeal, added another ₹2,30,000 based on unexplained Hundis, which were not originally considered by the Income-tax Officer. The High Court ruled that the AAC exceeded jurisdiction by adding new sources of income.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court reversed the High Court's ruling, holding that under Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, the AAC has the power to consider new sources of income, even if not previously examined by the Income-tax Officer.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 251\n•\nCIT v. Nirbheram Daluram (1981) 127 ITR 491 reversed\n•\nJute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Gurjargravures (Pvt.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=147 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.6327 of 1983, decision dated: 5-03-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, N. D. B. Raju, C. Radha Krishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNIRBHERAM DALURAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 212 = 1997 SLD 212 = 1997 PTD 1944 = (1997) 224 ITR 414 = (1998) 77 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Business Expenditure – Current Repairs.\nDetails:\nThe appellant converted a ginning factory into a cinema theatre in 1945. In 1960-61, extensive repairs costing ₹1,20,000 were made, including new machinery, furniture, sanitary fittings, and electrical wiring. The appellant claimed these as current repairs under Section 10(2)(v) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court held that the repairs constituted a complete renovation, not mere maintenance. The expenditure was capital in nature and not deductible as current repairs. \nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(2)(v)\n•\nNew Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338\n•\nCIT v. Ballimal Nawalkishore (1979) 119 ITR 292\n•\nLiberty Cinema v. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 153 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 646 of 1981, decision dated: 10-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. T. THOMAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Verma and S. Ganesh, Advocates for Messrs. J.B.D. & Co for Appellant\nDr. R. R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (M/s. Laxmi Iyengar and B Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BALLIMAL NAVAL KISHORE and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 213 = 1997 SLD 213 = 1997 PTD 1948 = (1997) 224 ITR 753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business expenditure - Interest paid by a firm to a partner in a dual capacity.\nDetails: A partner, acting in a dual capacity—representing his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and as an individual—deposited personal funds with a firm. The firm paid interest on these deposits. A question arose whether this interest qualified as deductible expenditure under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the amendment effective from April 1, 1985.\nHeld: The Supreme Court decided that the interest paid to the partner in his individual capacity, separate from his capacity as Karta of his HUF, was allowable as a deductible business expense under Section 40(b), even for periods preceding the 1985 amendment.\nCitations:\n•\nBrij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 825 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 1 of 1993, decision dated: 10-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. AHMADI, C.J.-I, MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND K. VENKATASWAMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Subba Rao, Advocate for Appellant\nA. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (Ms. Lakshmi- Iyengar and B. K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SUWALAL ANANDILAL JAIN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 214 = 1997 SLD 214 = 1997 PTD 1951 = (1997) 224 ITR 614 = (1998) 77 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Search and seizure - Validity of warrant of authorisation.\nDetails: A warrant of authorization under Section 132A was issued after a man, V, was found in possession of ₹4,63,000. V, not an assessee, failed to prove the ownership of the money. The Income Tax Commissioner alleged it represented undisclosed income and ordered its seizure. The High Court quashed the warrant, citing insufficient reasons to believe the sum was undisclosed income.\nHeld: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that there was no material to reasonably believe the sum represented undisclosed income. The warrant was deemed invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nVindhya Metal Corporation v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 233 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5526 of 1983, decided 5-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. A. Choudhary, Senior Advocate (Ms.- Lakshmi Iyengar, B. Krishna Prasad and C. Radha Krishna, Advocates with him) for Appellants\nManoj Goel and P. K. Jain, Advocates for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVINDHYA METAL CORPORATION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 215 = 1997 SLD 215 = 1997 PTD 1956 = (1997) 224 ITR 589 = (1998) 77 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Capital gains - Insurance compensation for destroyed assets.\nDetails: A taxpayer received insurance compensation exceeding the original cost of assets destroyed by fire. The primary issue was whether this compensation amounted to taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nHeld: The Supreme Court held that compensation for destroyed assets does not involve a transfer as defined under Section 2(47) of the Act, and hence is not taxable as capital gains.\nCitations:\n•\nVania Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 647 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 3909 and 39120 of 1983, decision dated: 13th February; 1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (Ms. Shipra Ghose Jain, Rahul P. Dave and D. N. Gupta, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nK. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (B. Krishna Prasad, K. N. Nagpal and C. Radha Krishnan, Advocates, with him for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MARYBONG AND KYEL TEA INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 216 = 1997 SLD 216 = 1997 PTD 1965 = (1997) 224 ITR 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Special deductions - Priority industry and profits from spare parts.\nDetails: The taxpayer, a truck manufacturer, earned income from selling imported spare parts. The Revenue argued that such income did not qualify for deductions under Sections 80-E and 80-I, as it was unrelated to the company's main activity of truck manufacturing.\nHeld: The Supreme Court determined that the sale of spare parts was integral to the truck manufacturing business. The taxpayer was entitled to deductions under Sections 80-E and 80-I.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 900 (Mad)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1295 and 1296 (NT) of 1980, decision dated: 19-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandram, Advocate for Appellant\nDr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, (S. Rajappa and S. N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ASHOK LEYLAND LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 217 = 1997 SLD 217 = 1997 PTD 1969 = (1997) 224 ITR 362 = (1998) 77 TAX 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reassessment notice - Stock price manipulation.\nDetails: The taxpayer claimed a loss on shares based on stock exchange quotations. Later, it was discovered that the company’s stock price was artificially manipulated. The ITO issued a reassessment notice under Section 147(b), based on this new evidence.\nHeld: The Supreme Court upheld the reassessment, stating the ITO had legitimate grounds to believe that income had escaped assessment due to manipulated data.\nCitations:\n•\nPurushtotam Das Bangur v. I.T.O. (1980) 126 ITR 580 reversed", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.3041 to 3043, 3234 and 3235 of 1983, decision dated: 22-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish Chandra, B.S. Ahuja and B.K. Prasad. Advocates for Appellant\nMs. Gauri Rastogi for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nVs\nPURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 218 = 1997 SLD 218 = 1997 PTD 1980", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Applicability of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.\nDetails: The taxpayer contended that certain income from its business should be exempt under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Revenue challenged the computation of the surtax base, arguing against the deductions claimed.\nHeld: The Supreme Court clarified the provisions, holding that the deductions claimed by the company were appropriate as per the Act's framework. The decision delineated the boundaries of permissible exclusions under the surtax law.\nCitations:\n•\nSpecific citations not provided in source; refer to Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2077/LB, 2078/LB, 3118/LB, 3119/LB of 1991-92 and 395/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 23rd November, 1995.hearing DATE : 24-10-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Hussain, I.T.P. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2077 and 2078/LB of 1991-92 and 395/LB of 1992-93)\nQaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.2077 and 2078/LB of 1991-92 and 395/LB of 1992-93)\nQaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As !Nos.3118 and 3119/LB of 1991-92).\nGhulam Hussain, I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.3118 and 3119/LB of 1991-92)\nBashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for Appellants. Nemo No. 1. Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan; Advocate on-Record No. 2", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 219 = 1997 SLD 219 = 1997 PTD 1984", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Taxability of retirement benefits in foreign currency.\nDetails: An Indian resident, employed by a foreign entity, received retirement benefits in foreign currency. The issue was whether these benefits were taxable in India as income earned or accrued outside India.\nHeld: The Supreme Court ruled that retirement benefits earned while the individual was a non-resident and later received in India were not taxable under Indian law, as the income did not accrue or arise within the taxable territory.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Shri Anil Kumar (specific details needed)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.589/LB, 3045/LB and 3044/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 24-04-1996hearing DATE : 4-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " AHSAN ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND M. SALEEM SHAD QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Masood Ali Jamshed, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 589/LB of 1991-92)\nAsif Bhatti, A.R for Respondent (in I.T.A No. 589/LB of 1991-92)\nAsif Bhatti, A.R for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.3045/LB and 3044/LB of 1991-92)\nMasood Ali Jamshed, D.R for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.3045/LB and 3044/LB of 1991-92)\nK.MA. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1992).\nCh. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate on-Record for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1992).\nEjaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1992).\nCh. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate on-Record for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1992).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 220 = 1997 SLD 220 = 1997 PTD 1985 = (1997) 224 ITR 654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Withdrawal of development rebate upon firm dissolution.\nDetails: A firm dissolved before the mandated eight-year maintenance period for the development rebate reserve. The Revenue withdrew the rebate, asserting non-compliance with statutory conditions.\nHeld: The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal was valid since the conditions for maintaining the reserve for eight years were not fulfilled. The Commissioner’s authority under Section 263 was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nSouth India Steel Rolling Mills v. C.I.T. (1982) 135 ITR 322 affirmed", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.5332 to 5335 (NT) of 1983, decision dated: 25-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellant. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, C. Radha Krishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent\nMuhammad Younis Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court. M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "SOUTH INDIA STEEL ROLLING MILLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 221 = 1997 SLD 221 = 1997 PTCL 12 = 1997 PTD 1994", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance – Notice and Definite Information\nDetails: Assessee returned income under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, based on alleged definite information regarding the purchase of a plot. The assessment was reopened, and additions were made under Section 13(1)(d). However, the notice was challenged due to the absence of definite information and procedural defects in the notice.\nHeld: Reopening of assessment under Section 65 based on estimates was illegal without irrefutable evidence. The proceedings were rendered invalid due to the failure to tick relevant provisions in the notice form and lack of evidence against the registered deed's valuation. The notice under Section 65 was canceled, and the original order reinstated.\nCitations: 1988 PTD 324; 1993 PTD 766-1993 SCMR 1232; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1681; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 2087; (1971) 82 ITR 821; (1959) 35 ITR 383.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13(1)(d),65(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.7739/LB of 1996 and 253/LB of 1997, decision dated: 5-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Muhammad Younas Khalid, I.T.P. and Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Muhammad Younas Khalid, I.T.P. and Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent\nK.MA. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1992).\nCh. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate on-Record for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1992).\nEjaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1992).\nCh. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate on-Record for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1992).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 222 = 1997 SLD 222 = 1997 PTD 2000", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment – Business Income\nDetails: The Assessing Officer reopened an assessment under Section 65, observing that closing stocks were not reflected as opening stocks. The assessee failed to comply with notices under Section 61 of the Ordinance.\nHeld: The reopening of assessment was justified due to the admitted error and non-compliance with the notice under Section 61.\nCitations: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,65,61,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No.633/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 7-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Aslam Chaudhry, A.R. for Appellant. Fiza Muzaffar, D.R. for Respondent\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and A.H. Masood, Advocate-on-Record. Jehanzeb Khan Bharwana, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 223 = 1997 SLD 223 = 1997 PTD 2002", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Income – Estimation of Sales and Income\nDetails: The Assessing Officer estimated the income of the assessee at a higher rate, citing experience and business location. This was challenged as lacking a basis.\nHeld: The Assessing Officer's estimation was unsupported by evidence or cogent reasons. The Tribunal reduced the income, favoring the assessee.\nCitations: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No.552/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 5-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Numan Sheikh, I.T.P. for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent\nAbdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate on-Record. Ismail Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate on-Record Nos. 1 and 2", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 224 = 1997 SLD 224 = 1997 PTD 2004 = (1997) 224 ITR 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption for Educational Institutions\nDetails: A society registered under the Societies Registration Act sought exemption under Section 10(22) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued the society was only a financing body, but the High Court and Supreme Court held it was an educational institution solely for educational purposes.\nHeld: Exemption was granted as the society existed solely for educational purposes, even with incidental surpluses. Applicability of Section 10(22) must be evaluated annually.\nCitations: CIT v. Doon Foundation (1985) 154 ITR 208; Governing Body of Rangaraya Medical College v. ITO (1979) 117 ITR 284.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2578 to 2580 of 1979; 356, 356-A and 356-B of 1980, 3881-3882 of 1984, 379-380 of 1985, 41-42 of 1988, 8789 of 1995, 642 to 646 of 1997 arising out of S.L.Ps. Nos.2357 to 2359 of 1988, 3122 of 1987 and 6281 of 1986, decision dated: 5-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma, J. Ramamurthy, P. A Choudhary and T A Ramachandran, Senior Advocates for Appellants. Vineet Kumar, C. Ramesh, B. K.. Prasad,,S. N. Terdol and Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocates for Respondents\nMuhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate on-Record. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate instructed by MA. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record", + "Party Name:": "ADITANAR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION\nVs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 225 = 1997 SLD 225 = 1997 PTD 2011", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Income – Estimation Based on Conjecture\nDetails: The Assessing Officer estimated income at a higher rate based on local inquiries but lacked supporting evidence. The Appellate Authority provided relief, and the Department's appeal was dismissed.\nHeld: Estimates without material evidence were invalid. The Department's appeal failed due to lack of plausible reasons.\nCitations: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "T.A. No.561 /LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 16-12-1996.hearing DATE : 28-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Hassan, D.R. for Appellant. Raja Farooq, I.T.P. for Respondent\nTalib H. Rizvi, Advocate instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Irshad Ahmad, Advocate on-Record for Advocate General, Punjab for the State", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 226 = 1997 SLD 226 = 1997 PTD 2014", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision by Higher Authority – Change of Opinion\nDetails: The Assessing Officer accepted loans based on cross-pay orders. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner reopened the assessment under Section 66-A, citing errors prejudicial to revenue.\nHeld: The reopening was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion.\nCitations: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,148 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.274(IB) of 1994-95, decision dated: 30-01-1995, hearing DATE : 11-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " TARIQ AZIZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.A. Habib, C.A. for Appellant. Mobeen Gul Khan, D.R. for Respondent\nKhalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate on-Record. S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 227 = 1997 SLD 227 = 1997 PTD 2018 = (1997) 224 ITR 551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Interest on Delayed Compensation\nDetails: Interest received on delayed payment for land compensation was held taxable as revenue receipt. The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against this interpretation.\nHeld: Interest on delayed compensation is taxable unless exempted. Tax liability can be spread over relevant years.\nCitations: Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 465; Rama Bai v. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.12497 to 12500 of 1996, decision dated: 12th September 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZANUDDIN AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. G. Bhagat, S. S. Dahiya, Kamal Baid and G. G. Singh, Advocates for Appellants. Dr. R. R. Misra, Senior Advocate (Ms. Lakshmi lyengar and Anil Srivastava, Advocates with him) for Respondents\nPir Iltaf Hussain Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record. \nNemo", + "Party Name:": "BIKRAM SINGH and others\nVs\nLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 228 = 1997 SLD 228 = 1997 PTD 2026", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Unexplained Investment – Reopening Assessment\nDetails: The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 65 for unexplained investment in a car. The assessee provided documents, including an affidavit and transfer letter, which were not adequately considered.\nHeld: Documents attested by government functionaries are presumed genuine unless proven otherwise. The case was remitted for fresh decision.\nCitations: 1996 PTD (Trib.) 226; 1993 SCMR 1108.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.658/LB of 1996, decision dated: 2-10-1996, hearing DATE : 17-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Ali Sh., D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 229 = 1997 SLD 229 = 1997 PTD 2030 = (1997) 224 ITR 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction of Interest on Overdraft for Income Tax Payment\nDetails:\nThe appellant company maintained an overdraft account with a bank and, during the assessment year 1972-73, claimed a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, for an interest payment of Rs. 28,488. This interest was on an overdraft used for paying income tax liabilities. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal. It was determined that the overdraft for income tax payment could not be considered as utilized for the business purposes of the company.\nThe appellant argued before the Tribunal that failing to discharge the tax liability, which was substantial, would have crippled the company’s business operations. Despite these arguments, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The High Court also ruled against the appellant, holding that interest on money borrowed for payment of income tax does not qualify as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business under Section 37(1). Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that since the company’s profits had been deposited in the overdraft account and the profits exceeded the tax liability, it should be presumed that the taxes were paid out of these profits rather than the overdraft funds.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment. It held that interest on money borrowed for paying income tax does not qualify as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the Court declined to entertain new contentions not raised before the lower authorities, emphasizing that such contentions were outside the scope of the referred question.\nCitations:\n•\nMadhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC)\n•\nPadmavati Jaikrishna (Smt.) v. Addl. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 176 (SC)\n•\nEast India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 591", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=37(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1803 of 1981, decision dated: 11-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dipak Bhattacharyya, Pathin Das and N. Chakraborthy Advocates for appellate. Ranbir Chandra, C. Radha Krishna, Dhruv Mehta and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates for Respondent\nCh. Nabi Ahmad Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court and. Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate on-Record (absent) for Appellant. M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate on-Record (absent)", + "Party Name:": "EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 230 = 1997 SLD 230 = 1997 PTD 2037", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Re-opening of Assessment and Benami Transactions\nDetails:\nThe assessments of the assessee, originally made under the Self-Assessment Scheme, were re-opened under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, based on information regarding benami accounts in the name of the assessee's minor son. These accounts were allegedly operated by the assessee himself. The Assessing Officer treated these accounts as sales of the firm and made additions under Section 13(1)(c) of the Ordinance.\nThe appellate authorities upheld the re-opening of the assessment but found that the Assessing Officer had failed to issue a notice to the assessee under Section 65 before re-opening the case. Furthermore, the Officer did not establish the link between the transactions in the disputed accounts and the business activities of the firm. The absence of concrete evidence to substantiate the benami nature of the accounts undermined the validity of the re-opening of the assessment.\nHeld:\nThe re-opening of the assessment was invalid as the Assessing Officer did not comply with procedural requirements and failed to substantiate the benami nature of the accounts. Without evidence linking the accounts to the firm’s business transactions, the re-opening and subsequent additions lacked justification.\nCitations:\n•\n1986 PTD 37\n•\nS.N. Ganguly v. CIT, Bihar and Orissa (1953) 24 ITR 16\n•\n1993 SCMR 1108", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(c),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.119/LB to 124/LB of 1989-90 and 342/LB to 347/LB of 1989-90, heard on 19-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Nasim, D.R. and Zahid Pervaiz, I.A. for Appellant. Ejaz Ali Bhatti for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 231 = 1997 SLD 231 = 1997 PTD 2047 = (1997) 224 ITR 353 = (1998) 77 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Special Deduction for New Industrial Undertaking\nDetails:\nThe respondent company initiated a new industrial undertaking at Bhavnagar during the assessment year 1962-63, which included several workshops, some of which were still under construction. While a significant portion of the plant and machinery had been installed and was operational, certain machinery valued at Rs. 11,95,167 and workshop construction costs amounting to Rs. 9,22,011 remained pending. The respondent claimed relief under Section 84 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, for the aggregate value of Rs. 21,17,178 as “capital employed in the new industrial undertaking.”\nThe Income-tax Officer denied the claim, citing that the assets were not utilized during the relevant year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the term “capital employed” refers to assets acquired for business purposes, irrespective of their actual use. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the relief under Section 84 is determined based on the capital employed, which includes assets acquired for business purposes, even if they were not utilized during the relevant accounting year.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. (1979) 199 ITR 164\n•\nCIT v. Advani Oerlikon (Pvt.) Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 449\n•\nCIT v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 214", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=80-J,84 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1274 of 1980 and 9796 of 1995, decision dated: 5-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. R. R. Misra, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and S. N. Terdol, Advocates, with him) for Appellant. S. Ganesh, P. D. Tyagi and Ms. A. K. Vernu, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nALCOCK ASHDOWN & CO. LTD\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nFILTRONE INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 232 = 1997 SLD 232 = 1997 PTD 2055", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Sales Estimate and Additions\nDetails:\nThe Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee’s sales estimates due to the absence of figures for inputs, production, and turnover. These estimates lacked substantiating material or an objective basis. The CIT(A) restricted the additions but did not adequately address the lack of evidence.\nHeld:\nThe sales estimate and the corresponding additions lacked validity due to the absence of concrete data and objective evaluation. The additions were deemed unjustified and required alignment with comparable assessments from preceding and subsequent years.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5856/LB and 5857/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 18-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tahir for Appellant. Zafar Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 233 = 1997 SLD 233 = 1997 PTD 2056", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S.32(3)\nTopic: Method of accounting and additions to expenses.\nDetails: The assessee's declared version of accounts was rejected. Additions were made to expenses in the profit and loss account. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] reduced the additions based on the volume of sales, and the Tribunal upheld the relief granted by CIT(A).\nHeld: Additions to expenses were reduced, and the relief was maintained by the Tribunal.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S.62\nTopic: Gross profit (G.P.) rate reassessment.\nDetails: The G.P. rate declared by the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer, who applied a 20% G.P. rate. CIT(A) reduced the rate to 18% based on prior similar assessments under S.62. The Tribunal upheld the reduction, referring to its earlier orders in the assessee's case.\nHeld: Reduction of the G.P. rate to 18% was upheld.\nCitations: I.T.A. No.942/LB of 1991-92.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.639/LBI/DB of 1989-90, decision dated: 28-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD ANWAR A. KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Appellant. Mushtaq Ahmed, I. T. P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 234 = 1997 SLD 234 = 1997 PTD 2058", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: G.P. rate adjustment for road contractor.\nDetails: The declared G.P. rate of 14.95% was not accepted, and the rate was enhanced to 17.50% by the Assessing Officer, which CIT(A) upheld. The Tribunal, considering consistency with previous assessments, revised the G.P. rate to 16%.\nHeld: The G.P. rate was reduced to 16% by the Tribunal.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5863/LB to 5865/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 26-03-1996, hearing DATE : 19-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siddique Ch. for Appellant. Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 235 = 1997 SLD 235 = 1997 PTD 2065", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S.65\nTopic: Additional assessment and notice requirement.\nDetails: The Assessing Officer made an additional assessment without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of serving notice. The Tribunal declared the action null and void (coram non judice) as the prescribed procedure for serving notices was not followed.\nHeld: Additional assessment was invalid due to non-compliance with notice requirements.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S.13(1)(d)\nTopic: Deemed income and improper additions.\nDetails: The department created an additional liability based on the assessee's partial purchase of a plot. The Tribunal found no basis for the addition and noted that the investment determination was aligned with the law.\nHeld: Additions were canceled due to lack of evidence and procedural flaws.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3564-LB of 1995, decision dated: 27-02-1996, hearing DATE : 14-02-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arfan Asghar for Appellant. Shaukat Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 236 = 1997 SLD 236 = 1997 PTD 2067", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rejection of accounts and excessive sales estimation.\nDetails: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the assessee's accounts based on routine observations, despite earlier assessments being completed under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal found the sales estimates for the years under appeal to be excessive, considering the verifiability of sales and historical G.P. rates.\nHeld: Addbacks based on remote assessments were unjustified and deleted by the Tribunal.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 10256/LB of 1991-92 and 3244/LB of 1994, decision dated: 29-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MALIK MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farkh Naeem, I.T.P. for Appellant. Zafar Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 237 = 1997 SLD 237 = 1997 PTD 2069", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss.13(1) & 13(2)\nTopic: Notice requirement for additions under S.13.\nDetails: The assessee claimed that only a notice under S.13(2) was received, and the absence of a notice under S.13(1) invalidated the proceedings. The record showed both notices were served, and the Tribunal clarified that two separate notices were not a legal requirement.\nHeld: Proceedings were valid, as both notices were on record.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S.13(1)(d)\nTopic: Deemed income and property valuation.\nDetails: The appellant submitted a registered deed to support property valuation, but the tax authority rejected it without proper inquiry. The Tribunal invalidated the assessment, citing reliance on conjectures.\nHeld: Addition based on unverified valuation was deleted.\nCitations: Multiple PTD references (e.g., 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1179).\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S.13(1)(as)\nTopic: Cash payment for property sold.\nDetails: The assessee's claim of cash payments for property was rejected as an afterthought due to lack of verifiable evidence. The Tribunal upheld the addition.\nHeld: Addition was confirmed based on non-verifiable cash payments.\nCitations: 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1182, and others.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),13(2),13,13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2990/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 23rd May, 1996, hearing DATE : 18-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Younis Paracha for Appellant. Shaukat Ali Sheikh, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 238 = 1997 SLD 238 = 1997 PTD 2075", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss.13 & 80-C(5)\nTopic: Presumptive tax and deemed income addition.\nDetails: The Assessing Officer applied S.80-C(5) in conjunction with S.13 without detecting any unexplained income, creating a notional tax liability. The Tribunal held the addition invalid, as S.13 applies only when credits are detected.\nHeld: Addition under S.80-C(5) read with S.13 was deleted.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss.23 & 24\nTopic: Pension provision disallowance.\nDetails: The Tribunal held that the provision for pension obligations related to privatization was inadmissible until privatization occurred.\nHeld: Amount was disallowed but could be admissible later.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss.88 & 80-C(5)\nTopic: Depreciation allowance for extraordinary shifts.\nDetails: The Assessing Officer's calculation of shift depreciation allowance based on operational days was upheld.\nHeld: Allowance was valid.\nCitations: None provided.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss.88 & 80-C(5)\nTopic: Additional tax and improper application of S.80-C(5).\nDetails: The levy of additional tax under S.88 was deemed unsustainable due to the improper application of S.80-C(5).\nHeld: Levy of additional tax was invalid.\nCitations: 1995 PTD 856.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13 & 88 & 80C(5)readwishThirdSched.,R.3(2),23,24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2700/LB of 1995, decision dated: 3rd August, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MUMTAZ ALAM GILLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rustam Jee, F.C.A. and Naveed Haider, A.C.A. for Appellant. Haji Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 239 = 1997 SLD 239 = 1997 PTD 2079", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a)\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 87 & 156 - Additional Tax, Rectification of Mistake\nConclusion:\nThe court held that an order under Section 156 for charging additional tax must be a speaking order, explicitly indicating the details of the mistake made, the liability for paying advance tax, the date of payment, the calculation method for additional tax, and the period of default. The failure to include these details invalidates the order.\nCase (b)\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 87 & 156 - Additional Tax, Rectification of Mistake\nConclusion:\nThe addition of tax for more than one assessment year through a combined order was not a valid speaking order. The court emphasized that the order must clearly explain how the mistake occurred, the amount of additional tax due, and the reasons behind the charges. Failure to do so invalidated the decision.\n________________________________________\nCase (c)\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 80-C - Presumptive Tax for Cotton Ginners\nConclusion:\nThe cases of cotton ginners fell under the presumptive tax scheme provided by Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The ruling confirmed that cotton ginners are covered by this provision for tax assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=87 & 156,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.84 and 85/LB of 1994, decision dated: 13-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. M. Hayat Khan for Respondent\nBasharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and K.N. Kohli, Advocate on-Record. M. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate on-Record No. 1", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 240 = 1997 SLD 240 = 1997 PTD 2083", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 63 - Best Judgment Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe department's appeal to estimate sales based on one estimate against another was rejected. For the first assessment year, the Appellate Authority’s decision was upheld. For the next two years, the department failed to provide sufficient material to justify the estimated sales. The court rejected the departmental appeal due to insufficient evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6489/LB, 6490/LB and 6491/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 7-05-1996, hearing DATE : 5-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Ahmad Nauman Sheikh, T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 241 = 1997 SLD 241 = 1997 PTD 2087", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a)\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 13 & 65 - Additional Assessment, Addition\nConclusion:\nWhen the Assessing Officer received definite information regarding substantial funds in the business of the assessee, the addition of income for previous years under Section 65 was valid. The case involved assessing additional income based on new information regarding the business's scale.\nCase (b)\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 59-B - Simplified Procedure for Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) was bound to accept the assessee’s declared income, as no material indicating the actual extent of business was provided. The ITO could not simply reject the declared income based on assumptions and estimates without supporting evidence.\n________________________________________\nCase (c)\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 59-B - Simplified Procedure for Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe ITO wrongly deemed short-term bank deposits, made by the assessee, as outside the business scope. Since the assessee was a vendor and engaged in wholesale cloth business, the deposits were part of the business capital and should not have been treated as income. The additions made by the ITO were unjustified.\n________________________________________\nCase (d)\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 13(1)(d) - Deemed Income, Purchase of Old Constructed House\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer enhanced the purchase amount of a house based on local enquiries. However, this estimate was considered invalid as the required details of the enquiry were not placed on record, and the ITO did not verify the purchase price with the seller. The addition made was unsustainable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13 & 65,59B,13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2961 and 2962/LB of, 1991-92, decision dated: 13-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mujahid Arshi for Appellant. Zafar Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 242 = 1997 SLD 242 = 1997 PTD 2091", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 13(1)(d) - Deemed Income\nConclusion:\nWhile Section 13(1)(d) allows the Assessing Officer to treat unexplained investments as income, such additions must be based on a sound factual basis. In this case, the addition made based on a mere estimate was unsustainable and was deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "T.A. No. 5612/LB of 1995, decision dated: 31st January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Azeem for Appellant. Zafar Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 243 = 1997 SLD 243 = 1997 PTD 2094", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 63 - Best Judgment Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer’s rejection of the declared sales prices of shops in a plaza, in favor of a higher estimated price, was contested. The Tribunal adopted an average sale price, considering variations due to the location of the shops. The average price was set at Rs.800 per sq. ft. for the ground floor and Rs.400 per sq. ft. for the first floor, based on the actual sale conditions and agreements made.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5060/LB/DB of 1991-92, decision dated: 7-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Nauman, A.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 244 = 1997 SLD 244 = 1997 PTD 2095", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 62 - Assessment, Parallel Cases, Expenses Disallowance\nConclusion:\nThe case involves the assessment of the assessee's income, which was initially accepted. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of the expenses claimed in the profit and loss account. The Appellate Authority confirmed this disallowance. The Tribunal, upon examining parallel cases within the same line of business, where only 25% of the expenses were disallowed, found the 50% disallowance to be excessive. Based on the reasoning from similar cases, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 25%, thereby adjusting the assessment in favor of the assessee.\nCitation/Reference: The Tribunal's decision was based on examining similar cases in the same line of business, ensuring consistency in the application of tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4133/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 14-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " SARFRAZ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi, A.R. for Appellant. Najm-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 245 = 1997 SLD 245 = 1997 PTD 2096", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 32(3) - Method of Accounting, Rejection of Accounts\nConclusion:\nThe case revolved around the rejection of the assessee's declared sales by the Assessing Officer due to incomplete records and unverifiable sales and purchases. The assessee had admitted, through an order-sheet entry, that sales and purchases could not be verified. Based on this, the Assessing Officer estimated the sales. However, upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal discovered that the assessee had not actually made such an admission. This led the Tribunal to conclude that the rejection of the declared sales was not justified. The Assessing Officer was directed to accept the declared sales, as the entry in the order-sheet was incorrect and did not reflect the actual facts.\nCitation/Reference: Tribunal's scrutiny of the order-sheet entry, which was later found to be inaccurate, played a critical role in overturning the decision.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T. No.3599/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 6-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Andarabi for Appellant. Sartaj Yousuf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 246 = 1997 SLD 246 = 1997 PTD 2098", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 63 - Best Judgment Assessment, Estimate of Receipts\nConclusion:\nIn this case, although the Assessing Officer had verified a significant portion of the receipts, he estimated a higher amount of receipts than the assessee declared. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, found the receipts estimated by the Assessing Officer to be excessive. The Tribunal reduced the receipts to a more reasonable amount, reflecting the actual business operations and available evidence.\nCitation/Reference: The decision was based on the facts of the case and the review of evidence regarding the actual receipts.\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Gross Profit Rate\nConclusion:\nThe gross profit (G.P.) rate applied by the assessee was found to be reasonable. The Tribunal maintained this G.P. rate, which had been applied by the assessee, as it reflected a fair and reasonable estimation of the profit in the context of the business activities. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the G.P. rate demonstrates that the assessee's calculation was acceptable, and no adjustments were necessary.\nCitation/Reference: The Tribunal's judgment was based on the reasonableness of the G.P. rate and its consistency with the nature of the business.\n________________________________________\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 63 - Best Judgment Assessment, Gross Profit Rate Fluctuations\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal addressed fluctuations in the gross profit rate (G.P. rate) from year to year, ruling that such fluctuations are a natural occurrence in business operations. The Tribunal acknowledged that variations in the G.P. rate, which is common due to market conditions and other factors, should not automatically result in adjustments by tax authorities. Thus, the Tribunal found the G.P. rate fluctuations to be reasonable and upheld the assessee's reported figures without imposing further adjustments.\nCitation/Reference: The Tribunal's ruling was based on the understanding that fluctuations in business performance are normal and should not lead to undue scrutiny unless substantial evidence suggests otherwise.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1976/LB of 1992-93, 4515/LB of 1994, 6007/LB, 6008/LB and 6009/LB of 1995, decision dated: 21st November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " AHSAN ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yousaf .T.P. for Appellant. Abdul Rauf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 247 = 1997 SLD 247 = 1997 PTD 2100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 23 & 80-C - Bifurcation of Income, Assessment, and Deemed Income\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the assessee initially filed a return declaring a loss, which was rejected by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), who then assessed income on his own. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the assessment for de novo (fresh) assessment. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return showing sales in response to a notice, but the ITO treated sales on which tax was deducted at source as deemed income under Section 80-C and proceeded to estimate income for the remaining sales where no tax was deducted at source. The ITO bifurcated the trading and profit & loss account for this purpose.\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reduced the sales figure but did not address the issue of deemed income. The matter was taken to the Tribunal, where both parties agreed that either all income should be deemed under Section 80-C or assessed under Section 23 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The case was remitted back for re-examination to determine whether the payments received by the assessee were of a nature on which tax was deductible at source. If so, they would be assessed under Section 80-C; otherwise, the assessment would be made under Section 23.\nCitation/Reference: The case illustrates the application of Sections 23 and 80-C, with reference to the bifurcation of income and the proper assessment procedure.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3455 and 3456/LB of 1995, decision dated: 4-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Malik, F.C.A. for Appellant. Shahbaz Butt, L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 248 = 1997 SLD 248 = 1997 PTD 2109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a)\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 13, 32(3) & 156 - Investment in Property, Deemed Income, Rectification of Mistake\nConclusion:\nThe appellant returned income, but the ITO made his own assessment, which included deemed income related to the purchase of property. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed this assessment. However, the Tribunal set aside the order, directing a re-examination of the investment in property and requiring the ITO to dispose of an application under Section 156 regarding the estimate of sales, which had not been addressed previously. The ITO went beyond the scope of his duties by computing profits from estimated sales, and the C.I.T. (A) upheld this without resolving the rectification application. The Tribunal ruled that both the assessing and appellate authorities had failed to follow its directions, rendering their orders unsustainable.\nCitation/Reference: Tribunal’s ruling for a re-examination of the property investment and proper disposal of the rectification application under Section 156. The case highlights the need for adhering to procedural directions and rectifying mistakes within the time frame.\nCase (b)\nTopic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 156(3) - Rectification of Mistake within Time Limit\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the appellant argued that the issue regarding the estimate of sales was to be decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as per a Tribunal order. Since no decision was made by the prescribed deadline, the action became time-barred under Section 156(3). Therefore, the Department was required to accept the declared results, and the rectification was deemed to be automatic. However, the Tribunal clarified that this did not mean the declared version was automatically accepted. Instead, it meant that the issue of sales estimation should be accepted, which would lead to a predetermined assessment of sales and income.\nCitation/Reference: The case elaborates on the procedural nuances of rectification under Section 156(3) and the time limitations associated with it.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,32(3),156,156(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2012/LB and 2013/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 9-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " IFFIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SALEEM SHAD QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ali Bhatti for Appellant. Haji Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 249 = 1997 SLD 249 = 1997 PTD 2114 = (1997) 224 ITR 342 = (1998) 77 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure - Royalty Payments, Collaboration Agreement\nConclusion:\nThis case involved a collaboration agreement between an Indian company and a foreign company, where the Indian company made payments for technical know-how and services related to setting up a plant for manufacturing products. The payments made were partially classified as capital expenditure and not deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nThe agreement stipulated that the foreign company would provide technical know-how for setting up the plant and manufacturing products, in exchange for a royalty based on the turnover. The payments were disallowed as part of capital expenditure because the benefits were of an enduring nature, associated with setting up a new business and continuing manufacturing even after the expiry of the agreement.\nThe High Court affirmed this view, ruling that the payment made by the Indian company was for the acquisition of a new business and for setting up a factory, giving it an enduring benefit. The disallowance of a portion of the payment as capital expenditure, which was not deductible as revenue expenditure, was upheld. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court, asserting that the enduring benefit received through technical know-how led to the capital nature of the expenditure.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nJonas Woodhead & Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 55 (SC)\n•\nAgrawal Hardware Works (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 510 (Cal.)\n•\nAlembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Ciba of India Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 692 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd. (No. 1) (1977) 110 ITR 338 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Sarada Binding Works (1976) 102 ITR 187 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. (P.) Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 538 (Bom.)\n•\nEmpire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR I (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1575, 1576 and 1577 to 1582 of 1980, decision dated: 11-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellant. P. A. Choudary, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra, C. Radhakrishnan and B. K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent\nMalik Asrar Ahmad, PTS., D.R., for the appellant. A. Rashid Nizami Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "JONAS WOODHEAD & SONS (INDIA) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 250 = 1997 SLD 250 = 1997 PTD 2124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 22 - Income from Business - Estimate of Sales and Gross Profit (G.P.) Rate\nConclusion:\nThe assessee applied his own Gross Profit (G.P.) rate to the sales declared in his return. However, the Assessing Officer rejected this approach and assessed the sales and G.P. rate at a higher level, as the assessee failed to substantiate even the import sales according to the documents. The Appellate Additional Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the assessment but reduced the G.P. rate. The assessee contested the rejection of his declared version, but the Tribunal found that the estimate of sales was somewhat high and allowed some reduction. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer appeared reasonable, given the lack of serious challenge from the assessee regarding the observations.\nCitation/Reference: The case underscores the application of Section 22 concerning business income and the necessity of substantiating sales and G.P. rate claims with proper documentation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3069/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 4-01-1996, hearing DATE : 6-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MEHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Masood Kh. for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 251 = 1997 SLD 251 = 1997 PTD 2125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 22 - Income from Business - Impact of Ill Health on Decline in Business\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the assessee's sales were estimated by the Assessing Officer at a high level, which was then confirmed by the First Appellate forum. The assessee argued that the decline in sales was due to health issues, which led to a reduction in his business activity. After considering these submissions, the sales estimate was reduced to Rs. 5,50,000 instead of the originally assessed Rs. 6,00,000. This ruling reflects the recognition of exceptional personal circumstances (ill health) affecting business performance and the subsequent adjustment of the income estimate.\nCitation/Reference: This case illustrates the application of Section 22 concerning the impact of external factors (such as health) on business income estimation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "T.A. No.63/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 22-12-1996, hearing DATE : 19-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Riaz Malik for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 252 = 1997 SLD 252 = 1997 PTD 2126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 59 - Self-Assessment Scheme and Eligibility of Return\nConclusion:\nThe assessee filed a return along with a wealth statement, indicating that part of the capital (Rs. 1,60,000) was received as a loan. The Assessing Officer requested proof, but the case was subsequently recommended for exclusion from the Self-Assessment Scheme. The Assessing Officer, not believing the affidavit provided by the assessee, made additions under Section 12(18). The First Appellate Authority found that the assessment order did not indicate the legal provision under which the case was set apart from the Self-Assessment Scheme and remanded the case for re-evaluation of the eligibility of the return under the scheme.\nThe tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority’s remand was improper as no valid reasons were presented to process the case outside of the Self-Assessment Scheme. The appeal was allowed, and the return filed under the Self-Assessment Scheme was accepted, ruling that the conditions for selecting the case for a full audit had not been met.\nCitation/Reference: The case cites Chairman, WAPDA v. Gunboat Khan 1996 SCMR 230, and highlights the procedural requirements for excluding a case from the Self-Assessment Scheme under Section 59.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1434/LB of 1994, decision dated: 2-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Azeem for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 253 = 1997 SLD 253 = 1997 PTD 2130 = (1997) 224 ITR 619 = (1998) 77 TAX 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Transfer of Assets - Interest on Deposit Taxable under Section 61\nConclusion: The appellant, a managing director of a company, had a deposit of Rs. 1,74,639 with the company. On the appellant's instructions, the deposit was transferred to the credit of a firm owned by his children. Over time, this sum was shown to have been returned to the appellant and then loaned back to the children’s firm. However, this transaction was found to be a paper device designed to reduce the appellant's tax liability. The High Court ruled that the transfer of the sum was not a genuine loan, and thus the interest earned on the sum should be taxed in the appellant’s hands under Section 61 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. It was held that the transfer was not a legitimate loan transaction but a device to reduce taxes, thus interest on the sum was deemed taxable in the appellant's hands.\nCitations/References:\n•\nA. G. Chamberlain v. IRC (1943) 25 TC 317 (HL)\n•\nS. P. Jaiswal v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 643 affirmed.\n•\nVarious Supreme Court cases referenced: CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd., CIT v. Pelleti Sridevamma, CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh, and others.\n________________________________________\n(b) Topic: Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court on Transfer of Deposit to Children’s Firm\nConclusion:\nThe appellant contested the transfer of the deposit as a genuine loan in the form of book entries in favor of his children. The Tribunal had initially concluded that the transaction was not benami and the interest was not the appellant's income. However, the High Court ruled that the transfers were not genuine, thus affirming that the transaction was a tax avoidance device. The High Court exercised its advisory jurisdiction correctly in determining that the transfers lacked legitimacy and confirming that the income should be taxed in the appellant’s hands.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2587 to 2592 of 1983, decision dated: 6-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant in person. J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (T. C. Sharma, Dhruv Mehta, C. Radha Krishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "S. P. JAISWAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 254 = 1997 SLD 254 = 1997 PTD 2137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 62, 132, 66-A - Assessment Set Aside by I.A.C.\nConclusion:\nThe I.A.C. set aside the original assessment, finding it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The assessee objected to this in an appeal before the C.I.T.(A), but the C.I.T.(A) correctly found that an appeal on this issue was not permissible. The issue of setting aside an assessment under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, could not be raised before the C.I.T.(A) while challenging an assessment made under Sections 62 and 132 of the Ordinance.\n________________________________________\n(b) Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 13(1)(d) & 66-A - Additions and Validity of Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe I.A.C. had discarded the original assessment made by the I.T.O., finding it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The assessee challenged this under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. However, the Tribunal found that the order under Section 66-A was based on presumptions and conjectures without sufficient evidence. The materials on record were fully considered by the Assessing Officer, and there was no justification to uphold the order under Section 66-A in these circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,132,66A,13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.9825/LB of 1992, 1140/LB and 1328/LB of 1996, decision dated: 15-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMED BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zafar Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Naseem Zafar, I.T.P. and Shakil-ur-Rehman, Tax Manager for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 255 = 1997 SLD 255 = 1997 PTD 2145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 135 & 8 - Procedural Amendment and Retrospectivity\nConclusion:\nThe C.I.T.(A) had placed undue weight on a clarification issued by the C.B.R. concerning the retrospectivity of an amendment in the S.R.O. The clarification was intended to help interpret the nature of the amendment, which was procedural and clarificatory in nature. The High Court ruled that the benefit of such a procedural amendment should have been granted to the appellant as it did not change substantive law but only clarified the existing provision. The amendment should be applied retrospectively.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Fresh Milk as Agricultural Produce\nConclusion:\nFresh milk was held to be classified as agricultural produce under the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), and its supply was exempt from tax. The order that wrongly taxed the supply of fresh milk was canceled, recognizing the exemption applicable to such agricultural products.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Commission Paid to Suppliers and Tax Deduction\nConclusion:\nThe assessee failed to deduct tax on commission payments to suppliers and was held to be in default. The assessee argued that the commission was an incentive for better quality and was added to the purchase price, which he claimed exempted it from tax deduction. However, the tribunal set aside the order, ruling that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the nature of the commission payments. The case was remanded for a fresh determination of the liability to deduct tax under Section 52.\nCitations:\n•\nHunza Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1973 PTD 544\n•\nRehman Corporation v. ITO, 1985 PTD 787\n•\nCentral Insurance Company, 1993 PTD 766 = 1993 SCMR 1232", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135 & 8,14readwithSecondSched. & 50(4),50(4A) & 52 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1038/LB of 1995, decision dated: 24-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " SYED MUMTAZ ALAM GILLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Appellant. Haji Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 256 = 1997 SLD 256 = 1997 PTD 2158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 48 & Second Schedule Cl. 125 - Exemption for Newly Established Industrial Undertaking\nConclusion:\nThe assessee was denied exemption for a newly established industrial undertaking, with the Revenue arguing that conditions were not met. However, the court held that the exemption was a legal right under Section 48 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, provided certain conditions were fulfilled, such as no splitting or reconstruction of an existing business. Since the conditions were satisfied, the exemption was upheld and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow it.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=48,SecondSched.Cl.125 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 879/LB and 713/LB of 1994, decision dated: 13-08-1996, hearing DATE : 12-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R for Appellant (in.T.A N6879/LB of 1994)\nMuhammad Iqbal Hashmi, A.R for Respondent (in.T.A No. 879/LB of 1994)\nMuhammad Iqbal Hashmi, A.R for Appellant (in.T.A No. 713/LB of 1994)\nMuhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent (in.T.A No. 713/LB of 1994)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 257 = 1997 SLD 257 = 1997 PTD 2161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 130 - Appeal Fee Amendment\nConclusion:\nAn appeal filed by the appellant was rejected on the grounds of non-compliance with the new appeal fee requirement under the Finance Act, 1995. However, the amendment regarding the increase in the appeal fee was deemed prospective, not retrospective. The relevant assessment year for the appeal was 1992-93, and the appellant’s appeal fee payment was proper. Therefore, the appeal should be considered by the C.I.T.(A) with the appellant granted an opportunity to be heard.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.A. No. 1217/KB of 1994-95", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.6185/LB of 1995, decision dated: 1st February, 1996, hearing DATE : 24-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Umer for Appellant. Javaid-ur-Rahman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 258 = 1997 SLD 258 = 1997 PTD 2165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 62 - Simplified Assessment Procedure\nConclusion:\nThe appellant filed a return under the Simplified Assessment Procedure (S.A.P.), but the Assessing Officer rejected it, citing non-compliance with requirements. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) set aside the order, remitting the case for proper consideration. It was found that the Assessing Officer wrongly relied on C.B.R. Circular No. 6 of 1988, and the appellant had submitted evidence to support the S.A.P. return. The Assessing Officer was instructed to accept the return filed under S.A.P., as the procedure was not properly followed in rejecting it.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.7026/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 1st July, 1996, hearing DATE : 27-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Khalid Aziz Banttah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 259 = 1997 SLD 259 = 1997 PTD 2171 = (1996) 76 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax - Res Judicata and Applicability in Income Tax Cases\nConclusion:\nIn income tax cases, the principle of res judicata is not applied as strictly as in civil matters. Since the Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) is not a judicial tribunal but an officer authorized by the Income Tax Commissioner to determine tax liabilities, decisions made by the I.T.O. can be revisited, especially if fresh evidence is available. The application of res judicata in income tax cases depends on whether the decision was reached after proper inquiry and whether there are valid objections to it.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1965 SC 171\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 65, 129 & 134 - Reopening of Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe appellant’s appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the original assessment was no longer valid after the initiation of proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance. However, when the proceedings under Section 65 were dropped, the original assessment was restored, and the appeal was considered to be a continuation of the original assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax's dismissal of the appeal was vacated, and the case was remanded for disposal on merits after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax - Administration of Justice Principles\nConclusion:\nThe fundamental principle in any system of administration of justice is that procedures should assist in granting people's rights, not hinder them. Technicalities should not defeat substantial rights unless necessary for public policy. Courts and tax authorities must ensure that justice is served, avoiding procedural mistakes that would harm a party's ability to access their legal rights.\nCitations:\n•\nImtiaz Ahmed v. Ghulam Ali, PLD 1963 SC 382", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,129,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.84/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 21st June, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Saadat Khan and Khalil Waggan, C.A. for Appellant. Ali Nasir Bukhari, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 260 = 1997 SLD 260 = 1997 PTD 2180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 22 - Estimate of Sales and Gross Profit (G.P.) Rate\nConclusion:\nThe assessee submitted its own estimate of sales and Gross Profit (G.P.) rate, but the Assessing Officer rejected it and estimated higher sales with a higher G.P. rate. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) made a slight reduction in sales but maintained the G.P. rate. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had accepted the declared sales in similar cases from previous years. Since the declared sales were more than double the estimate, the Tribunal directed that the assessee’s declared results be accepted and no further interference was necessary.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.TA No.4033/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 1st February, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem for-Appellant. Abdul Rauf, D.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 261 = 1997 SLD 261 = 1997 PTD 2183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 22 - Estimate of Sales and Gross Profit (G.P.) Rate\nConclusion:\nThe assessee submitted its own estimate of sales and Gross Profit (G.P.) rate, but the Assessing Officer rejected it and estimated higher sales with a higher G.P. rate. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) made a slight reduction in sales but maintained the G.P. rate. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had accepted the declared sales in similar cases from previous years. Since the declared sales were more than double the estimate, the Tribunal directed that the assessee’s declared results be accepted and no further interference was necessary.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4462/LB to 4465/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 23rd January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " SARDAR MUHAMMAD ANWAR A. KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SARFRAZ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Najam-ud-Din Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Yousaf Akram for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 262 = 1997 SLD 262 = 1997 PTD 2186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 22 - Estimate of Sales and Gross Profit (G.P.) Rate\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer rejected the sales declared by the assessee and added back certain expenses from the Profit and Loss (P & L) account. However, the Appellate Authority found the G.P. rate to be in order and accepted the declared sales. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deemed to be without proper reason or basis. The First Appellate Authority's order was confirmed, and the departmental appeal was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5313/LB and 5452/LB of 1995, decision dated: 5-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi, A.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 5313/LB of 1995). Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 5313/LB of 1995). Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 5452/LB of 1995). Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi, A.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 5452/LB of 1995)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 263 = 1997 SLD 263 = 1997 PTD 2190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 22 - Additions and Add Backs\nConclusion:\nThe assessee claimed allowances for different heads in the P & L account over four years. The Assessing Officer rejected the claims and made additions across all accounts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) provided relief, reducing or deleting the add backs. The additions were found to be based on unverified assumptions, as the Assessing Officer did not make efforts to verify the claims or examine the records. In the absence of such verification, the additions were deemed unsustainable and were deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 10328/LB of 1991-92, 9643/1-13 of 1992-93, 1911/LB of 1994 and 6405/1-13 of 1995, decision dated: 9-10-1996, hearing DATE : 7-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. R. Farooqi, I.T.P. for Appellant. Mian Qasim Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 264 = 1997 SLD 264 = 1997 PTD 2195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 63 - Best Judgment Assessment and Ex-parte Proceedings\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer conducted an ex-parte assessment based on non-compliance with a notice. However, the assessee contended that they had been present during the appeal hearing and that their absence at the time of the assessment was not intentional. The facts indicated that the assessee had valid reasons for their absence. Therefore, the case was remanded for de novo proceedings, and the assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, ensuring the ends of justice were met.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 6310/LB of 1996, decision dated: 21st October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Assessee in person. Mian Qasim Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 265 = 1997 SLD 265 = 1997 PTD 2197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 13(1)(d) - Addition\nConclusion:\nThe assessee purchased a plot, and an Income Tax Inspector reported a higher market value. The Assessing Officer, finding the explanation unsatisfactory, made an addition based on this report. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) reduced the addition by half. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, noting that the Income Tax Inspector’s report was made 2.5 years after the purchase, making it irrelevant to the period under consideration. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer failed to ask the assessee to explain the source of investment, and the addition was deemed unjustified.\nJustification for Addition:\nTo justify an addition under Section 13(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, the Assessing Officer must determine the actual investment made by the assessee based on reasonable material. Estimation based purely on personal views or wild guesses cannot stand. Any estimate must be grounded in facts, and burdening the taxpayer with heavy taxes on a speculative basis is unsustainable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),13,13(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3203/LB/DB and 1387/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 14-11-1995, hearing DATE : 24-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ABDUL RASHID QURESHI AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Rehman, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 3203/LB of 1991-92).\nAbdul Qudus Abid, I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No.3203/LB of 1991-92).\nAbdul Qudus Abid.P. for Appellant (in T.A. No. 1387/LB of 1991-92).\nJaved Rehman, D.R. for Respondent (in T.A. No. 1387/LB of 1991-92)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 266 = 1997 SLD 266 = 1997 PTD 2202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 22 - Estimate of Sales and Add Backs\nConclusion:\nThe assessee applied its own Gross Profit (G.P.) rate to estimate sales, but the Assessing Officer rejected the declared results, estimating sales at a higher level and making add backs in the Profit and Loss (P & L) account. The First Appellate Authority maintained the estimated sales but deleted the add backs in the P & L account. The Tribunal further reduced the sales estimate slightly, considering the volume of business, and upheld the deletion of add backs.\nnd add backs deleted by Appellate Tribunal considering volume of business.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I. T.A. No. 1524/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 14-01-1997, hearing DATE : 6-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem Akhtar for Appellant. Mian Munawar Ghafoor, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 267 = 1997 SLD 267 = 1997 PTD 2203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 19 - House Property and Gross Annual Letting Value (G.A.L.V.)\nConclusion:\nThe assessee filed an appeal against the Revenue Authorities’ assessment of the Gross Annual Letting Value (G.A.L.V.), claiming that it was excessive and unjustified. The Revenue Authorities determined the G.A.L.V. without properly considering the list of tenants and the actual rent received. The case was remitted back for a reassessment, considering the declared G.A.L.V. based on the provided information regarding tenants and rents.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.522/LB/1313 of 1988-89, decision dated: 7-02-1996, hearing DATE : 6-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi for Appellant. Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 268 = 1997 SLD 268 = 1997 PTD 2205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 22 - Income from Business and Estimate of Sales\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer rejected the declared sales of the assessee and estimated sales based on his own calculations. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) provided some relief but maintained the general estimation. However, the Tribunal, upon reviewing the case history, found that the assessee had shown better results than previous years, and the Assessing Officer’s findings were based on conjectures. The Tribunal deleted the additions, noting that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had presented substantial material to justify the additions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1291/LB of 1992-93, 174/LB of 1994 and 844/LB of 1995, decision dated: 25-01-1996, hearing DATE : 29-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " M. SALEEM SHAD QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SARFRAZ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Masha Allah Khan, C.A. for Appellant. Mobeen Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 269 = 1997 SLD 269 = 1997 PTD 2209 = (1996) 76 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 138, 62 & 65 - Revision by Commissioner - Re-opening of Assessment\nConclusion:\nA decision made by the Member (Judicial) of the Income Tax (C.B.R.) regarding the re-opening of an assessment had attained finality. Therefore, this issue could not be re-agitated in subsequent proceedings.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 65 & 66 - Re-opening of Assessment - Limitation\nConclusion:\nAn order upholding the re-opening of assessment was passed on 10-11-1993. Since the assessment could be completed by 30-6-1995, and the assessment was completed on 28-6-1995, the action was not barred by limitation.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 13(1)(b) - C.B.R. Circular No.I.T.-Jud-1(162)/90\nConclusion:\nThe discovery of a difference between the stock declared by the assessee and the stock pledged with the bank was addressed following the procedure outlined in the C.B.R. Circular. Statements from bank authorities were recorded by the Assessing Officer while making the additions. Since the stock was not insured, no examination by the insurance company was required. The Assessing Officer fully complied with the directions of the C.B.R. Circular.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 13(1)(b) - Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Preamble & Article 133\nConclusion:\nIn cases where there is a difference between stock declared to the Income Tax Department and pledged with a bank, the addition can only be made if there is a quantitative difference. If the difference is purely in valuation and there is no quantitative discrepancy, an addition should not be made unless there are other strong reasons. Furthermore, the denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine bank authorities regarding the stock's valuation violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal ruled that the addition was to be set aside, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to recall witnesses whose cross-examination had been denied, providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine them before issuing a new order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138,62.65,66,13(1)(b),13 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=133 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1532/KB and 1533/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 10-07-1997, hearing DATE : 7-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amin-ud-Din Ansari for Appellant. Ali Nasir Bokhari, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 270 = 1997 SLD 270 = 1997 PTD 2219 = (1997) 224 ITR 663 = (1998) 77 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 - Firm Registration - Death of Partner\nConclusion:\nIn the case of a firm where a partner (S) died, the surviving partners entered into a new partnership with the legal representatives of the deceased, including his sons. K, one of the surviving partners, signed the new partnership deed both in his individual capacity and on behalf of the heirs of S. The Income Tax Officer initially granted registration for the newly constituted partnership but later canceled it for the 1972-73 assessment year, arguing that K had signed in two capacities, which supposedly invalidated the partnership. The Tribunal upheld the genuineness of the partnership.\nUpon appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal bar preventing K from signing in dual capacities. The partnership was valid, as there were six partners, and K was representing the legal heirs as per the will. The partnership was entitled to registration, and the appeal of the Income Tax Officer was dismissed.\nKey Points:\n•\nThere is no legal issue with a legal representative of a deceased partner joining the surviving partners.\n•\nA partner can sign a partnership deed in two capacities if no conflict of interest exists, as in this case where K acted both individually and as a representative of the heirs of the deceased partner.\n•\nThe Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the partnership and the registration of the firm.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nor 3069 1of 1980 with Civil. Appeals Nos. 3338 of .,1984, 8601-02 of 1983, 411-16 of 1984, 1570-71 of 1993, 4675 of 1984, 3867 of 1992, 7745, Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 19919-20 of 1995 and 12744 of 1991, decision dated: 4-03-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. C. Sharma, T. L. V. Iyer, Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocates (B.S. Ahuja, S. N. Terdol, P. Parmeswaran, S. Balakrishnan, S. Prasad, (S. Ganesh and Mrs. A. K. Verma, Advocates for M/s. J. B. D. & Co.) Sameer Parekh, E. R. Kumar, R. Deepamala, P. H. Parekh U. V. Eradi, A. P. Medh, K. V. Mohan, Aruneshwar Gupta, Mukul Mudgal, Dhruv Mehta and S. K. Mehta Advocates with them) for the Appearing Parties.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKANDATH MOTORS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 271 = 1997 SLD 271 = 1997 PTD 2235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 13(1)(d) - Addition - Validity\nConclusion:\nThe assessee was engaged in manufacturing agricultural implements, which was exempt from tax up to the year 1988-89. The appeal in question related to the 1987-88 assessment year. Additionally, the assessee had purchased agricultural land and was asked to file a return of income and a wealth statement for 1987-88. The process of filing returns and providing explanations continued without clarity, leading to additions being made, which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) confirmed.\nHowever, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, granting the benefit of doubt. It was noted that no tax would be levied by intendment or implication, as the department failed to provide clear evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal vacated the department’s orders, siding with the assessee's case.\nReference: PLD 1990 SC 68.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3364/LB of 1995, decision dated: 28-08-1996.hearing DATE : 28-08-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " M. SALEEM SHAD QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AHSAN ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahsan-ul-Haq, I.T.P. for Appellant\nMasood Ali Jamshed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 272 = 1997 SLD 272 = 1997 PTD 2239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 13 & 22 - Commission - Addition\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, engaged in the purchase of skins and hides, earned a commission of 2%, which later decreased to 1% as per trading results. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation, alleging a collusive agreement between the principal and the assessee to avoid taxation. Additions were made in different accounts and confirmed by the CIT(A).\nThe Tribunal upheld the additions, concluding that the conduct of the assessee, and the adjustments made in the commission, were unjustified. The reduction in commission was found to be part of a collusive effort to evade taxes. The assessee's declaration of income was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the additions made by the department were thus confirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2972/LB of 1991-92, 1870/LB of 1992-93, 171/LB, 170/LB and 4476/LB-of 1993-94, decision dated: 5-10-1996.hearing DATE : 16-09-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zafar Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant\nNaeem Akhtar Shah, A.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 273 = 1997 SLD 273 = 1997 PTD 2245 = (1996) 76 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Exemption - United Nations - Pension Received by Widow of Employee\nConclusion:\nThe widow of a United Nations (U.N.) employee receives a pension, which is exempt from taxation under the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947. According to Section 18(b) of the Act, U.N. officials are exempt from taxation on their salaries, and pensions paid to their widows are similarly exempt, as they are considered linked to the employee's prior U.N. employment.\nThe Tribunal held that the pension received by the widow of a U.N. employee has a clear nexus to the employment of her deceased husband and, therefore, the pension is exempt from tax. The ruling follows established case law, including CIT v. Dipali Goswami (Sint.) (1985) and Usha Shah (Sint.) v. CIT (1989), among others.\nReferences: CIT v. Dipali Goswami (Sint.) (1985) 156 ITR 36 (Cal.) and Usha Shah (Sint.) v. CIT (1989) 175 ITR 572 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Cases Referred No.55 of 1987, decision dated: 17-07-1995", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MUHAMMAD QUADRI AND G. BIKSHAPATHY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner\nY. Ratnakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. MAJJIDUNNISA BEGUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 274 = 1997 SLD 274 = 1997 PTD 2249 = (1997) 224 ITR 422", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Capital Gains - Transfer - Redemption of Preference Shares by Company\nConclusion:\nWhen a company redeems preference shares, the transaction is treated as a sale under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The redemption process involves the company buying back the shares from the shareholder by paying them the redemption value. As per Section 2(47)(i) of the Income Tax Act, the redemption of shares is classified as a sale, exchange or relinquishment of a capital asset, thus qualifying as a transfer.\nIn this case, the assessee had purchased preference shares at a value less than their face value and later redeemed them at face value. The difference between the price paid by the assessee and the redemption price received from the company was treated as taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act. This conclusion was supported by previous case law, including Sath Gwaldas Mathuradas Mohata Trust v. CIT (1987) and Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT (1982).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.541 of 1983, decision dated: 24-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ganesh and A. K. Verma, Advocates for Appellant\nJ. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (B. Krishna Prasad and Dhruv Mehta, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ANARKALI SARABHAI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 275 = 1997 SLD 275 = 1997 PTD 2258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 22 & 80-D - Income from Business - Expenses on Vehicles Used by Directors\nConclusion:\n(a) Turnover Tax under Section 80-D\nThe assessee, a company, was levied turnover tax under Section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The levy included excise duty and sales tax, for which the assessee failed to provide necessary details regarding the excise duty paid. As a result, the levy of turnover tax was upheld as valid.\n(b) Depreciation on Vehicles Used by Directors\nUnder Section 23(v) and the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, the claim for depreciation on vehicles used by the company's directors was rightly disallowed due to non-compliance with the prescribed requirements for claiming such depreciation.\n(c) Income from Business\nThe assessee’s return showing trading results, which were better than those of the previous years, was upheld by the authorities, as the improvements in the trading results were substantiated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,80D,23(v),ThirdSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1064/LB and 1717/LB of 1996, decision dated: 26-06-1996, hearing DATE : 11-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAG AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood Ahmad for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 276 = 1997 SLD 276 = 1997 PTD 2261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 22 & 32(3) - Estimate of Sales\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, who applied his own G.P. (Gross Profit) rate to return sales, faced rejection of the sales figures by the authorities due to them being unvouched and unverifiable. The Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the sales estimate for two years but upheld the third year. Both the assessee and the department filed appeals— the assessee sought further relief, while the department was aggrieved by the reduction.\nThe Tribunal, while considering the estimate of sales made by the First Appellate Authority in the preceding year, upheld the relief given for the years under appeal, finding it reasonable based on the estimation practices in the previous year.\n(b) Claim of Expenses - Staff Salaries\nConclusion:\nThe assessee claimed expenses under staff salaries, but the Assessing Officer sought to link the claimed expenses to the declared turnover and compare them to the previous year's expenses. This comparison was deemed improper by the Tribunal because the Assessing Officer failed to provide an explicit finding on the genuineness of the expense claim. It was held that simply because the expenditure on staff salaries was lower in the previous year, it was not a valid reason to disallow part of the current year's claim, especially when the claim was otherwise genuine and substantiated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2002, 2068, 2003/LB, 2774, 2775, 2776 of 1991-92, decision dated: 19-02-1996.hearing DATE : 17-12-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawar Malik, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2002/LB, 206E/LB and 2003/LB of 1991-92)\nQaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.2002/LB, 2068/LB and 2003/LB of 1991-92)\nQaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2774/LB to 2776/LB of 1991-92)\nMunawar Malik, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.2774/LB to 2776/LB of 1991-92)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 277 = 1997 SLD 277 = 1997 PTD 2264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 22 & 32(3) - Estimate of Sales & G.P. Rate\nConclusion:\nThe assessee applied his own G.P. rate to return sales, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this decision, noting a decline in the G.P. rate compared to the previous year. The assessee explained the decline as being due to a change in business which led to an increase in overhead expenses. However, the Appellate Authority did not comment on the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding the decline in G.P. rate.\nThe Tribunal ruled that the history of the case could not be used to determine the correct income for the year under appeal, especially considering the change in business during the year. Each assessment year should be treated separately, and reliance on the previous year's history was not appropriate in this context.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T .As. Nos. 1540/1541/1992-1993/LB of 1995, decision dated: 30-10-1995.hearing DATE : 13-09-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AHSAN ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rauf., D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Akbar. C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 278 = 1997 SLD 278 = 1997 PTD 2266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 16, 22 & 32(3) - Income from Salary and Business\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, running a tailoring shop, reported sales under different heads. The Assessing Officer bifurcated the sales and applied higher G.P. rates to the bifurcated sales figures. This was rejected by the Tribunal, as there was no justification for the department's bifurcation of sales under different heads.\nIt was noted that the assessee did not personally perform the stitching work, and therefore, applying separate G.P. rates to different heads of sales was improper. The Tribunal ordered that combined sales be estimated and a single G.P. rate be applied to the total sales amount.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3167/LB of 1991-92 and 982/1998/LB of 1995, decision dated: 14-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SARFRAZ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noor Muhammad Qureshi for Appellant. Najam-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 279 = 1997 SLD 279 = 1997 PTD 2269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1939) - Section 66-A - Revision by I.A.C. - Prize Bonds\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's case was finalized under the Self-Assessment Scheme, and later, the Income Tax Department sought clarification about income from Prize Bonds. The assessee claimed that the income from the bonds was exempt and should be treated as a separate block of income in the return, for which tax had already been deducted. The tribunal ruled that this income should not be included in the total income. Since there was no indication that the previous assessments were erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, the action under Section 66-A was considered unnecessary.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2047/KB of 1995, decision dated: 14-03-1996, hearing DATE : 12-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siddique Ch., A.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Akram Tahir for Respondent\nAnwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court.\nSuleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record, No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 280 = 1997 SLD 280 = 1997 PTCL 1 = 1997 PTD 2271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 59 & 61 - Self-Assessment Scheme - Remuneration of Director\nConclusion:\nThe assessee submitted income under the Self-Assessment Scheme, which was challenged by the Assessing Officer. The dispute arose due to the assessee receiving salary and perquisites from two companies, whereas the assessee contended that he had worked for only one company. The CIT(A) set aside the decision with directions for verification of facts.\nWhen the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 61, the assessee failed to attend, leading to the addition of perquisites to the declared income. The Tribunal eventually set aside the addition, ruling that the onus was on the assessee to prove that he did not work for the second company. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee needed to substantiate his claim with proper evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 506/LB of 1993, 9616/LB of 1992-93, 5642/LB of 1995, decision dated: 30-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 281 = 1997 SLD 281 = 1997 PTD 2274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bangladesh Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) - Section 66(1) - Construction and Repair of Vessels\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, involved in construction and repairing vessels, submitted accounts showing gross profit under four categories, but the trading profits were not separately accounted for and appeared lower than expected. The Assessing Officer, invoking the proviso to Section 13, raised the gross profit by assuming that there was a change in accounting method, especially since there were no detailed costs provided for individual vessels.\nThe Appellate forums upheld the Assessing Officer's treatment, but the Tribunal found that there was no substantial basis for raising the gross profit estimate. It ruled that the increase in gross profit was arbitrary and lacked supporting evidence, thus declaring it illegal. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided all required receipts, and the raised gross profit was unfounded.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),13 ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No.2 of 1982, decision dated: 12-05-1994, hearing DATE : 12-05-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ISMAILUDDIN SARKER AND MUHAMMAD HAMIDUL HAQUE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ishtiaque Ahmad with Rokan-ud-Din Mahmud and Muhammad Delawar Hossain for Petitioner\nA. Y. Salehuzzaman, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NARAYANGONJ DOCK LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF TAXES, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION ZONE, DHAKA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 282 = 1997 SLD 282 = 1997 PTD 2277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Bangladesh Income Tax Ordinance (XXXVI of 1984) - Section 84-A - Presumptive Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe assessee failed to submit a return or maintain accounts as required by law. As per Section 84-A, the Assessing Officer used his powers to presume the assessee’s total income based on the law. The tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's authority to do so, as the legal provisions empowered him to act in this way.\n(b) Presumptive Income and Methodology\nConclusion:\nIn previous years, the assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 40,000, but this year, it was assessed at Rs. 1,35,000, more than three times the previous amount. The tribunal found the presumptive income to be based on assumptions, conjectures, and surmises, rather than facts or evidence. The tribunal emphasized that presumptive income should be assessed using honest opinions and factual basis, not based on arbitrary assumptions.\n(c) Bangladesh Income Tax Ordinance (1984) - Section 153(3) - Appeal Rejection\nConclusion:\nThe assessee did not file a return, so the Assessing Officer presumed his total income and made him liable to tax. The assessee filed an appeal, but it was rejected in his absence. The tribunal ruled that there was no legal provision to reject the appeal simply because the assessee was a defaulter. Since the assessee had not filed a return, the rejection of the appeal was deemed illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Dacca", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3723 of 1993-94, decision dated: 16-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ABU BAKR MIYANJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHURUL ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Raza and Mr. Yakub, I.T.P. for Appellant\nSyed Wahid Hossain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 283 = 1997 SLD 283 = 1997 PTD 2282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – Re-assessment – Limitation\nConclusion:\nThe assessee filed a return with nil income, which was rejected, and the Appellate Authority directed re-assessment. Instead of going through re-assessment, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal and argued that the Assessing Officer had not re-assessed within the statutory two-year period, making the appeal time-barred. The tribunal held that had the assessee not appealed, the case would indeed be considered time-barred. However, because an appeal was filed, the appeal was not considered time-barred, as the appellate process takes precedence.\n(b) Bangladesh Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) – Local Authority Exemption\nConclusion:\nThe assessee claimed to be treated as a Local Authority for tax purposes, citing an amendment in the General Clauses Act. Under this amendment, the assessee (as a Local Authority) was exempt from taxation. The lower authorities did not agree with this status, but the tribunal found that the assessee was indeed a Local Authority and should be exempt from taxation, citing relevant case law.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Dacca", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 130 and 131/C-11 of 1981-82, heard on 25-10-1990 hearing DATE : 25-10-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B. RAHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M. KABIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdus Sattar for Appellant\nA.H. Akhond, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 284 = 1997 SLD 284 = 1997 PTD 2286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Bangladesh Income Tax Ordinance (XXXVI of 1984) – Appeal to Appellate Tribunal – Time-barred Appeal\nConclusion:\nThe assessee filed a time-barred appeal, explaining the delay due to ignorance of the revised assessment order. Once the assessee was made aware, he immediately applied for a certified copy of the order. The appeal was then filed via registered post, and the tribunal accepted the appeal, ruling that the assessee took all reasonable steps once the delay was explained, treating the appeal as filed within time.\n(b) Reassessment – Precondition and Principles\nConclusion:\nThe assessee filed a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme, fulfilling all requirements, and the case was processed accordingly. However, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) served a notice for re-assessment based on an enquiry report from the Departmental Inspector. The assessee objected to the IAC’s jurisdiction. The tribunal ruled that the law did not grant unlimited powers for reassessment, and erroneous orders prejudicial to the revenue must be supported by facts. Therefore, reassessment could only be carried out based on solid evidence.\n(c) Self-Assessment Return – Essentials\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal affirmed that a self-assessment return is not typically subject to scrutiny unless certain formalities are not fulfilled. Once the assessee fulfills all the required formalities, the Assessing Officer must complete the assessment in accordance with the assessment rules.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Dacca", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "LT.A. No. 1280 of 1992-93, decision dated: 11-08-1994", + "Judge Name:": " ABU BAKR MIYANJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHURUL ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ahmed and Mohi-ud-Din Ahmed for Appellant\nSyed Wahid Hossain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 285 = 1997 SLD 285 = 1997 PTD 2296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Sections 13, 62 & 65 – Deemed Income\nConclusion:\nAfter the assessee's original assessment, the Assessing Officer received information suggesting manipulated sales and began proceedings under Section 65. The assessee's explanation that the sales were from opening stock was rejected, and additional income was deemed under Section 13(1)(c). The tribunal found that the assessee’s explanation was supported by account entries and rejected the Assessor's assumption about opening and closing stocks. The tribunal ruled that the proceedings under Section 65 were misconceived and did not justify the additional income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,62,65,13(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No.1438/1.13 of 1994, decision dated: 24-01-1996.hearing DATE : 24-01-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Qureshi for Appellant\nZafar Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 286 = 1997 SLD 286 = 1997 PTD 2299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 22 – Income from Business – Brick Kiln\nConclusion:\nThe assessee in the brick kiln business declared its income, but the Assessing Officer, using an Inspector's report, rejected the declared results. The officer assumed a kiln capacity of 8,00,000 bricks and a different number of rounds than declared, applying a 25% G.P. rate. The First Appellate Authority upheld the assessment. The tribunal, considering the labor disputes in the sector, decided that the number of rounds should be adjusted to 2.5 rounds, as declared by the assessee, and the kiln's capacity remained unchanged. The tribunal upheld the rates of bricks applied by the assessee as reasonable and found no reason for interference.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1035/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 13-01-1997.hearing DATE : 13-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SARFRAZ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Tahir for Appellant\nMian Masood Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 287 = 1997 SLD 287 = 1997 PTD 2301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 65 – Additional Assessment – Change of Opinion\nConclusion:\nThe assessee filed a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme, and the Assessing Officer initially initiated regular proceedings, which were later accepted. The assessee purchased a shop during the year, and the I.T.O. reopened the assessment, adopting a higher value for the shop and making an addition based on the understatement of income. The C.I.T. (A) rejected the assessee's claim, arguing that the original assessment did not examine the assets and liabilities properly. However, the tribunal ruled that the subsequent change in the opinion regarding the purchase price was merely a change of opinion, not supported by new, definite information. Therefore, the reassessment under Section 65 was not valid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 2979/LB of 1995, decision dated: 11-06-1996.hearing DATE : 29-11-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sarfraz, F.C.A. for Appellant\nMrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 288 = 1997 SLD 288 = 1997 PTD 2322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Sections 13(1)(d) & 67 – Addition – Validity of Sale-Deed\nConclusion:\nThe assessee purchased a house, and the Assessing Officer rejected the declared value, making an addition. The C.I.T. (A) set aside the assessment due to non-fulfillment of provisions under Section 13(1) & (2), and referred the case to a valuer under Section 67. The Assessing Officer then re-assessed based on the valuer’s report and his own estimation. The C.I.T. (A) upheld the assessment. The tribunal held that the onus of rejecting the sale-deed rested with the department, which failed to provide strong evidence to support claims that the sale was undervalued. Therefore, the value of the land as per the registered deed should be adopted, and no adverse inference could be drawn without cogent proof. The addition based on construction costs was justified as the assessee did not provide evidence supporting a different value.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),67,13(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4032-A/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 1st February, 1996.hearing DATE : 1st February, 1996.", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem for Appellant\nAbdul Rauf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 289 = 1997 SLD 289 = 1997 PTD 2326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Sections 22 & 63 – Gross Profit Rate – Add-backs\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's declared sales and G.P. rate were rejected by the Assessing Officer, who estimated sales at a higher figure and applied his own G.P. rate, leading to add-backs in the P & L accounts. The C.I.T. (A) upheld these findings, offering partial relief. The tribunal affirmed the Assessing Officer's justification for completing ex-parte proceedings under Section 63, noting that even-handed justice had been done. The relief allowed by the First Appellate Authority was deemed reasonable, and no further interference was warranted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 8302/LB, 9873/LB of 1991-92, 1230/LB of 1992-93 and 4134/LB, 4135/LB, 4136/LB of 1996, decision dated: 15-08-1996.hearing DATE : 12-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashid Sarwar, C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.8302/LB, 4134/LB to 4136/LB of 1996)\nMrs. Samara Yaseen, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.8302/LB, 4134/LB to 4136/LB of 1996)\nMrs. Samara Yaseen, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. 9873/LB and 1230/LB of 1992-93)\nRashid Sarwar, C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. 9873/LB and 1230/LB of 1992-93)\nQasim Imam, Advocate on-Record for A. G. (N.W.F.P.) for the State.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 290 = 1997 SLD 290 = 1997 PTD 2332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Sections 22 & 134 – Disallowance of Financial Charges\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's appeal against the disallowance of financial charges and the subsequent add-backs was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority. The Assessing Officer had allocated financial charges between work in progress and capital work in progress, devising a formula for this allocation. The tribunal ruled that the add-backs were justified, as the formula was based on operational circumstances and had not been challenged on record. However, the tribunal also noted that the impugned order failed to discuss the formula's legality and found no justification for the bifurcation. Since the financial charges were legally incurred and verifiable, the assessee's full claim was allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6883/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 23rd July, 1996.hearing DATE : 25-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Nawaz Khan, A.R. for Appellant\nAsid Ali Jan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 291 = 1997 SLD 291 = 1997 PTD 2334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 63 – Ex-Parte Assessment – Non-Compliance of Notices\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer made an ex-parte assessment due to non-compliance of statutory notices by the assessee. The assessee contested the assessment, arguing that the non-compliance was due to the pre-occupation of the partners with dividing their ancestral property. The tribunal rejected this contention, stating that even though notices were served on the partners, they were not complied with, justifying the ex-parte assessment.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 22 – Estimate of Sales\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer based the estimate of sales entirely on a Tax Inspector's Report, which indicated higher sales figures. The tribunal ruled that while the rush of customers in the area was noted, the sales estimate was exaggerated, as it was not supported by similar assessments of other shops in the area. The estimate of income from paper cutting machines was also deemed without basis, as there was no separate declaration or prior assessment of such income. Thus, the sales figures previously fixed would cover the receipts from the paper cutting machines.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3294/LB, 3294-A/LB, 3295/LB, 3295-A/LB and 3295-B/LB of , 1995 , decision dated: 19-02-1996.hearing DATE : 19-02-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MALIK MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mujahid Islam for Appellant\nZafar Ahmad, D.R. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 292 = 1997 SLD 292 = 1997 PTD 2338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 13(1)(aa) – Deemed Income – Gift of Property\nConclusion:\nThe assessee received an immovable property as a gift from a person not related to them, through a registered gift deed, and the mutation was duly effected. The Assessing Officer rejected the gift deed, arguing that the donor was not related to the assessee and added an unexplained amount as deemed income. The tribunal ruled that the gift deed was valid, and the rejection of the deed and the addition of the amount to the assessee's income was not justified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 522/KB of 1995-96 and 636/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 14-06-1997.hearing DATE : 29-05-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED SHAUKAT ALI ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khursheed Ahmed, I. T. P. for Appellant\nMuhammad Majid Qureshi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 293 = 1997 SLD 293 = 1997 PTD 2339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Sections 22 & 13(1)(d) – Purchase of Plot – Addition – Validity\nConclusion:\nThe assessee returned income along with a wealth statement regarding a plot purchased in response to a notice under Section 56. The Assessing Officer found the returned value low and estimated a higher price, making an addition under deemed income provisions. The C.I.T. (A) set aside the assessment, directing the fair market value to be considered. Upon reassessment, the assessee's reply was found to be contrary to the facts, leading to a repeated addition. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had failed to substantiate the estimate of the plot's price and should have used the agreed price from the parallel case. Given that the area of the purchased plot was smaller, the estimated price should have been proportionally lower.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Sections 144 & 148 – Power to Take Evidence\nConclusion:\nThe assessee requested that the concerned Authority (LDA), along with the records, be called to determine the real situation concerning the plot. The tribunal ruled that such an application should have been made earlier, either at the original stage or at least before the First Appellate Authority. Since the assessee failed to make the application at the appropriate stage, the Tribunal refused to entertain the request for additional evidence at the second appeal stage.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,13(1)(d),56,144,148 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2702/LB of 1995, decision dated: 5-10-1996.hearing DATE : 20-08-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant\nSabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 294 = 1997 SLD 294 = 1997 PTD 2342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Section 24(i), Explanation — Deduction — Allowances Paid to Workers — Addition\nConclusion:\nThe assessee claimed allowances paid to workers as wages under various statutory provisions. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount, considering it salaries paid to employees. The First Appellate Authority confirmed the disallowance. Upon review, it was determined that the basis for the disallowance, which considered the payments as staff salaries, was incorrect. The Assessing Officer's improper computation of 50% allowance under Section 24 of the Income Tax Ordinance was also found unsustainable. Therefore, the addition was deleted.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(i),24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1960/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 10-12-1995.hearing DATE : 26-10-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Akram for Appellant, Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 295 = 1997 SLD 295 = 1997 PTD 2344 = (1996) 75 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Section 22 — Income from Business — Estimate of Sales — Credit Entries — Onus of Proof\nConclusion:\n(a) Estimate of Sales: The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's trading results and estimated sales based on his own assessment, applying a high gross profit rate. The First Appellate Authority confirmed this approach, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not distinguishing facts from those cited by the assessee. It was concluded that the estimate of sales and the gross profit rate were unsustainable, and both were deleted.\n(b) Credit Entries: The Assessing Officer found credit entries for loans from creditors and doubted their creditworthiness, resulting in an addition. The First Appellate Authority upheld the addition. However, the assessee successfully identified the creditors who admitted to providing the loans. The Assessing Officer failed to substantiate the claim, and the addition was deleted.\nCitations/References:\nNTN 12-06-3253281; Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, Behar (1976) 103 ITR 344; Anraj Nasim Das Punjab (1951) 29 ITR 562; Shankar Inds. v. CIT, Calcutta (1978) 114 ITR 689.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,148,13(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4415/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 13-02-1995.hearing DATE : 13-02-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, ACTG. CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Appellant. Muhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 296 = 1997 SLD 296 = 1997 PTD 2354 = (1997) 223 ITR 5 = (1996) 76 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Penalty — Concealment of Income — Cash Credits\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, in its return, included cash credits of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 as gifts made to relatives. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income after the assessee readily agreed to the inclusion. The assessee explained that the credit entries were a mistake made by a new accountant. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty, as the department failed to prove that the credits were undisclosed income. The Tribunal’s cancellation was upheld, affirming no penalty was due.\nCitations/References:\nSir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC); CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC); CIT v. Krishna & Co. (1979) 120 ITR 144 (Mad.); Durga Timber Works v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 63 (Delhi); Western Automobiles (India) v. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1264 and Reference No.764 of 1982, decision dated: 5-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K. A. THANIKKACHALAM AND BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner, Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nC. J. RATHNASWAMY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 297 = 1997 SLD 297 = 1997 PTD 2360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Sections 59 & 63 — Self-Assessment Scheme — Best Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's return was selected for total audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme. Due to non-compliance with statutory notices, the assessment was made ex parte, with additions based on the Assessing Officer's report. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief, but the assessee appealed against the selection for total audit and the income assessed. The selection for audit was legally valid, as the Regional Commissioner of Income-tax had authorized it based on available information. However, the income assessed was not considered the best assessment since parallel cases showed more reasonable figures, and the assessment was adjusted accordingly.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,63 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1788/LB of 1995, decision dated: 23rd October, 1996.hearing DATE : 29-05-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant, Zafar Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 298 = 1997 SLD 298 = 1997 PTD 2362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Section 13 — Unexplained Investment — Addition\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer made various additions under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance for unexplained investments, which were set aside by the First Appellate Authority for de novo assessment. The court ruled that the setting aside of the order was incorrect. The addition under Section 13(1)(d) based on sale-deeds could not be made unless tangible evidence was provided to differ from the sale-deed value. Furthermore, additions under Section 13(1)(b) could not be deleted merely based on an affidavit. Therefore, the additions were justified, as they were not contradicted by sufficient evidence.\nCitations/References:\n1979 PTD (Trib.) 19; 1985 PTD (Trib.) 178; I.T.A. No. 1249/LB of 1992; I.T.A. No. 375/LB of 1989-90; I.T.A. No. 370-/LB of 1989-90; 1996 PTD (Trib.) 327.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.8367/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 14-10-1996, hearing DATE : 4-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sarfraz, F.C.A. for Appellant, Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 299 = 1997 SLD 299 = 1997 PTD 2366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 32(3) — Income from Business — Estimate of Sales — Add-backs\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer, disbelieving the declared sales, made his own estimate. However, the assessee had declared higher sales for the year in question. Instead of allowing a reasonable estimate, the Assessing Officer set the sales figure at a disproportionately higher value. The appeal concluded that the excessively high estimate should be corrected and aligned with the estimate from the preceding year.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.\n(b) Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 22 — Income from Business — Add-back\nConclusion:\nThe assessee was denied claims for salary and bonus due to an inability to produce supporting evidence. However, the Assessing Officer's statement that no material evidence was presented was found to be incorrect. The First Appellate Authority upheld the denial without considering the facts properly. Since evidence was on record, the additions were deleted.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3),22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2662/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 17-12-1996, hearing DATE : 17-12-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Zafar Iqbal for Appellant, Shahid Nasim, D.R. for Respondent\nSyed Muhammad Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Zafar Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court.\nSh. Zia Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Nemo \nSh. Zia Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Nemo \nSyed Muhammad Shahudul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Aziz Ahmed Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam, Advocate on-Record.\nSyed Muhammad Shahudul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Aziz Ahwad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam, Advocate on-Record.\nSyed Mohammad Shahudul haq, advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Nemo \nNemo for Appellant Shahudul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court.\nShahudul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 300 = 1997 SLD 300 = 1997 PTD 2367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 22 — Income from Business — Case Selected for Total Audit\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's case was selected for a total audit, and the assessment was confirmed on appeal. The assessee argued that the assessment should align with parallel cases where lower rates were applied. However, the Tribunal found no substance in the appeal, as the assessment was appropriately based on the cited parallel case.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4456/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 23rd January, 1997, hearing DATE : 22-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant, Mian Munawar Ghafoor, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 301 = 1997 SLD 301 = 1997 PTD 2368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 22 & 23 — Revenue Expenditure — Capitalization of Expenses\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's claim for machinery maintenance expenses as revenue expenditure was initially rejected, and the expenses were capitalized. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief, leaving some expenses for capitalization. The Tribunal found no justification for partial relief and directed that all expenses related to repair and maintenance be treated as revenue expenditure.\nCitations/References:\nI.T.A. Nos. 1659 to 1662/LB of 1996 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,23 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1618/LB to 1621/LB and 2067/LB to 2071/LB of 1996, decision dated: 24-12-1996.hearing DATE : 8-12-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SIKANDAR KALIM FAZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1618/LB to 1621/LB of 1996).\nMian Masood Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1618/LB to 1621/LB of 1996)\nMian Masood Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2067/LB to 2071 /LB of 1996).\nKhawaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent (in I.T.As, Nos.2067/LB to 2071/LB of 1996).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 302 = 1997 SLD 302 = 1997 PTD 2376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 32(3) — Estimate of Income — Add-back\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s declared sales and estimated a higher figure, disallowing expenses. The First Appellate Authority granted relief, but the department continued to assert excessive estimates. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s ad hoc estimates were unjustified, and the department’s appeal was dismissed.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1410/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 17-12-1996.hearing DATE : 17-12-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant\nNemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 303 = 1997 SLD 303 = 1997 PTD 2377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 22 — Income from Business — Addition in Trading and P & L Accounts\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's declared receipts were disbelieved by the Revenue Authorities, who made their own estimate. The assessee argued that power consumption was a reasonable indicator of business volume, and the declared receipts were consistent with prior years. The Tribunal agreed and directed the Assessing Officer to modify the assessment to accept the receipts.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2628/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 16th December 1996.hearing DATE : 16-12-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siddique Akhtar Ch., I.T.P. for Appellant\nMian Qasim Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 304 = 1997 SLD 304 = 1997 PTD 2381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss. 13(1)(a), 63 & 65 — Unexplained Investment — Re-opening of Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe assessee was assessed under the Self-Assessment Scheme, but the case was re-opened due to concerns about heavy imports that seemed inconsistent with available funds. The Tribunal annulled the additions, finding that there was no new material to justify re-opening the assessment. The original assessment was restored.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(a),63,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5314/LB and 5315/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 23rd May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zulfiqar Ali Sh., I.T.P. for Appellant\nZafar Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 305 = 1997 SLD 305 = 1997 PTD 2383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 13(1)(d) — Deemed Income — Unexplained Investment\nConclusion:\nThe assessee made investments in two properties, which were deemed unexplained by the Assessing Officer, leading to an addition in income. The First Appellate Authority upheld one assessment but granted partial relief in the other case. On appeal, the Tribunal found that both properties were similarly situated and deserved the same treatment. The additions were deleted, and the declared cost of the properties was accepted.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 9820/LB and 9634/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 27-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yaqoob, P.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 9820/LB of 1991-92)\nMrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 9820fLB of 1991-92)\nMrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 9634/LB of 1991-92)\nMuhammad Yaqoob, P.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 9634/LB of 1991-92)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 306 = 1997 SLD 306 = 1997 PTD 2386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss. 13(1)(b) & 91 — Unexplained Investment — Filing of Wealth Statement\nConclusion:\nThe assessee filed a Wealth Statement before the assessment was finalized, and the addition made was disputed. The Tribunal ruled that the Wealth Statement was properly filed, and the addition under S. 13(1)(b) was unnecessary, as the information was already disclosed.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.\n(b) Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss. 13(1)(e) & 91 — Expenses — Imposition of Penalty and Addition\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, being elderly and living simply, was subjected to an addition and penalty for unexplained expenses. The Tribunal found no justification for the penalty, particularly as other additions under S. 13 had already been deleted, and the penalty was therefore also set aside.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(b),91,13(I)(e),13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1814/LB, 1815/LB, 4432/LB and 4431/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 9-06-1996.hearing DATE : 9-06-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi, A.R. for Appellant\nMuhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 307 = 1997 SLD 307 = 1997 PTD 2389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBYTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 66-A — Power to Revise Income Tax Officer’s Order\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer allowed a business trip as a valid expense despite it being personal in nature. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner cancelled this decision, but the Tribunal reinstated the Assessing Officer's order, as it was not erroneous under S. 66-A.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.\n________________________________________\n(b) Topic: Words and Phrases — Erroneous \nConclusion:\nThe term “erroneous” was examined in the context of a review order under S. 66-A, confirming that the Assessing Officer’s decision to allow certain expenses was not erroneous, as it was made with due consideration.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 9796/LB/DB of 1991-92, decision dated: 16-12-1996, hearing DATE : 15-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SIKANDAR KALIM FAZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mustafa Haider Rizvi, I.T.P. for Appellant, Muhammad Mubin Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 308 = 1997 SLD 308 = 1997 PTD 2391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 13(1)(e) — Unexplained Investment — Personal Expenses\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer disbelieved the assessee’s declared personal expenses, estimating higher amounts based on the assessee's social status. However, since no evidence was provided to substantiate these higher figures, the Tribunal found the declared expenses to be reasonable and deleted the additions.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2119/LB to 2121/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 1st December, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Raja for Appellant. Mrs. Fiza Muzaffar, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 309 = 1997 SLD 309 = 1997 PTD 2393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 65 — Re-opening of Assessment — Justification\nConclusion:\nThe assessee had initially declared income under the Self-Assessment Scheme, but the assessment was re-opened after a security deposit was found to be missing from the balance sheet. Despite the assessee’s objections, the Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, as the omission was acknowledged by the assessee.\nCitations/References:\n1991 PTD (Trib.) 16 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3655/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 18-12-1996, hearing DATE : 24-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad Ansari for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 310 = 1997 SLD 310 = 1997 PTD 2396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 22 — Income from Business — Disallowance of Expenses\nConclusion:\nThe assessee declared a loss and had receipts accepted, but certain expenses were disallowed. The Tribunal set aside the assessment for reconsideration due to inconsistencies in the expenses relative to revenue growth. The issue was sent back for de novo assessment.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 6066/LB of 1991-92; 2629/LB of 1992-93 4416/LB of 1994 and 12/LB of 1995, decision dated: 6-08-1996, hearing DATE : 11-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MUMTAZ ALAM GILLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Amin, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.6066/LB, 4416/LB of 1991-92 and 2629/LB of 1992-93).\nJaved Rehman, D.R. for Appellant (in I. T. A. No. 12/LB of 1996).\nShaukat Amin, F.C.A. for Respondent (in LT.A.. No. 12/LB of 1996).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 311 = 1997 SLD 311 = 1997 PTCL 8 = 1997 PTD 2399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 22 — Income from Business — Application of Gross Profit Rate\nConclusion:\nThe assessee applied his own G.P. rate to declare sales, but the Assessing Officer estimated higher sales with a higher G.P. rate. The First Appellate Authority reduced the estimate but upheld the G.P. rate. The Tribunal confirmed the First Appellate Authority’s decision, as the case history supported the findings.\nCitations/References:\nNot provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4457/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 22-01-1997, hearing DATE : 21st January, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Mian Munawar Ghafoor, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 2 = 1998 SLD 2 = 1998 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 34 — Loss — Set-off\nThe Assessee claimed a loss and requested a set-off against other income. The Assessing Officer rejected the Assessee's version and assessed the income as nil. The First Appellate Authority confirmed this assessment, stating that since the company did not conduct any business, any expenses, if any, should be capitalized, as no income existed to set them off against. The Tribunal disagreed with this framing of nil income and directed that the losses returned by the Assessee be accepted, since the Assessing Officer had not raised objections regarding the nature or verifiability of the expenses.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 13(1)(b) — Unexplained Investment — Deemed Income — Addition\nThe Assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase property, which fell through due to technical reasons. The Assessee then entered into an agreement to purchase another property from the same seller, involving a Finance Corporation. The Assessing Officer estimated the value of the property at a higher price than declared, and taxed the difference. The First Appellate Authority upheld the addition. However, the Tribunal found that since a Finance Corporation was involved, it was customary for the price to be overstated, not understated. As such, the Assessee did not need to attempt to understate the price, and the addition was deemed unsustainable.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 13(1)(d) — Unexplained Investment — Deemed Income — Addition\nThe Assessee had pledged movable stocks to a bank at an inflated value, which was inconsistent with the balance-sheet entries. The Tribunal disapproved of this practice and upheld the addition made by the Revenue Authorities.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 30 & 2(11) — Income from Other Source — Solitary Transaction — Adventure in the Nature of Trade — Burden of Proof\nThe burden of proof lies on the Assessing Officer to establish that a solitary transaction constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,13(1)(b),30,2(11) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1186/LB, 1187/LB of 1988-89, 8389/LB, 8390/LB of 1991-92 and 3232/LB of 1994, decision dated: 4-02-1996, hearing DATE : 15-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Ayesha Qazi for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 1 = 1997 SLD 1 = (1996) 76 TAX 39 = 1998 PTD 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 13 — Deemed Income — Unexplained Investment\nUnder Section 13, if the Assessee cannot explain how wealth is related to income on which tax has been paid, the Revenue has the authority to treat the unexplained investment as income. The Assessee must provide a satisfactory explanation to avoid such treatment.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 165 — C.B.R. Circulars — Power of C.B.R. to Issue Circulars\nThe Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) does not have the authority to interpret laws. Its circulars can only assist in interpreting statutory provisions. Circulars cannot raise tax liabilities beyond what is stated in the law.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss. 80C(5) & 50(4) — Presumptive Tax Regime — Tax on Contractors and Importers\nThe Assessee made supplies and had advance tax deducted by the company making payments to him. The Revenue Authorities argued that the advance tax would only cover a portion of the declared profit, but the Tribunal held that under the presumptive tax regime (PTR), tax deducted at source discharges the Assessee’s tax liability. The provisions of Section 80C(5) do not impose tax on profit not covered by advance tax unless the Revenue suspects the profit to be inflated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,165,80C(5),50(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.294/IB of 1995-96, decision dated: 18-12-1996, hearing DATE : 7-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Masoom Akhtar, F.C.A. and Shabbar Hussain Naqvi, A. C. A. for Appellant. Abdul Hafeez, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 3 = 1998 SLD 3 = 1998 PTD 13 = 1999 PTCL 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss. 13(1)(b) & 91 — Unexplained Investment — Addition — Filing of Wealth Statement\nThe Assessee filed a wealth statement before finalization of the assessment, showing the amount of the addition. The Tribunal ruled that the addition could not be made because the Assessee had already disclosed the amount in the wealth statement.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Ss. 13(1)(e) & 91 — Unexplained Investment — Addition — Penalty\nThe Assessee, an elderly person living a simple life, had additions under Section 13(1)(e) for unexplained expenses and a penalty for non-payment of tax. The Tribunal held that the additions were unjustified given the Assessee's simple lifestyle and removed both the additions and the penalty.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(b),91,13(1)(e),13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1810/LB, 1811/LB and 684/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 10-06-1996, hearing DATE : 9-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi, A.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 4 = 1998 SLD 4 = 1998 PTD 16 = 1999 PTCL 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — S. 63 — Best Judgment Assessment\nThe Assessee, who returned nil income, was assessed under Section 63 after not responding to notices under Section 61. The First Appellate Authority confirmed the assessment, but the Tribunal found the assessment to be inappropriate. The assessment was not the best judgment assessment, as no parallel cases were cited, and other relevant factors like the age of the building were not considered. The case was remanded for reappraisal, with the Assessee being given an opportunity to present its case.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,13(l)(d),61 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 6115/LB of 1996, decision dated: 16-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Azeem Ch. for Appellant. Mian Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 5 = 1998 SLD 5 = 1998 PTD 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.39 & Second Sched., Part I, Cl.(72) — General Insurance Business, Exemption, Allowances and Reliefs: The assessee, an insurance company, returned income and claimed exemption on interest from Defence Saving Certificates under Clause (72), Part I of the Second Schedule. The tribunal held that the exemption could not be granted, as the provision did not apply to interest on Defence Saving Certificates. Furthermore, the provision for bonuses was allowed as an expenditure against business income, and Zakat, deducted and paid into the Zakat fund, was deductible from the income of the assessee.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.39 — Allowances, Reliefs, and Expenditures: The assessee claimed certain expenses, which had been previously disallowed based on the history of the company's financial discipline. The Tribunal ruled that as the company had maintained consistent financial discipline, the expenses listed in the Profit and Loss account were legitimate and should not be disallowed.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.26 — General Insurance Business, Taxable Income: The Tribunal held that in the case of an insurance company, all income, including dividend income, was taxable as a single unit per the provisions of Section 26 and the Fourth Schedule. Additionally, capital gains on the sale of shares of a listed public company were taxable.\n(References: 1992 66 Tax 58; 1964 53 ITR 186; 1989 PTD (Trib.) 39; 1991 PTD (Trib.) 643; 1991 PTD (Trib.) 817; 1995 PTD 761; 1993 PTD 776)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=39,SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(72),26 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4419/1.B of 1991-92, 1150/LB, 3272/LB, 7047/LB of 1992-93, 3367/LB and 3628/LB of 1995, decision dated: 8-12-1996, hearing DATE : 20-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SIKANDAR KALIM FAZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood A. Hashmi and Sh. Zulfiqar Ali, I.T.P. for Appellant.\nShahid Zaheer, D.R. for Appellant.\nShahid Zaheer, D.R. for Respondent\nMahmood A. Hashmi and Sh. Zulfiqar Ali, I.T.P. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 6 = 1998 SLD 6 = 1998 PTD 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss.13(1)(b) & 13(1)(d) — Deemed Income, Unexplained Investment, Addition: The assessee, a lady professor and visiting surgeon, had returned a lower income than that estimated by the Assessing Officer. The AO made significant additions under various provisions of Section 13, rejecting the assessee's declared version. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority granted some relief and remanded the remaining issues for reassessment. Both the assessee and the department appealed. The Tribunal noted that while the AO's observation regarding the taxpayer's professional capacity was valid, it was unreasonable to expect a single person to work across multiple clinics and hospitals in one day. The Tribunal allowed considerable relief to the assessee, emphasizing that tax should not be levied based on personal assumptions or views.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(b) & 13(1)(d),13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3945/LB and 388/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 23rd July, 1996, hearing DATE : 16-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Mueed Khawaja for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 3945/LB of 1 991-92).\nNemo for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 3945/LB of 1991-92).\nNemo for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 3881/LB of 1991-92).\nA. Mueed Khawaia for Respondent On I.T.A. No. 3881/LB of 1991-92).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 7 = 1998 SLD 7 = 1998 PTD 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.91 — Penalty for Non-Payment of Tax, Reduction: The Assessing Officer had imposed a penalty for the assessee’s failure to pay taxes, but the Appellate Authority reduced the penalty by half. The Revenue objected to the reduction, but the Tribunal upheld the reduction, agreeing that the reduction was merited based on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.32(3) — Estimate of Income, Lack of Evidence: The Assessing Officer made an income estimate in the absence of evidence from the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reduced the estimate, citing the lack of supporting evidence for the AO's determination. The Tribunal confirmed the relief granted by the Appellate Authority.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=91,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 919/LB to 921/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 19-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Fiza Muzaffar, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 2 = 1997 SLD 2 = (1996) 76 TAX 177 = 1998 PTD 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.59(4), Self-Assessment Scheme, C.B.R. Circulars, and Condonation of Delay: The case involved an issue of delay in submitting documents required by the Assessing Officer under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The C.B.R. Circulars provided for condonation of delay in specific circumstances. However, the Tribunal found that the delay was due to the assessee's own omission and not due to circumstances beyond their control. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for reconsideration, rejecting the application for condonation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.222(PB) of 1996-97, decision dated: 15-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND ABDUR REHMAN AFRIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Wadood Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Maqbool Ahmed Saighal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 8 = 1998 SLD 8 = 1998 PTD 62 = (1996) 76 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of Statutes — Fiscal Law: The tribunal clarified that the law in force during the assessment year applies, emphasizing that interpretation of tax laws must reflect the current legal provisions.\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes — Avoidance of Redundancy: The tribunal emphasized that no law should be interpreted in a way that renders any provision redundant or superfluous. Every provision must be interpreted in harmony with the rest of the legal framework.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.136(1) — Reference to High Court, Jurisdiction: The High Court’s advisory jurisdiction was discussed, highlighting that not all questions of law must be referred to the High Court. The High Court's opinion is sought only when there is ambiguity or room for multiple interpretations. If the law is clear and straightforward, as in the case at hand, there is no need for referral. The tribunal dismissed the reference to the High Court in this case, as the legal question was not ambiguous or uncertain.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1) ", + "Case #": "R. As. Nos. 112/KB to 115/KB of 1996, decision dated: 16-01-1997, hearing DATE ; 14-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul ftaque Memon for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 9 = 1998 SLD 9 = 1998 PTD 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 22 & 32(3)\n•\nIncome from business – Additions in Trading and Profit and Loss Accounts\n•\nDeclared results rejected by Assessing Officer\n•\nIssue: The Assessing Officer rejected the income declared by the assessee in the trading account, making additions based on past history.\n•\nHeld: The declared results for the year were better than the previous year, with no defects detected. As the trading account of the previous year had been accepted without changes, the additions made in the trading accounts were unjustified and were deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2213/LB, 2214/LB, 6109/LB and 3008/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 4-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMED BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suhail Babri, I.T.P. for Appellant (in I.T.As. No. 2213/LB and 2214/LB of 199.1-92).\nMrs. Sameera Yaseen, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. No. 2213/LB and 2214/LB of 1991-92).\nMrs. Sameera Yaseen, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.6109/LB and 3008/LB of 1991-92).\nSuhail Babri, I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.6109/LB and 3008/LB of 1991-92).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 10 = 1998 SLD 10 = 1998 PTD 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 22 & 32\n•\nIncome from business – Estimate of sales and G.P. rate\n•\nIssue: The assessee returned sales applying its own gross profit (G.P.) rate. The Assessing Officer rejected the G.P. rate and sales figures declared by the assessee, estimating them at higher levels, despite a history of accepting the accounts.\n•\nHeld: The addition to the trading account was unwarranted, as it contradicted the history of the case and lacked justification.\n________________________________________\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 24(cc) – Director's Remuneration\n•\nIssue: The Assessing Officer reduced the director's remuneration claimed by the assessee to 40%, based on Section 24(cc) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nHeld: The provisions of Section 24(cc) as added by the Finance Act, 1992, did not apply to the assessment year 1991-92, and therefore the reduction had no legal sanction.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32,24(cc),24(ec) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2601/1-13 of 1992-93, decision dated: 11th March. 1997", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.R. Farooqi, I.T.P. for Appellant. Abdul Rashid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 11 = 1998 SLD 11 = 1998 PTD 73 = (1997) 225 ITR 746 = (1998) 78 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Accrual of Income and Accounting Principles\n•\nIssue: An electricity undertaking had enhanced its rates for electricity, but the amounts due for the increase had not been realized due to ongoing litigation and a subsequent takeover by the government. The Income Tax Officer included the enhanced amounts in the income despite non-realization.\n•\nHeld: Income tax is levied on real income, and mere book entries of hypothetical income do not count. The income had not accrued as the amounts due were not collected due to litigation, and the undertaking was taken over by the government. The Tribunal's decision to delete the income based on these circumstances was upheld.\nThis case emphasizes that income must be real and not merely recorded in accounts based on expected but unrealized amounts. The legal right to recover the enhanced rates did not materialize, making the accrued income hypothetical, not taxable. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's ruling, agreeing that no real income had accrued to the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 5638 to 5640 of 1983, decision dated: 3rd April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ganesh, U.A Rana, Rajiv Tyagi and Subramaniam, Advocates for Appellant. Ms. Laxmi Iyengar, C. Radha Krishnan and B.K Prasad, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 12 = 1998 SLD 12 = 1998 PTD 93 = (1997) 225 ITR 703 = (1998) 77 TAX 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Underwriting Commission — Treatment of Income and Accounting Principles\n•\nCase Summary: The case involves a State undertaking (the assessee) involved in underwriting public issues of shares by companies. If shares remained unsubscribed, the assessee would subscribe to the remaining shares and receive an underwriting commission. However, instead of recording the commission as income in its profit and loss account, the assessee adjusted it against the cost of the shares. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) added the entire underwriting commission to the taxable income of the assessee, which was disputed by the assessee.\n•\nLegal Findings: The Tribunal held that the underwriting commission for shares purchased by the assessee itself should reduce the cost of the shares and not be treated as income. The Tribunal emphasized that the practice followed by the assessee was consistent with established principles of accounting for underwriting activities. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the underwriting commission in respect of shares held by the assessee (because they were not fully subscribed by the public) should not be treated as income.\n•\nConclusion: The underwriting commission was correctly adjusted against the cost of shares underwritten by the assessee and was not separately assessable as income.\n•\nCitations: U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. C.I.T (1981) 130 ITR 835; I.R.C. v. Cock Russell & Co. Ltd. (1949) 29 TC 387; Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363; Mohammed Meerakhan (P.M.) v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC); State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC); Whimster and Co. v. I.R.C. (1925) 12 TC 813 (C. Sess).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1739 and 1740 of 1981, decision dated: 11-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.A. Choudhary, Senior Advocate (Dhruv Mehta and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Manoj Swarup and Mrs. Lalitha Kohli, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nU. P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 13 = 1998 SLD 13 = 1998 PTD 104 = (1997) 225 ITR 652 = (1998) 77 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Charitable Trust — Exemption Under Section 11\n•\nCase Summary: The appellant was a trust that carried on charitable activities but also had powers in its trust deed to engage in business for the better fulfillment of its charitable objectives. The Income-tax Department questioned whether the trust's business activities disqualified it from the exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, which exempts income of charitable trusts from taxation.\n•\nLegal Findings: The Tribunal found that the real purpose of the trust was charitable, and the business activities mentioned in the trust deed were merely powers to assist in carrying out the trust’s charitable objectives. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and upheld the Tribunal's finding that the trust qualified as a charitable trust under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nConclusion: The trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11 because its primary objects were charitable, and the business activities were incidental to these objectives.\n•\nCitations: Dharmadeepti v. C.I.T. (1978) 114 ITR 454 (SC); Dharmaposhana Co. v. C.I.T. (1975) 100 ITR 351; Kuries and Trades Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1975) KLT 480 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1060 and 1061 of 1977, decision dated: 9-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mathai M. Paikeday, Senior Advocate (Shaju Francis and C.N. Sreekumar, Advocate with him) for Appellant. S.Rajappa and S.N. Terdol, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SAMARITAN SOCIETY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 14 = 1998 SLD 14 = 1998 PTD 101 = (1997) 225 ITR 684 = (1998) 77 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Undistributed Income and Penalty — Cash Credits\n•\nCase Summary: The Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 55,000 to the assessee's total income as unexplained cash credits. While the addition was made, the Tribunal found that the creditors could not be summoned and the principal amounts were not paid by cheque, hence confirming the addition. However, the Tribunal later ruled in penalty proceedings that there was no evidence of deliberate concealment of income. The Revenue sought to include the sum of Rs. 55,000 in the total income of the company for calculating undistributed income under Section 104, but the Tribunal refused.\n•\nLegal Findings: The Supreme Court held that once the penalty was cancelled because the assessee had not deliberately concealed income, the amount of Rs. 55,000 could not be included in the total income for determining undistributed income under Section 104. The provisions of Section 104 are quasi-penal, and therefore, the same legal standards that applied to penalties should apply here. No question of law arose for referral.\n•\nConclusion: The amount of Rs. 55,000 could not be included in the total income for purposes of calculating undistributed income, and the High Court was correct in not referring the case.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 104, 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2503 of 1977, decision dated: 10-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BARUCHA AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate and (Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate with him) for Appellant. Rajiv Tyagi and U.A. Rana for Ms. Gagrat & Co., Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHRI IRON FOUNDRY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 15 = 1998 SLD 15 = 1998 PTD 105 = (1997) 225 ITR 458 = (1998) 77 TAX 213 = (1998) 77 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Revised Return After Draft Assessment Order\n•\nCase Summary: The assessee filed a revised return after the draft assessment order was made, and then filed a third revised return after the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144-B. The Income-tax Officer rejected the third return, arguing that the right to file a revised return had been extinguished once the draft order was made and referred for further consideration.\n•\nLegal Findings: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the assessee could not file a revised return after the draft assessment order had been made and referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for directions. Section 139(5) allows for revised returns only before the completion of the assessment and prior to the draft assessment order being made. Once the matter is referred under Section 144-B, it is not permissible to file a revised return. The Court overruled the earlier judgment in Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1995) 212 ITR 433.\n•\nConclusion: The assessee was not entitled to file a revised return after the draft assessment order was made, and the Income-tax Officer was right in rejecting the third revised return.\n•\nCitations: Panchmahal Steel Ltd. v. U.A. Joshi, I.T.O. (1994) 210 ITR 723; Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1995) 212 ITR 433 (Guj.) (overruled).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2871 of 1996, decision dated: 24-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "E.R. Kumar, P.H. Parekh and N.K. Sahoo, Advocates for Appellant. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PANCHAMAHAL STEEL LTD\nVs\nU.A. JOSHI, I.T.O. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 16 = 1998 SLD 16 = 1998 PTD 110 = (1997) 225 ITR 447 = (1998) 77 TAX 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Reassessment — Validity of Reopening of Assessment\n•\nCase Summary: The appellant, a bank, changed its method of accounting in relation to interest on securities and excess income from the sale of securities. Initially, the bank accounted for interest accrued on securities up to the date of sale, but later it changed this method to exclude the accrued interest on broken periods. The bank also claimed excess income from the sale of securities as capital receipt. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) had accepted these changes in the past assessments but later reopened assessments for 1960-63, arguing that the excess income was a revenue receipt. The reopening was done without any information from an extraneous source, and the case became one of mere change of opinion.\n•\nLegal Findings: The Supreme Court held that since the change in accounting method was knowingly accepted by the ITO in previous assessments, it was not permissible to reopen the assessments without new information. The Court emphasized that mere change of opinion was not sufficient grounds for reassessment under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n•\nConclusion: The reopening of assessments was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion rather than new information from an external source.\n•\nCitations: Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. C.I.T. (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 410 to 412 of 1978, decision dated: 1st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with him) for Appellant\nK.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and S. N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ANDHRA BANK LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 17 = 1998 SLD 17 = 1998 PTD 113 = (1997) 225 ITR 235 = (1998) 77 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Charitable Purpose — Exemption under Section 11\n•\nCase Summary: The assessee, a company running a stock exchange, claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides tax exemption to income derived from charitable purposes. The company was established to conduct a stock exchange, promote business in stocks, shares, etc., and regulate transactions on the exchange. The company earned income through membership fees, rent, and interest, and sought exemption for this income as a charitable activity. However, there was no obligation to use income exclusively for charitable purposes, as the company could distribute profits as dividends.\n•\nLegal Findings: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which found that the company was not entitled to the exemption because it had the freedom to distribute its profits as dividends to shareholders. The lack of legal obligation to use the income solely for charitable purposes meant the company did not meet the criteria under Section 11.\n•\nConclusion: The company was not entitled to exemption under Section 11, as it did not have a legal obligation to use its income solely for charitable purposes.\n•\nCitations: Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1980) 126 ITR 532 affirmed; C.I.T. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC); C.I.T. (Addl.) v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 3432 to 3438 (NT) and 5648 to 5650 of 1983, decision dated: 20-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Ms. Vijay Lakshmi Menon and Vibhu Bakhru, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nDr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, C. Radha Krishna and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 18 = 1998 SLD 18 = 1998 PTD 120 = (1997) 225 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax — Super Profits Tax — Deduction of Interest on Securities\n•\nCase Summary: A non-resident company earned income from interest on Government securities, which was subject to tax under the head Interest on Securities under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act. In computing chargeable profits for the levy of super profits tax under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, the company sought a deduction for the interest income under Clause (vi) of Rule 1 of Schedule I of the Super Profits Tax Act. The Income-tax Officer had applied Clause (x) instead, which altered the nature of the income.\n•\nLegal Findings: The Supreme Court held that interest earned from Government securities should be treated as income under the head Interest on Securities as per Section 14 of the Income Tax Act, and thus, Clause (vi) of Rule 1 under the Super Profits Tax Act was applicable for the deduction. The character of the income did not change because it was earned by a non-resident company.\n•\nConclusion: The income earned from Government securities by the non-resident company was correctly deductible under Clause (vi) of Rule 1 of the Super Profits Tax Act.\n•\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Banque Nationale De-Paris (1981) 130 ITR 534 reversed; United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.6087 of 1983, decided by 21st March, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Civil Appeal No. 6087 of 1983, decided by 21st March, 1997\nDr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (C. Radha Krishna, B.S. Ahuja and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates, with him) for Appellant.\nS. Ganesh and Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocates for JBD & Co. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 19 = 1998 SLD 19 = 1998 PTD 128 = (1998) 77 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 3123\nTopic: Income-tax — Business Expenditure — Sales Tax and Penalty\n•\nCase Summary: The assessee, a company, was required to pay additional sales tax under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, due to the improper use of raw materials purchased at a lower rate. Additionally, the company faced penalties for failing to comply with statutory requirements, which were not related to compensation. The issue was whether these penalties could be deducted as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nLegal Findings: The Supreme Court ruled that while the sales tax paid due to improper use of materials was compensatory in nature and could be deducted, the penalty imposed for non-compliance was purely penal and did not qualify for deduction under Section 37(1). The Court distinguished between compensatory and penal payments.\n•\nConclusion: The amount paid for sales tax due to improper use of raw materials was deductible, but the penalty for non-compliance with statutory requirements was not deductible as business expenditure.\n•\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 221 affirmed on the penalty aspect.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1397 of 1982 with Civil Appeals Nos. 1398 and 1399 of 1982, decision dated: Ist October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vivek Gambhir and S. K. Gambhir for Appellant\nDr. R. R. Misra, Senior Advocate, Ms. Luxmi Iyengar and S. N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MALWA VANASPATI AND CHEMICAL CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 20 = 1998 SLD 20 = 1998 PTD 131 = (1997) 225 ITR 1010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust and Exemption under Income-tax Act, 1961\nIssue: The issue is whether a charitable trust can claim exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite engaging in business activities, provided the profits are used for charitable purposes.\nFacts: A trust was established with various charitable purposes, including education, medical relief, poor relief, and rural reconstruction. The trust was authorized to engage in business activities such as the purchase and sale of cotton, cotton yarn, cloth, etc., to support its charitable objectives. The question arose whether the profits from these activities, even though used for charitable purposes, would disqualify the trust from claiming tax exemption under section 11.\nSupreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court held that the trust could claim exemption under section 11. The Court emphasized that the predominant purpose of the business activities was to support the charitable objects, even though the business generated profits. The Court concluded that the business activity was a means to further the charitable purposes, and profits from the business were being reinvested for charitable purposes. Therefore, the business was not carried on with the primary aim of profit-making.\nThe Court applied the test from Addl. C.I.T. v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Association (1980), which clarified that if the primary purpose of an activity is charitable and not profit-driven, the trust can still claim exemption under section 11, even if profits arise from such activities.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe business activities were incidental to and supportive of the trust's charitable objects.\n•\nThe income generated from these activities was used exclusively for charity, which justified the trust's exemption under section 11.\n•\nThis ruling reversed the decision in Thiagarajar Charities v. Addl. C.I.T. (1978) 114 ITR 699, where a similar issue was decided differently.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 482 to 484 of 1980, decision dated: 24-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. S. PARIPOORNAN, K. VENKATASWAMI AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "\"\"T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate & (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with him) for Appellant\nB.S. Ahuja, S.N. Terdol and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Respondents\"\"", + "Party Name:": "THIAGARAJAR CHARITIES\nVs\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 21 = 1998 SLD 21 = 1998 PTD 147 = (1997) 225 ITR 814", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Company and Concessional Rate of Tax\nIssue: The issue revolves around whether a company engaged in activities like fumigation, sorting, and grading of chillies for export qualifies for the concessional tax rate under section 2 of the Finance Act, as an industrial company. \nFacts: The company was engaged in the purchase, sorting, grading, and fumigation of chillies for export. The chillies underwent several processes, including treatment with methyl bromide to prevent deterioration and improve their marketability. The company claimed that these activities amounted to the processing of goods, thus qualifying it for the concessional tax rate under section 2 of the Finance Act.\nSupreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court noted that the term processing is not defined in the Act and must be interpreted according to its natural meaning. The Court referred to previous cases like Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1981), which clarified that any operation that results in a change to the commodity, including sorting, grading, and fumigation, qualifies as processing.\nThe Court pointed out that the Madras High Court had ignored important activities such as fumigation, which involved significant treatment (using methyl bromide). These activities, including fumigation, were essential for making the chillies suitable for export, and the Court concluded that they amounted to processing.\nThe matter was remanded to the authorities to reevaluate the case, taking into account all relevant activities, including fumigation, and determining whether these activities collectively constituted processing.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe Supreme Court emphasized that the term processing includes various operations that alter the commodity, such as fumigation and grading.\n•\nThe case required a more in-depth analysis of the totality of activities carried out by the company.\n•\nThe decision of the Madras High Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.3637 of 1983, 8017 of 1995, 15346 of 1996, decision dated: 22-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran and K.R. Ramamani, Senior Advocates and (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with them) for Appellant\nJ. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (Tara Chandra Sharma, B.K. Prasad and C. Radha Krishnan, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHILLIES EXPORTS HOUSE LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 22 = 1998 SLD 22 = 1998 PTD 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Business Expenditure - General Principles - Company - Discount on Debentures - Revenue Expenditure\nSection 37 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates that any expenditure, which is not covered by sections 30 to 36 of the Act, should be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession , provided it is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. This expenditure could be either in the form of actual payments or liabilities that have accrued, though to be discharged in the future.\nThe key question addressed is whether the discount on debentures issued by a company constitutes revenue expenditure. When a company issues debentures at a discount, it incurs a liability to pay more than the amount it borrows. This liability is related to business activities because the funds raised are used for business purposes, thus qualifying as expenditure. The discount incurred by the company should be treated as business expenditure, provided it is not capital in nature.\nIt is crucial to determine if the expenditure is of a capital nature or a revenue nature. If the expenditure is tied to the carrying on of business and does not result in the acquisition of a permanent asset or a right, it can be treated as revenue expenditure. The discount on debentures, though paid over several years, can be spread across the life of the debentures, as this mirrors the ongoing benefit it provides to the company.\nThe company issued debentures in December 1966 at a discount of Rs. 3 lakhs. The company claimed to write off Rs. 12,500 of this discount for the assessment year 1968-69. While the Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, and the Tribunal agreed. The High Court, however, held that only the Rs. 12,500 could be deducted in the assessment year. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that the discount was indeed a liability incurred for the business and should be spread over the life of the debentures. The company was entitled to deduct Rs. 12,500, with the remaining discount to be written off in subsequent years.\nKey Cases Referenced:\n•\nCIT v. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (1980) 124 ITR 454 (Reversed)\n•\nM.P. Financial Corporation v. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 765 (MP)\n•\nIndia Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3531 of 1982, decision dated: 4-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellant\nDr. V.Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 23 = 1998 SLD 23 = 1998 PTD 169 = (1997) 225 ITR 798 = (1998) 77 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Capital or Revenue Expenditure - Company - Expenditure in Connection with Additional Issue of Shares\nExpenditure incurred by a company for the issue of shares to increase its capital base is considered capital expenditure, even though it may indirectly benefit the business. This expenditure is directly tied to the expansion of the company's capital and is not treated as a revenue expenditure, which would typically be incurred to generate profits directly from the business.\nThe Supreme Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and other precedents has clarified that costs related to the issue of shares, even if they help in business operations, are deemed capital expenditure because they are linked to the enhancement of the company’s capital structure, not to the running costs of its business. These include legal, underwriting, or other costs associated with the share issuance process.\nKey Cases Referenced:\n•\nPunjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC)\n•\nBrooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 272 (SC)\n•\nAlembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC)\n•\nIndia Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5771 (NT) of 1983, decision dated: 27-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debi Pal, Senior Advocate (S. Ganesh, Rahul P. Dave, Ms. Shtpra Ghose and Hirendra Krishan Dutt, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nRanbir Chandra, B. Krishna Prasad, C. Radha Krishna and N.D.B. Raju, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 24 = 1998 SLD 24 = 1998 PTD 173 = (1997) 225 ITR 792 = (1998) 77 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "This case deals with the question of whether fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for the enhancement of capital should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure.\n•\nGeneral Principle: The key distinction between capital and revenue expenditure lies in whether the expense brings a lasting benefit or advantage to the business. Expenditures that create an asset or an enduring benefit for the trade are generally treated as capital expenditures.\n•\nFees to the Registrar of Companies: In this case, the fees paid for expanding the company's capital base are directly linked to capital expenditure. The expenditure is essential for the company's capital structure, even though it incidentally helps the business or its profit-making ability. Therefore, this is considered capital expenditure.\n•\nJudicial Precedents: Several previous cases were overruled, which had suggested treating such fees as revenue expenditure. The judgments now emphasize that when the expenditure is tied to increasing the capital base of the company, it should be treated as capital expenditure, a view consistent with prior rulings like CIT v. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (1973), Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT (1983), and CIT v. Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. (1992).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 1 of 1990, decision dated: 4-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I, K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. L. Garg and Manoj Swarup, Advocates for Appellant\nDr. R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and V.K. Verma, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 25 = 1998 SLD 25 = 1998 PTD 178 = (1997) 226 ITR 442 = (1998) 78 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nThis case addresses the quantum of penalty for concealing income, particularly when the law changes after the filing of a return.\n•\nPenalty Computation: The penalty for concealing income should be calculated based on the law in effect at the time the return (whether original or revised) was filed. This ensures fairness in assessing penalties.\n•\nReversal of Previous Precedent: The case B.N. Sharma v. C.I.T. (1977) was reversed, and now it is established that the penalty should be worked out according to the law in force when the return was filed, irrespective of later changes in tax laws.\n•\nRelevant Precedents: The decision aligns with CIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons (1992), which highlights the importance of the law at the time of return filing for calculating penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2025 of 1978, decision dated: 27-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jayanta Das, Senior Advocate (G.S. Chatterjee and Ms. Aruna Banerjec, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nV. Gauri Sankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. A Subhashini and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "B.N. SHARMA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 26 = 1998 SLD 26 = 1998 PTD 180 = (1997) 226 ITR 188 = (1998) 78 TAX 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Various Tax Issues\nThis section involves multiple sub-cases, covering capital gains, business losses, and business expenditure. Below is a summary of the issues discussed:\n(a) Capital Gains\n•\nTransaction to Avoid Tax: The case involves the sale of shares, where the prices were fixed by the Central Government to comply with provisions in the Companies Act. It was found that the sale was forced due to legal requirements, not to avoid taxes. Thus, the provisions of Section 12-B(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, related to tax avoidance, were not applicable, and the transaction was not treated as tax avoidance.\n(b) Business Loss\n•\nGuarantee for Loans: The company had guaranteed loans taken by its subsidiary. When the subsidiary went into liquidation, the company incurred a loss in settling the guarantee. This loss was deductible for the year in which the final payment was received from the liquidator, consistent with business loss treatment.\n(c) Business Expenditure\n•\nPayment of Excess Remuneration to Directors of Subsidiary Companies: The case involves an assessee company paying remuneration exceeding the statutory limit to directors of its subsidiary companies. The Supreme Court ruled that such payments had no direct nexus with the business of the assessee-company. Since the expenditure did not directly contribute to the company's core business of holding investments, it was not deductible.\n•\nPrecedents: The ruling in CIT v. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977) and other related cases (e.g., Atherton v. British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd. (1925)) emphasizes the necessity for business-related expenditure to have a direct connection to the company’s activities.\nIn summary, the rulings clarify how business-related transactions, whether capital gains, losses, or expenditures, should be treated for tax purposes, particularly in scenarios involving subsidiary companies and statutory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 139 to 142 with 7 to 11 of 1980, decision dated: 25th April,1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad, C. Radha Krishna and Anil Srivastava, Advocates with him) for Appellant (in Civil Appeals Nos. 139 to 142 of 1980 and for Respondent in Civil Appeals Nos. 7 to 11 of 1980).\nT.A. Ramachandran and K.R. Ramamani, Senior Advocates (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with them) for Appellant (in Civil Appeals Nos.7 to 11 of 1980 and for Respondent in Civil Appeals Nos. 139 to 142 of 1980).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAMALGAMATIONS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 27 = 1998 SLD 27 = 1998 PTD 200 = (1997) 226 ITR 625 = (1998) 78 TAX 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - House Property - Owner under Section 22\nConclusion:\nThe definition of owner under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, refers to a person entitled to receive income from a property in their own right, rather than necessarily a person holding legal title. The 1987 amendment to Section 27 is considered clarificatory, not affecting its retrospective application. Hence, the requirement for registration of the sale deed is unnecessary in this context.\nReferences:\n•\nJodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. (1981) 127 ITR 97 (All.)\n•\nSushil Ansal v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 308 reversed.\n•\nCIT v. General Marketing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 574 (Cal.)\nLegal Principle:\nThe construction of tax statutes should reflect continuous updates to accommodate evolving social conditions and ensure the law's current relevance. The application of tax law should be in favor of the assessee if there is any ambiguity.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax References Cases Nos.9 and 10 of 1986 with C. A. Nos. 4165 of 1994 and 4549 of 1995, decision dated: 27-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. S. PARIPOORNAN, K. VENKATASWAMI AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (R. Sathish, K.N. Nagpal and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for the Commissioner.\nG.C. Sharma and Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocates (Sanjeev Puri, N. Ganapathy, Vinay, Vaish, Santosh K. Agarwal, B.S. Ahuja and A. Subba Rao, Advocates with them) for the Assessee.\nM. S. Syali and Ms. Geetanjali, Advocates for the Interveners.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPODAR CEMENT (PVT.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 28 = 1998 SLD 28 = 1998 PTD 227 = (1997) 226 ITR 97 = (1998) 78 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Mutual Concern/Clubs - Taxability of Surplus\nConclusion:\nThe surplus earned by mutual clubs, such as from the sale of drinks or rent for property letting, is not taxable as income if it is a result of the members' mutual contributions. The transactions between members and the club are not considered commercial or profit-driven, thus exempt from tax under the principle of mutuality.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (1981) 129 ITR 787 (Pat.)\n•\nCIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 137 (Pat.)\n•\nCIT v. Northern India Motion Pictures Association (1989) 180 ITR 160 (P & H)\n•\nFletcher v. I.T.C. (1971) 3 All ER 1185 (PC)\nLegal Principle:\nA mutual concern, where contributions and benefits are restricted to the members, does not generate taxable income when the surplus is returned to the members. It operates under the principle of mutuality, distinguishing it from trading activities.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 854-858 of 1984 with Civil Appeals Nos.505 of 1992, 3974 of 1992, 4777-78 of 1989, 4534 of 1991, 1635 of 1994, 1648-49 of 1994, 2380-82 of 1994, 8046 of 1995, 1773 of 1992, 4303 of 1995, 3840 of 1996 and 10194 of 1995, 3382 of 1997 and 3383 of 997,decided on 8-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy and Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocates (S. Rajappa, Dhruv Mehta, B. Krishna Prasad, P. Parameswaran, D.S. Mehra, U. A. Rana, Rajiv Tyagi, Sudhanshu Tripathi, M. J. S Rupal, D.P. Mukherjee, Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh (Manoj Swarup), Advocates for Manoj Swarup & Co., S.K. Agrawal, Vinay Vaish and Amarendra Sharan, Advocates with them), for the appearing Parties.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs.\nBANKIPUR CLUB LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 29 = 1998 SLD 29 = 1998 PTD 241 = (1997) 226 ITR 694 = (1998) 78 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Trusts - Genuineness of Trust\nConclusion:\nThe genuineness of a trust is a factual matter. The Tribunal's decision regarding the genuineness of the trust did not involve a question of law but was a factual determination. Thus, the High Court's reference of the matter to the Supreme Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act was set aside as no legal question arose.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Prem Family Private (Specific) Trust (1996) 217 ITR 546\nLegal Principle:\nQuestions about the genuineness of a trust are factual, and under Section 256(2), such matters do not warrant a reference to the Supreme Court unless a legal issue is involved.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No... of 1996 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) x;o.25112 of 1995, decided or; 9-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.P. Bhatnagar and S. Rajappa, Advocates for Appellant\nT.L.V. lyer, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and S.N. Terdol, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PREM FAMILY (PVT.) (SPECIFIC) TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 30 = 1998 SLD 30 = 1998 PTD 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitutional and Procedural Law - Validity of Ex Parte Proceedings in Income-tax Assessments\nConclusion:\nEx parte proceedings under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, after proper notice has been served under certificate of posting, are valid. The notice is presumed to have been received as per Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as long as seven clear days have passed between the despatch of the notice and the hearing.\nReferences:\n•\nM. Ameen M. Bashir Ltd. v. Haji Soomar Haji Hajjan Potoli PLD 1977 Kar. 973\nLegal Principle:\nEx parte assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance are valid if proper notice is given in accordance with procedural rules. Notice under certificate of posting is presumed to be received after the requisite period.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 General Clauses Act, 1897=27 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=129 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.2377 of 1996, decision dated: 25-03-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI, C.J AND MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ather Saeed for Petitioner.\nNasrullah Awan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAZZLE DAZZLE (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 31 = 1998 SLD 31 = 1998 PTD 245 = (1998) 77 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Azad Jammu and Kashmir Income Tax Ordinance - Constitutionality of Section 80-D\nConclusion:\nSection 80-D of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, is not ultra vires the Constitution or Islamic principles. The provisions do not discriminate against businessmen or impose unlawful restrictions. Taxes levied are lawful and do not contravene Islamic teachings.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1997 SC 582\n•\nAIR 1961 SC 522\n•\n1965 56 ITR 141\nLegal Principle:\nTax provisions that do not violate constitutional or religious principles are valid. The imposition of taxes under Section 80-D does not constitute interest or ribba and is in line with Islamic teachings.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=42,45,80D ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.99, 115, 102, 96, 95 of 1994, 81, 79, 77, 80, 78, 82 of 1991, 56, 16, 15 of 1992, 39, 37, 38, 36, 10 of 1993, 1 of 1995, 1, 2, 22, 20, 7.1,-42, 41 and 43 of 1997, decision dated: 16-09-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nCH. MUHAMMAD TAJ, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE FAROOQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Haji Muhammad Afzal (except in Writ Petition No. 10 of 1993), Zahid Hussain (in Writ Petition No-10 of 1993)\nRespondent(s) by: Bilal Ahmed (in all the Petitions except in Petition No. 10 of 1993), Abdul Majeed Mallick (in Writ Petition No. 10 of 1993)", + "Party Name:": "MESSRS KHAWAJA TEXTILE MILLS LTIS., KHALIQNAR BHIMBER THROUGH KHAWAJA ANEESUR REHMAN, DIRECTOR AND OTHERS\nVS\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, MIRPUR CIRCLE, MIRPUR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 32 = 1998 SLD 32 = (1996) 76 TAX 187 = 1997 TAX 187 = 1998 PTD 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interpretation of Public Company and Jurisdiction of Tax Authorities\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether bodies created by Provincial or Federal Statutes or incorporated as companies by these governments can be considered public companies under the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979).\n•\nConclusion: The term Government, as defined in the Income Tax Ordinance, cannot be extended to include bodies created by Provincial or Federal Statutes or incorporated as companies by these governments. The rules of interpretation do not allow expanding or restricting the meaning of the express words used in the statute. Past instances where the Revenue had accepted certain entities as public companies do not serve as binding precedents. Estoppel does not apply against law, and one wrong cannot be relied upon to alter the interpretation of express statutory terms.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 25\no\n1993 PTD (Trib.) 110\no\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 1117\nTopic: Rules of Interpretation and Estoppel\n•\nIssue: Interpretation of fiscal statutes and whether estoppel applies in cases of misinterpretation of tax laws.\n•\nConclusion: Fiscal statutes cannot be interpreted by expanding or restricting their express wording. The principle of estoppel does not apply in cases where one misinterpretation cannot be used as a precedent to affect subsequent applications of the statute.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\n1993 PTD (Trib.) 110\no\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 25\no\n1993 SCMR 468\nTopic: Jurisdiction and Powers of Income Tax Authorities\n•\nIssue: Whether Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (D.C.I.T.) and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (I.A.C.) have the authority to perform their functions as directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax.\n•\nConclusion: Under Section 5(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, the Commissioner has the power to delegate powers to the D.C.I.T. or I.A.C. for specific cases. After such a directive, any reference to D.C.I.T. shall be deemed to refer to I.A.C., and the I.A.C. shall exercise the same powers and perform the same functions as the D.C.I.T. in those cases.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 25\no\n1993 PTD (Trib.) 110\no\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 1117\no\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 1435", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIV,para.B(2),5(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 8592/LB and 8593/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 9-09-1997.hearing DATE : 21st August, 1997.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana-Munir Hussain, L.A. and Shahid Bashir, D.R. for Appellant\nSyed Abrar Hussain Naqvi and Sarfraz Mahmood, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 33 = 1998 SLD 33 = 1998 PTCL 10 = 1998 PTD 288 = (1996) 76 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption of Foreign Exchange Rate Gains and Foreign Currency Accounts\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether foreign exchange rate gains or interest earned on foreign currency accounts are taxable or exempt from tax under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: Real income must be taxed, and hypothetical income (such as foreign exchange rate gains or interest earned on foreign currency accounts) does not qualify for taxation as it is considered a capital transaction. Furthermore, if the taxpayer is not a foreign national and has opted for the resident status, the income from foreign currency accounts is not exempted.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nCIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Company Limited, 46 ITR 144\no\nCIT v. Smith Kline & French of Pakistan Limited, 1991 SCMR 2374\no\nCIT, Bengal v. Shew Wallace & Co., AIR 1932 PC 138\no\nCIT v. Pfizer Limited, 1993 PTD 927\nTopic: Exemption of Interest on Foreign Currency Account\n•\nIssue: Whether interest earned on a foreign currency account is exempt from tax.\n•\nConclusion: Interest earned on a foreign currency account is not exempt from tax if the taxpayer is a resident and not a foreign national.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nCIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Company Limited, 46 ITR 144\no\nCIT v. Smith Kline & French of Pakistan Limited, 1991 SCMR 2374\no\nCIT v. Pfizer Limited, 1993 PTD 927", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,cl.(78) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5533/LB to 5535/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 21st May, 1997, hearing DATE : 5-03-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SIKANDER KALEEM FAZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashid Sarwar, C.A. for Appellant\nShahbaz Butt, L.A. and M. Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 34 = 1976 SLD 34 = (1996) 76 TAX 126 = 1998 PTD 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Definition of Petroleum under Income Tax Ordinance\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: The definition of petroleum for the purpose of the Income Tax Ordinance and whether liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is subject to taxation as a refined petroleum product.\n•\nConclusion: The term petroleum includes crude oil, natural gas, and casing-head petroleum spirit as per the definition under the Income Tax Ordinance’s Fifth Schedule, but excludes refined petroleum products. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which consists primarily of propane and butane, falls within the definition of petroleum and is thus subject to taxation under the provisions applicable to petroleum. Refined petroleum products, however, are excluded from this definition.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nPakistan Petroleum Production Rules, 1949\no\nFifth Schedule to Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\no\nCIT v. Pfizer Limited, 1993 PTD 927\nTopic: Application of Petroleum Concession Agreements\n•\nIssue: The effect of petroleum concession agreements on the taxation of petroleum income under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: In cases where a conflict arises between the definitions in the petroleum concession agreement and the rules, the terms of the agreement will prevail. The cumulative effect of the legislation and petroleum concession agreements is that the profits and gains from petroleum exploration and production must be assessed under the provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nPakistan Petroleum Production Rules, 1949\no\nRegulations of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Fifth Schedule, Rule 6(6)\nTopic: Accounting under the Mercantile System\n•\nIssue: The treatment of payments and receipts under the mercantile system of accounting.\n•\nConclusion: Under the mercantile system, the actual receipt or payment of money is irrelevant. Instead, the transaction is deemed to have occurred once it is recorded in the books of accounts.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nI.T.As. Nos.237 and 238(IB) of 1989-90 (overruled)\no\n1993 PTD (Trib.) 722\no\nPLD 1963 SC 352", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26(b),FifthSched.,PartI,R.6(6),12(5),32 Regulation of Mines and Oil-Fields and Mineral Development (Federal Control) Act, 1948=2,3A & 4 Pakistan Petroleum Production Rules, 1949=8.41 Pakistan Petroleum (Refining Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971=41 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.905/113; 906/113 of 1991-92, 963/113 of 1993-94, 1053/IB, 1054/IB, 960/113 to 962/113 of 1993-94, 140/113 and 141/113 of 1994-95, decision dated: 10-07-1997, hearing DATE : 8th April 1997.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, RASHID A. SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Jalil, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.905/IB and 906/113 of 1991-92)\nKhalid Majeed, F.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.905/IB and 906/113 of 1991-92)\nKhalid Majeed, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 963/IB of 1993-94)\nAbdul Jalil, D. R. for Respondent (in I.T.A.. No. 963/111 of 1993-94)\nAbdul Jalil, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1053/IB and 1054/113 of 1993-94).\nKhalid Majeed, F.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.1053/IB and 1054/113 of 1993-94).\nKhalid Majeed, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. No. 960/IB to 962/IB of 1993-94, 140/IB\nAbdul Jalil, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. No. 960/IB to 962/113 of 1993-94, 140/113 and 141/113 of 1994-95)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 35 = 1998 SLD 35 = 1998 PTD 348 = (1996) 221 ITR 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: High Court's Role in Hearing References\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether the High Court can disturb findings of fact made by the Tribunal during the reference process under section 256 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nConclusion: In a reference under section 256, the High Court does not exercise appellate, revisionary, or supervisory jurisdiction. It is limited to giving advice to the Tribunal. The High Court cannot disturb the Tribunal's findings if they are based on material on record and are not perverse.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nAmbica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1073\no\nCIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta and Brothers, 100 ITR 222 (Raj.)\no\nCIT v. Noorjehan P.K. Sint., 123 ITR 3 (Ker.)\no\nSree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, 31 ITR 28 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Case No.76 of 1985, decision dated: 18-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND M.A. A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.C. Jain for the Assessee\nG.S. Bafna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RATAN CHAND LODHA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 36 = 1998 SLD 36 = 1998 PTD 358 = (1996) 221 ITR 30 = (1996) 75 TAX 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Requisition of Books of Account under Section 132-A(1)(b)\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether the requisition of books of account under section 132-A(1)(b) is valid when the assessing officer does not record a belief that the documents may not be produced in response to summons.\n•\nConclusion: The requisition under section 132-A(1)(b) can only be issued if there is a belief that the documents will not be produced in response to a summons. Since the assessing officer did not record such a belief and issued the requisition without applying proper discretion, the order was considered mechanically issued and was quashed.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nI.T.O. v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., 118 ITR 1 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous/Writ Petitions Nos.189 190 and 192 of 1995, decision dated: 14-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " R.A. SHARMA AND D.K. SETH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Prakash Krishna and Upadhyaya for Petitioner\nBharatji Agarwal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SHREE JANKKI SOLVENT EXTRACTIONS LTD. and 2 others\nVs\nDEPUTY DIRLCTOR OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 37 = 1998 SLD 37 = 1998 PTD 361 = (1996) 221 ITR 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Tax and Interest Payable by Government under Section 214(1)\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether the expression regular assessment in Section 214(1) of the Income Tax Act refers to the first original assessment under sections 143 or 144 or to an order giving effect to an appellate order.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the term regular assessment in Section 214(1) of the Income Tax Act refers to the first original assessment under sections 143 or 144, not to the order giving effect to an appellate decision. Interest on excess advance tax paid is calculated only up to the date of the first assessment. The ruling followed previous case law, including Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 and C.I.T. v. G.B. Transports (1985) 155 ITR 548 (Ker.).\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nModi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC)\no\nC.I.T. v. G.B. Transports (1985) 155 ITR 548 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.8614 of 1995-S, decision dated: 5-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Pathrose Mathai and Miss Mariam Mathai for Petitioner\nP.K. R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KERALA CHEMICALS AND PROTEINS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 38 = 1998 SLD 38 = 1998 PTD 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption under Section 14(1) and Second Schedule, Clause 102-A of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979)\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Determination of the date of establishment of business for the purpose of exemption.\n•\nConclusion: The role of the Commissioner of Income Tax is limited to determining the date of establishment, but it is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to decide whether the exemption applies based on supporting documentation. The case was remanded for re-assessment to determine the actual date of establishment, and other factors for exemption were to be checked by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 14(1), Second Schedule, Clause 102-A", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14(1)andSecondSched.,Cl.(102A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2300/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 18-03-1997hearing DATE : 26-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Siddique Mughal for Appellant\nMuhammad Aslam, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 39 = 1998 SLD 39 = 1998 PTD 382", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ex Parte Assessment and Estimation of Sales under Section 22, 61, and 63\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether an ex parte assessment based on an estimated higher G.P. rate is justified when the assessee fails to comply with statutory notices.\n•\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer’s estimation of a 40% G.P. rate was upheld after the assessee failed to substantiate the declared version despite sufficient opportunities. However, the Tribunal modified the G.P. rate to 25% based on what was considered reasonable for the business, with no interference required in other aspects of the assessment.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nI.T.A. No. 1064/LB of 1991-92", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,61 & 63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.9842/LB of 1993-94, decision dated: 23rd January, 1997.hearing DATE : 24-10-1996, hearing DATE : 24-10-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aslam Malik, C.A. for Appellant\nSameera Yasin, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 40 = 1998 SLD 40 = 1998 PTD 384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Salary and Perquisites under Section 16\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether the utilities provided to an assessee, a Director of a company, should be treated as income, and whether the claim for capital gains was valid.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim for house rent and utilities as perquisites. Additionally, the claim for capital gain was accepted in full after the assessee provided sufficient evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) had correctly set aside the capital gain issue for re-examination.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\n1994 PTD 858\nTopic: Remand and Natural Justice\n•\nIssue: The appropriateness of remanding a case when the Appellate Authority can dispose of the matter on the basis of the material on record.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal emphasized that remanding cases should be avoided when the matter can be decided based on existing records to ensure the expediency of justice.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.581/LB of 1997, decision dated: 20-03-1997.hearing DATE : 13-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakhar-ul-Islam, I.T.P. for Appellant\nMrs. Sameera Yasin, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 41 = 1998 SLD 41 = 1998 PTD 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Estimation of Sales and G.P. Rate under Sections 22 and 32(3)\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether the application of a 30% G.P. rate by the Assessing Officer for estimating sales is appropriate.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal agreed with the Assessing Officer’s decision to apply a 30% G.P. rate, consistent with the preceding year’s assessment. It also directed that the mark-up be deleted based on the observations of the previous year. Add-backs that were unverifiable were not disturbed.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nI.T.A. No. 553/LB of 1991-92\no\nI.T.A. No. 1069/LB of 1991-92", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1121/LB of 1992,93, decision dated: 4-03-1997, hearing DATE : 13-02-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Ahmad Ch., C. A. for Appellant. Asad Ali Jan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 42 = 1998 SLD 42 = 1998 PTD 390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Application of G.P. Rate and Add-backs under Sections 22 and 32(3)\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether the G.P. rate applied by the assessee, which was higher than the one used by the Assessing Officer, should be accepted.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal accepted the G.P. rate used by the assessee, as it was consistent with the previous year’s rates applied in similar cases. The Assessing Officer’s deviation without providing valid reasons was rejected, and the assessee’s appeal was accepted.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nNo specific citations mentioned", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.328/LB of 1993, decision dated: 22-04-1997.hearing DATE : 25-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zulfiqar Khokhar for Appellant, Mustafa Ashraf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 43 = 1998 SLD 43 = 1998 PTD 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Scrutiny Selection under Section 59(1)\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether the case selection for scrutiny under the Self-Assessment Scheme was valid, given that the Assessing Officer did not inform the assessee about the reasons for selecting their case.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for selecting the case for detailed scrutiny, particularly concerning the purchase of a shop valued at Rs. 4,00,000. As the assessee’s declared income was accepted during the assessment proceedings, the Tribunal directed that the income under the Self-Assessment Scheme be accepted.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\n1994 PTD 494", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1116/LB of 1993, decision dated: 3rd April, 1997.hearing DATE : 15-03-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurshid Ahmad for Appellant, Bashraratullah Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 44 = 1998 SLD 44 = 1998 PTD 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Valuation of Property and Registered Deed under Section 56, 61, and 13(1)\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether the value declared by the assessee in a registered deed for a property purchase can be challenged based on market value.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the sanctity of the registered deed, asserting that it should not be discarded without stronger evidence. The Assessing Officer’s reliance on parallel cases to reject the declared value was deemed invalid. The assessment order lacked sufficient reasoning and was set aside.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\n1996 PTCR 1335\no\n1995 PTD (Trib.) 1179\nTopic: Limitation under Section 64(3)\n•\nIssue: The limitation for assessing the case under Section 64(3) after a notice is served under Section 56.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal clarified that the limitation for assessing under Section 64(3) is two years from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Section 56 is served.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\n1996 PTCR 1335\no\n1995 PTD (Trib.) 1179", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,61,13(1),64(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3371/LB/1996, decision dated: 9-04-1997, hearing DATE 12-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SIKANDAR KALIM FAZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asif Aziz Banth for Appellant, Mian Masood Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 45 = 1998 SLD 45 = 1998 PTD 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Business and Additions under Sections 22 and 32(3)\nCase Summary:\n•\nIssue: Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer under financial charges, donations, and P & L accounts are justified.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal observed that the connection between the financial charges and the business was not properly disproven, and the loan advanced to a sister concern should be re-examined. The addition under Section 24(ff) was set aside as it was pending in another Bench. The other add-backs were reasonable and no interference was warranted.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\n1986 SCMR 968", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3),24(ff) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2633/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 5-04-1997.hearing DATE : 12-01-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SIKANDAR KALIM FAZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Akhtar Sheikh, FCA for Appellant\nMuhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 46 = 1998 SLD 46 = 1998 PTD 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income Tax Ordinance, Ss. 22 & 32(3))\nIssue:\nThe issue revolves around the estimation of sales and G.P. (Gross Profit) rate in the assessment of the assessee’s income from business. The assessee had consistently declared sales and applied the same G.P. rate over two years. However, in the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Assessing Officer found that the sales details were incomplete, lacking full addresses. The Assessing Officer accepted the G.P. rate but made adjustments based on the profit and loss accounts, resulting in a higher income estimation.\nDecision:\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Assessing Officer had not presented new material to reject the trading results. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that each assessment year is independent and should be judged based on the facts and circumstances for that year. The case was remanded for reconsideration, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was instructed to evaluate the accounts and objections based on the facts for both years. The treatment of sales estimates and G.P. rate was to be reassessed. The Tribunal pointed out that previous year findings could not be automatically applied to subsequent years.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with instructions to reconsider the facts independently for each assessment year. The earlier findings could not dictate the outcome for the subsequent year.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 70/LB and 71/LB 1996, decision dated: 5-04-1997.hearing DATE : 20-03-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Bashir, D.R. for Appellant\nMuhammad Sarfraz, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 47 = 1998 SLD 47 = 1998 PTD 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income Tax Ordinance, Ss. 22 & 32(3))\nIssue:\nThe assessee declared a G.P. rate of 27% on sales, which the Assessing Officer verified but adjusted it to 27.7% based on the history of the case. Additionally, the Assessing Officer disallowed salary expenses, as the assessee had not maintained a salary register or provided the National Identity Cards of employees.\nDecision:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the assessee's declared results were reasonable and that the Assessing Officer had unjustifiably made adjustments. It was also found that the salary expenses could be easily verified. The Assessing Officer had not made any efforts to verify these expenses, so the disallowance was deemed unwarranted. The addition to income was deleted.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal concluded that unnecessary adjustments made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified, and the salary expenses should not have been disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.429/LB of 1993, decision dated: 26-02-1997, hearing DATE : 26-02-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noor Muhammad Qureshi for Appellant. Mian Qasim Ali, D.R. for Respondent\nBadrudaja Khan, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Nazir Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 48 = 1998 SLD 48 = 1998 PTD 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income Tax Ordinance, Ss. 61, 62, 63, 65, 69, & 74)\nIssue:\nThe issue centered around the validity of assessments made against a deceased person. The Assessing Officer proceeded with assessments for the years 1983-84 and 1986-87, despite being informed that the assessee had died in 1986. The legal heir filed a return but failed to comply with subsequent notices.\nDecision:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the assessment made against a deceased person was not competent, both in fact and in law. The Assessing Officer’s actions after being informed of the assessee’s death were illegal and could not be allowed to stand. The case was remanded by the C.I.T.(A) but should have been annulled instead of remanded. The Tribunal highlighted the jurisdictional defect caused by the failure to serve notices on all legal heirs.\nConclusion:\nThe assessments were declared null and void due to the Assessing Officer's failure to properly serve notices to the legal heirs, and the Tribunal annulled the assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,63,65,69,74 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2555/LB and 2556/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 8-03-1996.hearing DATE : 24-12-1996.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Nouman, ITP for Appellant. Sabiha Muhajid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 49 = 1998 SLD 49 = 1998 PTD 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income Tax Ordinance, Ss. 13(1)(d), 22 & 32(3))\nIssue:\nThe assessee declared income and reported the purchase of a shop along with its cost of construction. The Assessing Officer rejected the declared cost of construction and determined an enhanced cost, based on their assessment.\nDecision:\nThe Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's determination, as the assessee had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claimed cost of construction, such as a completion certificate or necessary documentation. The Tribunal accepted the Assessing Officer’s rejection of the assessee’s declared figures and concluded that the construction had taken place in a prior year (1990-91).\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal affirmed the Assessing Officer’s determination of the cost of construction, based on the lack of sufficient evidence from the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),22,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.8340/LB of 1996, decision dated: 7-04-1997.hearing DATE : 1st April, 1997.", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sarfraz, CA for Appellant\nKhalid Aziz Banth, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 50 = 1998 SLD 50 = 1998 PTD 414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income Tax Ordinance, Ss. 62 & 55)\nIssue:\nThe assessee challenged the taxation of lease income, arguing that the lease income had already been assessed in the hands of the original owners of the property, making further taxation in the hands of an A.O.P. (Association of Persons) unwarranted.\nDecision:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the income from the lease had been previously assessed in the individual assessments of the property owners. The Tribunal concluded that taxing the same income in the hands of the A.O.P. would result in double taxation, which was not legally justified. Thus, the assessment in the hands of the A.O.P. was canceled.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal concluded that the double taxation was unwarranted, and the assessment in the hands of the A.O.P. was canceled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,55 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6643/LB and 872/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 4-04-1997hearing DATE : 4-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Iqbal Bhatti, A.R. for Appellant. Mian Qasim Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 51 = 1998 SLD 51 = 1998 PTD 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance, Ss. 22 & 32(3))\nIssue:\nThe issue revolved around the cost of constructing shops and the reliance on an arbitration award. The Assessing Officer used the arbitrator's determination of construction cost, which was higher than the cost declared by the assessee.\nDecision:\nThe Tribunal upheld the decision to rely on the arbitration award for determining the cost of construction, as the award reflected the agreed-upon figure between the parties involved. However, the Tribunal also directed that the assessment should be made in accordance with the findings of the arbitration.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal supported the use of the arbitration award for the cost of construction but required that the final assessment be made based on the arbitrator’s determination.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 & 32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6745/LB and 6746/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 16-04-1997.hearing DATE : 8-04-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Zafar Shah, C.A. for Appellant\nKhalid Aziz Banth, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 52 = 1998 SLD 52 = 1998 PTD 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income Tax Act, S.48)\nIssue:\nThe case involved the imposition of additional tax under the provisions of the Martial Law Regulation No. 32 of 1969. The Revenue sought to impose additional tax on sums due for various assessment years (1963-64 to 1968-69), citing delays in payment.\nDecision:\nThe Tribunal concluded that the proceedings initiated after a delay of 14 years were improper. Though no specific time limit was prescribed under the old Income-tax Act, the Tribunal held that the delay rendered the proceedings unreasonable. Furthermore, the Revenue had failed to comply with procedural requirements and failed to explain the lengthy delay. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal dismissed the Department’s appeal, ruling that the initiation of proceedings after such a long delay was unjustifiable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=48 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos. 154/LB to 161/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 18-03-1997.hearing DATE : 27-02-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Zaheer, D.R. for Appellant\nMuhammad Shafique (Chief Executive) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 53 = 1998 SLD 53 = 1998 PTD 435 = (1996) 221 ITR 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income Tax Ordinance)\nIssue:\nThe issue concerned deposits made by the partners on the first day of the firm's existence. The question was whether these deposits should be treated as income from undisclosed sources of the firm or whether the partners were responsible for explaining the source.\nDecision:\nThe Tribunal ruled that the onus was on the partners to explain the source of the deposits made on the firm's first day. As the partners failed to provide an explanation, the amounts were to be added to their personal assessments and not the firm’s assessment.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal concluded that the deposits should be added to the individual partners’ assessments, as they failed to explain the source of the deposits.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.207 of 1980, decision dated: 16-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND M. C. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "SURENDRA MAHAN SETH\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 54 = 1998 SLD 54 = 1998 PTD 437 = (1996) 221 ITR 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(Income Tax Act, Ss. 45 & 263)\nIssue:\nThe case involved the revision of an assessment due to the non-taxation of goodwill. The assessee firm had created and distributed goodwill among partners, but the Commissioner of Income-tax sought to revise the order for not taxing the goodwill amount.\nDecision:\nThe Tribunal ruled that there was no material to suggest that the creation and distribution of goodwill was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The goodwill was self-generated, and no capital gains tax could be imposed on the transfer of self-created goodwill. The Tribunal found that no capital gains tax could be charged on the firm’s goodwill upon dissolution, as the law at the time did not consider the transfer of goodwill as taxable.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer, ruling that the revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax was not valid, as no tax liability existed on the transfer of self-created goodwill.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 185 of 1982, decision dated: 9-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " RAJESH BALIA AND S.K. KESHOTE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.A. Mehta for R.K. Patel for the Assessee\nB.J. Shelat for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RAYON SILK MILLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 55 = 2000 SLD 55 = 2000 PTD 3643 = (1999) 238 ITR 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Assessment—Draft assessment order—Limitation—Draft assessment order along with objections submitted on 6-12-1983, directions received on 11-5-1984, and assessment made on 26-5-1984—Assessment was not barred by limitation—Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 144B.\nA return was filed for the assessment year 1981-82, declaring income of Rs.15,96,650. A revised return was filed showing income of Rs.11,50,866. The Income-tax Officer proposed variation in the income of the assessee exceeding Rs.1,00,000 and therefore, he followed the procedure laid down in section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A draft of the assessment order was forwarded by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee on November 22, 1983. The objections were filed by the assessee on December 2, 1983. A copy of the draft assessment order along with the copy of the objections was sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on December 6, 1983. The directions were received from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on May 11, 1984. The assessment was made on May 26, 1984. On the question of whether the assessment was barred by limitation:\nHeld: Subsection (7) of section 144B was not attracted, and the procedure laid down in that section was rightly followed. The Income-tax Officer, having concurrent jurisdiction with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 125A of the Act, proposed to make variation in the income of the assessee exceeding Rs.1,00,000. The assessment was not barred by limitation.\nCIT v. Gheru Lal Bal Chand (1998) 233 ITR 82 (P & H) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 135 of 1996, decision dated: 29-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "CIT v. Gheru Lal Bal Chand (1998) 233 ITR 82 (P&H) fol, B.S. Gupta Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHANSA AGENCIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 56 = 1998 SLD 56 = 1998 PTD 454 = (1996) 221 ITR 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Association of persons—Assessment—Member of A.O.P.—Computation of share of member of A.O.P.—Income-tax payable by A.O.P. is not deductible—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 86 & 110.\nA conjoint reading of sections 86 and 110 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that the portion of the amount which a member is entitled to receive from the association of persons is exempted from income-tax if income-tax has already been paid thereon by the association of persons. The expression any portion of the amount which the assessee is entitled to receive from the association in section 86(v) means the amount of share of the assessee in the income of the association to which he is entitled and this amount has to be determined without deduction of any income-tax payable or paid thereon by the association of persons. The share of income or amount receivable by the assessee is not dependent on the amount of tax payable by the association of persons because income-tax itself is payable on the income. The amount referred to in section 86(v) will be the amount receivable by the member of the association of persons out of its income without deduction of the income-tax paid by the association of persons thereon. If no income-tax has already been paid by the association of persons, section 86(v) will not apply, and the member of such an association of persons would not be entitled to any exemption in respect of the amount receivable by him as a member thereof.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.22 of 1983, decision dated: 21st December, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND M. L. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubrarnaniam with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner\nSoli Dastur with J.D. Mistry for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. LALITA M. BHAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 57 = 1998 SLD 57 = 1998 PTD 479 = (1996) 221 ITR 164 = (1996) 75 TAX 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Reference—Accounting—Rejection of accounts—Estimate of income—Contractor—Finding by Tribunal that assessee had consistently followed a particular method of accounting—Tribunal considering difficulties of contractors and deciding that no addition could be made towards work-in-progress—Tribunal was justified in deleting additions—No question of law arises—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256.\nHeld, dismissing the application for reference, that the question was purely one of fact. The two authorities below had found that there was no justification for rejection of the books of account. For the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86, the assessee continued to maintain the same system of accounting, accounting for receipts on a cash basis and accounting for expenditure on a mercantile basis. It also recorded that the book results without work-in-progress were accepted in the assessment year 1981-82, and the assessee was following the same system of accounting. The Tribunal considered the peculiarities of the contracting business and observed that work-in-progress should be treated as nil for ongoing contracts due to inherent risks faced by contractors. The Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition.\nCIT v. Central India Industries Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 555 (SC); Deepnarain Nagu & Co. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 37 (MP); G. Padmanabha Chettiar and Sons v. CIT (1990) 182 ITR 1 (Mad.) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 11513-S alongwith Original Petitions Nos. 11211, 11670 and 12009 of 1995-S, decision dated: 19-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner\nP. Balachandran for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGEO TECH CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 58 = 1998 SLD 58 = 1998 PTD 428 = (1996) 221 ITR 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Capital or revenue expenditure—Assessee running coke plant—Expenditure on obtaining feasibility report for converting coke plant to cement plant—Expenditure to improve existing business—Revenue expenditure—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37.\nThe assessee was a company carrying on the business of manufacturing petroleum coke. It explored the possibility of manufacturing cement by obtaining a feasibility report and defrayed expenses of Rs.1,38,000. However, the project was found to be economically unviable, and the plan was abandoned. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of deduction for the expenses. The Tribunal allowed the deduction.\nHeld: The expenditure incurred was for exploring an alternative business option to improve the financial condition. It was not capital expenditure but rather revenue expenditure aimed at improving the existing business of the company.\nCIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (1981) 132 ITR 752 (Guj.) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 18 of 1991, decision dated: 28-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and K. Bhuyan for the Commissioner\nDr. A.K. Saraf and K.K. Gupta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIA CARBON LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 59 = 1998 SLD 59 = 1998 PTD 493 = (1996) 221 ITR 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Reassessment—Limitation—Exception to bar of limitation—Reassessment to give effect to finding or direction in an order of Court—Finding or direction in land acquisition proceedings—Bar of limitation does not apply—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147, 149 & 150.\nWhere reassessment proceedings are initiated in consequence of a finding or direction contained in an order passed by a Court in any proceedings under any other law (e.g., land acquisition proceedings), the time limits prescribed in section 149 do not apply, and notice under section 148 can be issued at any time.\nHeld: Reassessment notices were valid as they were issued in consequence of the findings in land acquisition proceedings. The bar of limitation under section 149 did not apply.\nPrashar (S.C.) v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 1; Gadgil (S.S.) v. Lal & Co. (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC); Jani (J.P.) I.T.O. v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC) distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. W. P. No. 1152 of 1996, decision dated: 24-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M.J. RAO, C, J. AND DR. M. K. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja with K.M. Sharma and Sanjay Abott for Petitioner\nR.D. Jolly with Miss Prenm Lata Bansal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "K.M. SHARMA\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 60 = 1998 SLD 60 = 1998 PTD 502 = (1996) 221 ITR 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Capital or revenue expenditure—General principles—Expenditure to ward off competition for fifteen years—Capital expenditure—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37.\nPayment made to ward off competition in business constitutes capital expenditure if the aim is to derive an enduring advantage by eliminating competition. The duration of this advantage must be certain and not subject to termination at any time.\nHeld: The payment made in lieu of a non-compete agreement for 15 years was capital expenditure as it was made to secure an enduring benefit by eliminating competition.\nCIT v. Coal Shipments (P.) Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 902 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No.9 of 1990, decision dated: 9-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee\nV.K. Tankha with A. Adhikari for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GROVER SOAP (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 61 = 1998 SLD 61 = 1998 PTD 507 = (1996) 221 ITR 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Reference—Rectification—Mistake apparent from record—Jurisdiction of Tribunal under S.254(2) of Income Tax Act—Tribunal entertaining rectification application—Whether Tribunal was correct in doing so—Question of law arises—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 254(2) & 256.\nHeld: Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in entertaining the rectification application on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from the record in its earlier order, irrespective of its being a review application, was a question of law to be referred.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 152 of 1995, decision dated: 19-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND M. KATJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAJAY ICE AND COLD STORAGE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 62 = 1998 SLD 62 = 1998 PTD 508 = (1996) 221 ITR 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Depreciation—Conditions precedent for allowance—Ownership of property—Transfer of property—Registration—Assessee declared owner of property by Civil Court—Transfer of property did not require registration—Assessee entitled to depreciation—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32—Indian Registration Act, 1908, S.17.\nFor claiming depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee must be the owner of the depreciable asset. Registration of the transfer is not a requirement under the Income Tax Act. A decree from a Civil Court declaring ownership qualifies as proof of ownership without requiring registration.\nHeld: The assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the property despite the lack of a registered transfer deed, as the ownership was confirmed by a Civil Court decree.\nBhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major AIR 1996 SC 196; Hindustan Cold Storage and Refrigeration (P.) Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 455 (Delhi); CIT v. Sahney Steel and Press Works (P.) Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 811 (AP) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.22 of 1981, decision dated: 2-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.S. Narang, Senior Advocate with Baljinder Singh for the Assessee\nR.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goyal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HOTEL SKYLARK AND RESTAURANT (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 63 = 1998 SLD 63 = 1998 PTD 519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Salary—Profits in lieu of salary—Encashment of unavailed leave—Received after retirement before 1-4-1978—Assessable as profit in lieu of salary\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 17 & 89\n•\nEncashment of leave salary is taxable under section 17 of the Income Tax Act. The amendment in 1984 introduced section 17(1)(v-a) which specifically taxed leave encashment after April 1, 1978. Prior to that, it was taxed as profit in lieu of salary under section 17(3).\n•\nCase Law: Krishna Murthy M. v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 163 (AP); Patil Vijaykumar v. Union of India. (1985) 151 ITR 48 (Kar.); Shailendra Kumar v. Union of India (1989) 175 ITR 494 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.817 and Reference No.383 of 1981, decision dated: 10-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND GOVARDHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner\nP.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nN.B. TENDOLKAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 64 = 1998 SLD 64 = 1998 PTD 526 = (1996) 221 ITR 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Assessment—Limitation—Completion of assessment beyond the limitation period\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 142(2-A), (2-C) & 153\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) requested an audit report under section 142(2-A). After the assessee informed the ITO that the report could not be submitted, the ITO completed the assessment on September 3, 1985, which was beyond the stipulated limitation period. The assessment should have been completed by August 22, 1985.\n•\nCase Law: The Tribunal found the assessment barred by limitation, and the High Court confirmed this ruling.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 84 of 1990, decision dated: 9-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Adhikari for the Commissioner\nB.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHARIWAL SALES ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 65 = 1998 SLD 65 = 1998 PTD 530 = (1996) 221 ITR 1 = (1996) 75 TAX 278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Special Deduction—Manufacture—Rubber—Production of Centrifugal Latex\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 80-J, 80-HH\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the process of making centrifugal latex amounted to manufacture and entitled the assessee to special deductions under sections 80-J and 80-HH.\n•\nCase Law: The Tribunal’s finding was a question of fact, and no question of law arose from it. The process of centrifuging was considered a manufacturing process, which led to the product becoming a distinct article for commercial purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.5120 of alongwith Original Petitions Nos.5471 and 5129 of 1995, decision dated: 12-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner\nJoseph Markose and Joseph Kodianthara for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKANAM LATEX INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 66 = 1998 SLD 66 = 1998 PTD 540 = (1996) 221 ITR 720", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Writ Jurisdiction—High Court Jurisdiction in Writ Petitions\nConstitution of India, Art. 226\n•\nThe High Court can exercise jurisdiction in writ petitions if any part of the cause of action arose within its territory. Jurisdiction is determined based on the facts pleaded in the writ petition, not the truth of those facts.\n•\nCase Law: ONGC’s case (1994) 4 SCC 711.\n(b) Income-tax—Recovery of Tax—Attachment of Shares\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 226\n•\nA writ petition was maintainable in the Calcutta High Court as part of the cause of action (attachment of shares) occurred within its jurisdiction. The shares were in Calcutta, and the order of attachment was served there.\n•\nCase Law: Anandilal Goenka v. TRO (1994) 208 ITR 46 (Cal.).\n(c) Recovery of Tax—Tax Recovery Officer (T.R.O.) and Title to Property\n•\nT.R.O. lacks the authority to decide questions of title to property. In the present case, the attachment of shares owned by the public charitable trust was quashed.\n(d) Writ Jurisdiction—Alternate Remedy\n•\nThe existence of an alternate remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It only informs the Court’s discretion to grant relief.\n(e) Income-tax—Attachment of Property—T.R.O.'s Powers and Jurisdiction\n•\nThe Tax Recovery Officer has no power to investigate questions of title. In the case of donated shares held by the petitioner-trust, the attachment was invalid as the T.R.O. could only decide possession, not ownership.\n•\nCase Law: Anandilal Goenka v. TRO (1994) 208 ITR 46 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 6551(W) of 1977, decision dated: 1st September, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.N. Bajoria, J.P. Khaitan and A.K. Dey for Petitioners\nA.C. Moitra and R.C. Prasad for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "KRISHAN PRASAD SINGHI and others\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER-II (INCOME TAX) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 67 = 1998 SLD 67 = 1998 PTD 556 = (1997) 227 ITR 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Business Income—Balancing Charge—Profits Chargeable to Tax under S.41(2)\nThe issue here concerns the sale of an entire business as a going concern by a firm to a company formed specifically for this purpose. The sale price exceeded the written-down value (WDV) of assets, with a portion of the sale price attributable to plant, machinery, and dead stock. In such a case, the difference between the actual cost and the written-down value of the assets is chargeable to tax under Section 41(2) as business income. Any surplus over this difference is taxable under Section 45 as capital gains.\nThis case draws from earlier rulings such as Mugneeram Bangur (1965) and B.M. Kharwar (1969), which clarify that the excess over WDV, if directly attributable to business assets, should be taxed under Section 41(2). If there is a surplus above this, the remaining amount is subject to capital gains taxation.\n(b) Income-tax—Assessment—Status of Assessee\nThe firm transferred its business to a company formed by its partners, and the Income Tax Officer initially assessed the firm as a registered firm. However, the Court held that the firm should be assessed as a body of individuals, overturning the earlier ruling in Artex Manufacturing Co. v. CIT (1981) that upheld the taxability in the status of a registered firm.\nIn summary:\n•\nThe assessee must be taxed as a body of individuals. \n•\nSection 41(2) applies to the difference between the sale price and the written-down value of assets.\n•\nAny excess over this difference is subject to capital gains tax.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2276 (NT) of 1981, decision dated: 8th July 1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L.V. Iyer, G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocates, B.K. Prasad, S. Rajappa, C. Radha Krishna (S. Ganesh and Mrs. A.K. Verma), Advocates for JBD & Co., P.H. Parekh and Ms. R. Deeparnala, Advocates with them for the Appearing Parties\nGhulam Sarwar with Rana Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court. Aitizaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record. Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for the State.\nAitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record. Nemo.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nARTEX MANUFACTURING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 68 = 1998 SLD 68 = 1998 PTD 573 = (1997) 227 ITR 278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Business Income—Balancing Charge—Profits Chargeable to Tax under S.41(2)\nHere, the assessee (a partnership firm) transferred its entire business to a company in exchange for a purchase consideration. However, there was no clear indication of the value attributable to the machinery, plant, or buildings from the sale price of Rs.8 lakhs. While depreciation of Rs.3,32,863 was allowed on the assets, this alone did not establish the excess of the sale price over the written-down value. Hence, the Court ruled that Section 41(2) did not apply as there was insufficient evidence to indicate that the depreciation allowed was tied to the sale price of the business assets.\n(b) Income-tax—Assessment—Status of Assessee\nThe assessee was assessed in the status of an association of persons, not as a registered firm. The Court affirmed that the correct status for the assessee was an association of individuals, reversing the decision made by the Tribunal, which had considered the assessee to be a registered firm.\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 41(2) does not apply in the absence of clear evidence attributing part of the sale price to the assets, such as machinery or buildings.\n•\nThe assessee is correctly assessed as an association of persons, not a registered firm. ", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1982, decision dated: 8-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND G. B. PATTANAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate for Appellant. P. H. Parekh, Mrs. Sunita Sharma and Ms. R. Deepamala, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nELECTRIC CONTROL GEAR MFG. CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 69 = 1998 SLD 69 = 1998 PTD 577 = (1997) 227 ITR 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Mortgages on Property\nIn this case, the assessee sold a house and plots of land subject to a mortgage, where the buyer used part of the sale proceeds to clear the mortgage debt. The assessee contended that the amount paid to discharge the mortgage should be treated as part of the cost of acquisition or as an improvement to the property. However, the Tribunal held that the amount paid to clear the mortgage could not be considered as cost of acquisition or cost of improvement, as it was not an expenditure incurred by the seller, but rather an amount paid by the buyer.\nThe Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that this case was different from one where the property was inherited or purchased from a previous owner with an outstanding mortgage. Since the assessee himself had created the mortgage, the discharge of the debt did not alter the cost of acquisition for capital gains purposes. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s decision was affirmed.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe discharge of the mortgage debt by the buyer does not increase the cost of acquisition.\n•\nThe case was distinguished from situations where the mortgage was created by a previous owner.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4385 of 1997, decision dated: 9-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Baby Krishna, Advocate for Appellant. G. C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (B. K. Prasad, B. S. Ahuja and C. Radha Krishna, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "V. S. M. R. JAGADISHCHANDRAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 70 = 1998 SLD 70 = 1998 PTD 581 = (1997) 227 ITR 432", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Income and Market Value of Sugarcane\nThis case dealt with an assessee who was manufacturing sugar from sugarcane, both grown on its own land and purchased from external growers. The issue at hand was how to determine the market value of the sugarcane grown by the assessee itself, in the context of the Income Tax Act’s exemption for agricultural income.\nThe Revenue argued that the market value of the sugarcane should be determined under Rule 7(2)(a), while the assessee contended that Rule 7(2)(b) should apply due to the regulatory control over the sugarcane market. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, indicating that the price at which the sugarcane was purchased was controlled by the Sugarcane Control Order, which meant that the price could be treated as the market price.\nThe High Court, however, held that Rule 7(2)(a) applied, as sugarcane was ordinarily sold in its raw state, even under the control order, and the price paid by the assessee was the relevant market value.\nThe Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that sugarcane was typically sold in the market, and the controlled price reflected the market value.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe market value of agricultural produce must be determined based on its ordinary sale price in the market.\n•\nThe existence of government controls does not remove the product's identity as a marketable agricultural produce.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.A. No.6635 of 1983 with C.A. No.6636 to 40 of 1983, S.L.P.(C) No.2611 of 1988, C.A. No.2399 of 1989, 175 to 177 of 1985 and 3674 of 1989, decision dated: 30-07-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.S. Nariman and R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocates (P.H. Parekh, Advocate with them) for Appellant.\nT.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 71 = 1998 SLD 71 = 1998 PTD 618 = (1996) 221 ITR 661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income and Cash Credits\nIn this case, the assessee had returned an income that was less than 80% of the assessed income, triggering penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income. The Income-tax Officer had raised concerns regarding cash credits in the assessee's accounts, but the assessee agreed to the addition of undisclosed income, as the creditors could not be traced.\nThe Tribunal ruled that the assessee had not committed fraud or gross neglect, and therefore, a penalty for concealment was not justified. The assessee’s agreement to add the undisclosed income did not automatically imply an admission of concealment, as it was due to the creditors’ unavailability.\nThe Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal's ruling, affirming that the onus was on the assessee to rebut the presumption of concealment. Since the assessee had not acted with fraud or gross neglect, the penalty was rightly cancelled.\nKey Points:\n•\nThe presumption of concealment under section 271(1)(c) does not automatically apply when the assessee’s conduct shows no fraud or gross neglect.\n•\nThe burden to prove concealment can be rebutted by the assessee with proper material.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 351 of 1982, decision dated: 21st September, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " RAJESH BALIA AND M. S. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.J. Shelat for Messrs M.R. Bhat & Co. for the Commissioner\nK. A. Puj for J.P. Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBARODA TIN WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 72 = 1998 SLD 72 = 1998 PTD 630 = (1996) 221 ITR 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Representative Assessee and Special Deductions (Section 80-L)\nKey Issues:\n•\nThe case discusses the eligibility of a representative assessee (such as a trustee of a discretionary trust) for special deductions under Section 80-L of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nThe term individual in the Income Tax Act is broadly interpreted to include a body of individuals, such as a trustee acting on behalf of beneficiaries.\n•\nThe trustee can avail deductions under Section 80-L for interest on securities and income from dividends, as the trustee is considered an individual for this purpose.\nLegal Context:\n•\nSections 160 to 162 of the Act define a representative assessee, and Section 164 clarifies that the income of the beneficiary is treated as the income of an association of persons, but it does not impact the computation of the income.\n•\nThe court ruled that the discretionary trust, represented by its trustee, is entitled to the deductions provided under Section 80-L.\nCited Cases: CIT v. G.B.J. Seth and C.O.J. Seth (1987), CIT v. Deepak Family Trust No. 1 (1995), and others.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.508 to 513 and (References Nos.333 to 338 of 1982, decision dated: 1st December, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND RAIU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nS.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVEND SURESH SANJAY TRUST and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 73 = 1998 SLD 73 = 1998 PTD 641 = (1996) 221 ITR 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration After Change in Constitution\nKey Issues:\n•\nThe case concerns the registration of a firm for the assessment year 1982-83, after one new partner was admitted.\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer had refused registration, arguing that some partners were employees of the first partner (a company), but this refusal was overturned by the Tribunal.\nLegal Context:\n•\nUnder Section 185 of the Income Tax Act, the partnership must be evidenced by a deed, and the shares of the partners must be specified in that deed.\n•\nThe Tribunal found that the partnership deed was properly executed and the shares were clearly specified. The mere inclusion of a new partner did not warrant denial of registration.\n•\nThe Tribunal’s decision to grant registration was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.474 of 1988, decision dated: 7-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Adhikari for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS. U. SERVICES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 75 = 1998 SLD 75 = 1998 PTD 644 = (1997) 227 ITR 764", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Computation of Capital for Surtax and Super Profits Tax\nKey Issues (Part a):\n•\nThe issue here revolves around the treatment of debenture redemption reserve and whether it qualifies as a reserve or provision for surtax purposes.\n•\nThe court found that a debenture redemption reserve is not a reserve since it is set apart to meet a known liability (i.e., the redemption of debentures). It is not considered a reserve for surtax purposes.\nKey Issues (Part b):\n•\nThe court also examined whether the amount appropriated to the gratuity reserve is a provision or reserve under the Super Profits Tax Act.\n•\nThe amount set aside for gratuity was considered a provision, as it was not a reserve, and thus, it could not be included in capital for super profits tax purposes.\nLegal Context:\n•\nThe distinction between a provision and a reserve is crucial. A provision is for known liabilities, whereas a reserve is an amount retained for potential future use beyond immediate liabilities.\n•\nThe court clarified that a debenture redemption reserve, even though shown as a reserve in the balance sheet, is a provision for a known liability and, thus, should not be included in the computation of capital for surtax purposes.\nCited Cases: CIT v. National Rayon Corporation Ltd. (1986), CIT v. Peico Electronics and Electricals (1987), and others.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.431 of 1989 with C.As. Nos. 2 of 1995, 198 of 1989, 432 of 1989, 433 of 1989 and 2970 of 1981, decision dated: 29-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND K. T. THOMAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "\"\"T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Ms. A.K. Verma, Advocate with him for J. B. D. & Co. , Advocates) for Appellants\nJ.Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (B.S. Ahuja, Advocate with him) for Respondent\"\"", + "Party Name:": "NATIONAL RAYON CORPORATION LTD\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 76 = 1998 SLD 76 = (1996) 76 TAX 196 = 1997 TAX 196 = 1998 PTD 654 = (1997) 223 ITR 654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBURlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Reassessment and Business Expenditure\nKey Issue: Reopening of Assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Allowance of Business Commission.\nSummary: In this case, the reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147(b) based on information obtained from the Appellate Authorities for preceding and succeeding assessment years, which pointed to the income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment. The information relied upon was not merely a change of opinion but new facts that arose after the original assessment.\nFor the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee had claimed a commission at the rate of six percent to a person named K. However, during a later assessment for the year 1973-74, it was found that no services were rendered by K. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reassessed the income by invoking Section 40A(2) on the grounds that no services were rendered by K, and reassessment proceedings were initiated for 1974-75 and 1975-76.\nThe Tribunal had earlier determined that for the year 1976-77, a reduced commission rate of 4% was reasonable based on the facts. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, concluding that the commission should be allowed at 4% for the years under consideration.\nConclusion:\nThe reassessment proceedings initiated by the ITO were valid, as the information obtained from the appellate orders of the preceding and succeeding years was legitimate and not just a change of opinion. The allowance of a 4% commission was justified based on the legal precedence of the higher court.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Kumar Engineers (1989) 178 ITR 630 (P & H)\n•\nCIT v. A.J. Zaveri (1968) 68 ITR 594 (Bom.)\n•\nJaganmohan Rao (V.) v. CIT and CEPT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 12 to 15 of 1985, decision dated: 10-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND NK. AGGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee\nR.P. Sawhney and Sanjay Goyal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KUMAR ENGINEERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 77 = 1998 SLD 77 = 1998 PTD 660 = (1997) 227 ITR 578", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Donations and Special Deductions under Section 80G\nKey Issue: Donations to Religious Trusts and the Scope of Section 80G Deduction.\nSummary:\nUnder Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, donations to charitable organizations are eligible for deductions, but only if the trust is established for charitable purposes and not for religious purposes. The provision excludes donations made to trusts with a substantial religious nature.\nThe case involved a trust whose deed included a clause permitting the trustees to support prayer halls and places of worship, thus indicating a religious purpose. The High Court, while affirming the lower courts, held that since the trust allowed for religious purposes like supporting prayer halls, it could not be considered eligible for the deduction under Section 80G.\nConclusion:\nSince the trust had religious purposes, donations made to it could not be claimed for a deduction under Section 80G. The clause allowing the trustees to support religious activities, such as prayer halls, rendered the trust ineligible for tax deductions under this section.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 308 (SC)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3104 with C.A. No. 10736 of 1995, decision dated: 4-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Narain, K.V. Viswanadhan, D. Singh and Suman J. Khaitan, Advocates with him) for Appellants\nRanbir Chandra and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "UPPER GANGES SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 78 = 1998 SLD 78 = (1996) 76 TAX 190 = 1997 TAX 190 = 1998 PTD 664 = (1997) 223 ITR 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Cash Credits and Creditor’s Identity\nKey Issue: Treatment of Cash Credits Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nSummary:\nUnder Section 68, cash credits must be proved by the assessee regarding the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditor's financial capacity. The assessee in this case had received loans from a partnership firm and two other individuals. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had initially rejected the cash credits, but the assessee provided confirmatory letters from the creditors. Despite this, the Tribunal upheld the addition to the income of the assessee.\nThe Court, upon reviewing the case, found that the assessee had presented sufficient evidence, including the creditors' returns and their assessments, to substantiate the transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to treat the cash credits as undisclosed income was incorrect.\nConclusion:\nThe income-tax returns of the creditors, which were accepted by the ITO, established the genuineness of the cash credits. The Tribunal had no valid reason to ignore this evidence, and thus the addition of Rs. 2,15,000 to the assessee's income was unjustified.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.2 of 1992, decision dated: 7-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwal for the Assessee\nU. Bhuyan for the Commissioner\nAbdul Maajid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "JALAN TIMBERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER-OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 79 = 1998 SLD 79 = 1998 PTD 671 = (1997) 227 ITR 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Deductibility of Reserves and Special Deduction Under Section 80-I\nKey Issue: Treatment of Amounts in Contingency Reserves, Development Reserve, and Tariff & Dividend Control Reserve by Electricity Supply Companies.\nSummary:\nThis case dealt with the application of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the deduction of amounts transferred to various reserves by an electricity supply company. Under Section 57 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, the amounts transferred to contingency reserves, development reserves, and tariff control reserves belong to the electricity company and are not deductible when computing income for income tax purposes.\nThe issue arose when the electricity company sought to deduct amounts transferred to these reserves. The Court ruled that the electricity company could not deduct these amounts, as they are set apart for future contingencies and not intended for direct use in the business.\nHowever, the income earned by the company from investments made using the contingency reserve is directly related to its business of electricity generation and distribution. This income is considered attributable to the priority industry under Section 80-I and is eligible for special deductions.\nConclusion:\nThe amounts set aside in the contingency and development reserves are not deductible when computing income for income tax purposes. However, interest earned from investments made with these funds is attributable to the business of electricity generation and distribution, making it eligible for deductions under Section 80-I.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Vallore Electric Corporation Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 523\n•\nCambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC)\n•\nVellore Electric Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 454 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.3333, 3334 of 1981 with 2613 and 2614 of 1984, deicded on 8-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve, Shrinivasamoorthy and K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocates (Jaideep Gupta, K.J. John, B.K. Prasad, N.D.B. Raja and C. Radha Krishna, Advocates with them) for the Appearing Parties", + "Party Name:": "VELLORE ELECTRIC CORPORATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 80 = 1998 SLD 80 = 1998 PTD 690 = (1996) 221 ITR 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Capital or Revenue Expenditure\nGeneral Principles, Technical Know-how, and Royalty Payments\nFacts:\nThe assessee entered into an agreement with a foreign company (Company A) to obtain technical know-how and the right to use a trademark. The contract included a royalty payment of Rs.100 per ton of product manufactured. In the first assessment year (1976-77), the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.34,779 as revenue expenditure for the royalty paid. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, considering the expenditure as capital in nature. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, but the Tribunal decided that the royalty paid for the initial manufacture was capital in nature, while payments for subsequent years were revenue in nature.\nIssue:\nWhether the expenditure on royalty was capital or revenue in nature.\nConclusion:\nThe High Court confirmed that the legal principles for determining the nature of expenditure were correctly applied but did not consider the specific facts of the case. The case was remanded as the Tribunal had not fully considered the facts in light of the settled legal principles.\nKey References:\n•\nAssam-Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC)\n•\nEmpire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nScientific Engineering House (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.2 to 5 of 1991, decision dated: 20-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner\nJose Joseph, A.K. Joseph and V.V. Asokan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPOLYFORMALIN (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 81 = 1998 SLD 81 = 1998 PTD 697 = (1996) 221 ITR 608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income-tax: Reassessment & Valuation of Capital Assets\nFacts:\nThe assessee had disclosed construction costs of a house in its returns for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. After completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer referred the matter to a Valuation Officer under Section 55-A. Based on the valuation report, reassessment proceedings were initiated, claiming that the assessment was based on undervaluation.\nIssue:\nWhether the reference under Section 55-A was valid after the assessment had been completed, and whether the reassessment was justified.\nConclusion:\nThe court held that Section 55-A could not be applied after the completion of the assessment and before reassessment proceedings had begun. The valuation report was considered an opinion and could not serve as the basis for reopening the assessment. The reassessment was quashed as the assessee had fully disclosed the construction costs.\nKey References:\n•\nAmala Das (Smt.) v. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 216 (P & H)\n•\nBrig. B. Lall v. WTO (1981) 127 ITR 308 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rules Nos.356 and 357 of 1991, decision dated: 18-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. L. SARAF, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.M. Lahiri, G.N. Sahewalla and N. Choudhury for Petitioners\nJ.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BHOLA NATH MAJUMDAR\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 82 = 1998 SLD 82 = 1998 PTD 708 = (1996) 221 ITR 680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Capital or Revenue Expenditure in Purchase of Drawings\nFacts:\nTo fulfill a contract for the Defence Department, the assessee purchased technical drawings from a UK company and incurred travel expenses for procuring the drawings. The assessee claimed these expenses as revenue expenditure, but the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim.\nIssue:\nWhether the expenses incurred for the purchase of drawings and related travel expenses were capital or revenue in nature.\nConclusion:\nThe court held that the purchase of drawings was not for obtaining an enduring benefit but was a temporary requirement to fulfill a specific contract. Therefore, the expenses were of a revenue nature.\nKey References:\n•\nAlembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC)\n•\nScientific Engineering House (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1340 and Reference No.831 of 1982decided on 7-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nK. Vaitheeswaran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCARBURETTORS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 83 = 1998 SLD 83 = 1998 PTD 717 = (1996) 221 ITR 692", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Special Deductions, Shrimps Processing and Export\nFacts:\nThe issue concerned whether the assessee, involved in processing and exporting shrimps, was entitled to special deductions under Sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act.\nIssue:\nWhether the assessee was entitled to deductions under Sections 80-HH and 80-I for the shrimp processing business.\nConclusion:\nThe question of the assessee's entitlement to special deductions under the relevant sections was a question of law that needed to be referred for further adjudication.\nKey References:\n•\nCIT v. Poyilakada Fisheries (Pvt.) Ltd. (1996) 221 ITR 691 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 15731 of 1994-S, decision dated: 26-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K. Ravindranatha Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner\nP. Balachandran for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPOYILAKADA FISHERIES (PVT.) LTD. (No.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 84 = 1998 SLD 84 = 1998 PTD 720 = (1996) 221 ITR 691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income-tax: Special Deduction for Shrimp Exporters\nFacts:\nSimilar to SLD 3186, the issue concerned whether the assessee, engaged in shrimp processing and export, was entitled to deductions under Sections 80-HH and 80-I.\nIssue:\nWhether the assessee could claim deductions under Sections 80-HH and 80-I.\nConclusion:\nThe court held that this was a question of law, which should be referred for further consideration.\nKey References:\n•\nCIT v. Poyilakkada Fisheries (Pvt.) Ltd. (1992) 197 ITR 85 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 15730 of 1994-S, decision dated: 26-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner\nP. Balachandran for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPOYILAKADA FISHERIES (P.) LTD. (No. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 85 = 1998 SLD 85 = 1998 PTD 721 = (1996) 221 ITR 674", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Reference of Income Addition\nFacts:\nThe Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs.15,000 to the assessee's income, assuming that agricultural income was understated. The Tribunal upheld the addition, and the case was referred for judicial review.\nIssue:\nWhether the addition to income made by the Income-tax Officer and upheld by the Tribunal raised any question of law.\nConclusion:\nThe court found that the Tribunal had considered all the facts and arrived at a conclusion based on facts. The order was one of fact, and no question of law arose for reference.\nKey References:\n•\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 140 of 1989, decision dated: 12-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Singh for the Assessee\nD.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Smt. KAMLABAI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 86 = 1998 SLD 86 = 1998 PTD 725 = (1996) 221 ITR 67 = (1996) 75 TAX 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Reference of Income Addition\nFacts:\nThe Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs.15,000 to the assessee's income, assuming that agricultural income was understated. The Tribunal upheld the addition, and the case was referred for judicial review.\nIssue:\nWhether the addition to income made by the Income-tax Officer and upheld by the Tribunal raised any question of law.\nConclusion:\nThe court found that the Tribunal had considered all the facts and arrived at a conclusion based on facts. The order was one of fact, and no question of law arose for reference.\nKey References:\n•\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 13 of 1990, decision dated: 31st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N BARUAH AND N. SURJAMANI SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.K. Talukdar and Miss U. Baruah for the Assessee\nDr. A.K. Saraf for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "J.D. ENTERPRISES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 87 = 1998 SLD 87 = 1998 PTD 730 = (1996) 221 ITR 73 = (1996) 75 TAX 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Penalty for Failure to File Returns\nFacts:\nThe assessee was penalized for failure to file returns on time, but the Tribunal found that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the income was exempt under Section 80-P of the Income-tax Act.\nIssue:\nWhether the penalty for failure to file returns could be justified when the assessee had a bona fide belief that its income was exempt.\nConclusion:\nThe court dismissed the application for reference, holding that the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was based on facts, and no question of law arose.\nKey References:\n•\nAssam Cooperative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. v. Additional CIT (1993) 201 ITR 338 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 319 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.5592 of 1995-S, decision dated: 7-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner\nC.N. Ramachandran Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKERALA STATE COOPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 88 = 1998 SLD 88 = 1998 PTD 735 = (1996) 221 ITR 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Special deduction—Royalty, commission, or fees received from foreign Government or enterprise—Scope of Section 80-O:\n•\nSection 80-O allows for special deductions on income received in the form of royalty, commission, or fees from foreign governments or enterprises, for the use of patents, inventions, scientific knowledge, or technical services outside India. This provision applies even if the contract does not specify the exact amount attributable to specialized knowledge or services, provided the income meets the criteria of Section 80-O.\n•\nA case where an Indian company entered into a contract for a turnkey cement project in Kuwait was entitled to claim a deduction under Section 80-O despite the lack of specific mention of services falling under the section in the contract, as the services rendered involved specialized industrial and scientific knowledge.\n(b) Income-tax—Special deduction—Condition precedent for special deduction under Section 80-O:\n•\nThe income must be brought into India for a claim under Section 80-O. The Reserve Bank of India’s approval for how income is utilized outside India can also deem it as brought into India. This condition was relevant in a case involving a contract for constructing a cement plant in Kuwait, where the amounts received by the assessee were deemed to be brought into India, thereby qualifying for the deduction.\n(c) Income-tax—Business expenditure—Expenditure on litigation for sale price determination:\n•\nExpenditure on legal disputes related to a closed business, such as one sold in Pakistan, is not deductible under Section 37 as the business was no longer operational.\n(d) Income-tax—Development rebate—Allowability on full expenditure:\n•\nThe assessee was entitled to development rebate on the entire expenditure related to a water works project, including civil works, as these were integral to the operation of the plant.\n(e) Income-tax—Export markets development allowance—Weighted deduction for travel:\n•\nTravel expenditure incurred within India does not qualify for weighted deduction under Section 35-B(1)(b)(iii).\n(f) Income-tax—Depreciation—Assets purchased for scientific research:\n•\nDepreciation is not allowed on assets purchased for scientific research if capital expenditure for these assets has already been deducted in prior years.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.206 of 1982, decision dated: 8-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND M.L. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.F. Kaka instructed by Payne & Co. for the Assessee\nDr. V. Balasubramaniam with. P.S. Jetley instructed by H.D. Rathod for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 89 = 1998 SLD 89 = 1998 PTD 752 = (1996) 221 ITR 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Business expenditure—Pension paid to retired employees:\n•\nPension payments to retired employees are not deductible as business expenses under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act. This ruling follows previous cases like T. Stanes & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1991).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.563 to 565 of 1983, decision dated: 10-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND GOVARDHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee\nC.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "T. STANES & CO. LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 90 = 1998 SLD 90 = 1998 PTD 754 = (1996) 221 ITR 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Appeal to AAC—Revision—Competency of appeal:\n•\nAppeals against orders revising income tax assessments must be based on issues that have not already been decided in the revisional or appellate order. In cases where the Commissioner has already decided certain points, they cannot be challenged again in an appeal from the Income-tax Officer’s subsequent order to implement the revisions.\n(b) Income-tax—General principles—Order must be read as a whole:\n•\nOrders passed by tax authorities must be read in their entirety to understand the reasoning and conclusions. In the case referenced, the Tribunal correctly held that the appellant could not challenge certain decisions that had already become final due to the failure to appeal against the revision order. This case reinforced the principle that findings made in revisional orders must be considered conclusive.\nThese cases cover a range of tax issues, including deductions for foreign income, capital expenditure, and legal disputes over business transactions, with detailed interpretations of specific sections of the Indian Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.423 of 1983, decision dated: 15-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND M. L. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.F. Kaka instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee\nDr. V. Balasubramaniam with J.P. Deodhar instructed by H.D. Rathod for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HARDILLIA CHEMICALS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 91 = 1998 SLD 91 = 1998 PTD 762 = (1996) 221 ITR 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax -Reference-Assessee a salaried employee of L. I. C. -Whether assessee entitled to 50 per cent deduction on his incentive bonus-Is question of law to be referred-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2).\nHeld, that whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the order of the first Appellate Authority that the assessee, a salaried employee of the L.I.C., was entitled to deduction of 50 per cent on the incentive bonus received from the employer was a question of law to be referred.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No.253 of 1995, decision dated: 16-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRAMOD KUMAR JAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 92 = 1998 SLD 92 = 1998 PTD 763 = (1996) 221 ITR 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Depreciation-Temple constructed inside factory building-Is for welfare of the staff-Has direct link, with business activities-Depreciation allowable-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32.\nHeld, that depreciation was allowable on the temple constructed inside the factory building.\nCIT v. Associated Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (1996) 221 ITR 123 (Gauhati) fol.\nAtlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 458 (P & H) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1993, decision dated: 23rd May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. K. Joshi for the Commissioner\nDr. A.K. Saraf for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIA CARBON LTD. NO. 1" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 93 = 1998 SLD 93 = 1998 PTD 764 = (1996) 221 ITR 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Business expenditure -Sales tax, profession tax and municipal tax paid before due date for filing return-Deduction allowable-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss-43-B, Expln. 2 & 139(1).\nThe outstanding liability of sales tax, profession tax and municipal tax, if paid by the statutory dates for payment fixed by the respective State law or if paid prior to filing of the return in accordance with section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is allowable as a. deduction in view of the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 43-B of the Act, by the Finance Act; 1989, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1984.\nCIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Timber Suppliers (1995) 219 ITR 212 (Gauhati) fol.\n(b) Income-tax-\n-Depreciation-Building-Temple constructed within premises-¬Depreciation allowable-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32.\nDepreciation was allowable in respect of the temple building constructed within the premises of the assessee.\nAtlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 458 (P & H) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.5 of 1993, decision dated: 19-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S.L. SARAF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi for the Commissioner\nDr. A.K. Saraf and K.K. Gupta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASSOCIATED FLOUR MILLS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 94 = 1998 SLD 94 = 1998 PTD 766 = (1996) 221 ITR 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Reference-Whether Tribunal justified in holding that no interest accrued to assessee on sticky advances-Is question of law to be referred-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256.\nWhether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no interest accrued to the assessee on sticky advances and whether it was justified in holding that the amount written off as bad debt is not includible for charging interest under the Interest Tax Act are questions to be referred.\n(b) Income-tax-\n-Reference-Bad debt written off-Whether not includible for charging interest under Interest Tax Act-Is question of law to be referred-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256-Indian Interest Tax Act, 1974.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.62 of 1995, decision dated: 15-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBANARAS STATE BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 94 = 1998 SLD 94 = 1998 PTD 767 = (1996) 221 ITR 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reference-Business expenditure-Secret commission-Findings with reference to genuineness and quantum of deduction as secret commission whether justified-Question of law-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss-.37 & 256.\nHeld, that it had been contended on behalf of the Revenue that despite various specific defects, irregularities and lacunae pointed out by the Income-tax Officer in the vouchers and other evidence produced by the respondent-assessee in support of its claim, the deduction was allowed on general considerations such as the auditors' report or the directors' report and on the ground that the assessee-company had eminent persons on its board, or the assessee was being allowed similar commission without doubting the correctness of the documents produced during the previous years. In the facts and circumstances and on the tenor of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. the question whether, on the material available in the case, the findings given by the Tribunal with regard to the genuineness and quantum of deductions to be allowed - under the head of secret commission' were perverse and based on irrelevant considerations had to be referred..", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.36 of 1992 and 22 of 1993, decision dated: 1st November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for Petitioner\nS.R. Chandra Murthy for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 95 = 1998 SLD 95 = 1998 PTD 769", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBUTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.. 66-A & 59-Power of I.A.C. to revise I.T.O.'s order -Self-Assessment Scheme, 1988-89, para. 4 (ii) -Assessee got factory on lease-¬Assessee's case was selected for total audit under para. 4 (ii) of Self¬-Assessment Scheme, 1988-89-I.A.C. considering the assessment a. erroneous and lease arrangement being fictitious, cancelled the assessment under the provisions of S.66-A of the Ordinance-Validity-Held, leave was made in the assessment year 1988-89 and the arrangement stood accepted by the department in the earlier two years-No reason was recorded to declare said order under S.66-A to be a legal order-Order of Assessing Officer was ordered to be restored while the order under S.66-A stood cancelled in circumstances.\nI.T.A. No.8001/LB of 1991-92 and I.T.A. No.2125/LB of 1992-93 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 185/LB of 1993-94, decision dated: 9-05-1997.hearing DATE : 29-04-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellant\nCh. Safdar Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 96 = 1998 SLD 96 = 1998 PTD 771", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 62 & 59-C.B.R. Circular No.16 of 1992, para. 4(ii)-Self-Assessment Scheme-Detailed scrutiny -Assessee returned income/sales applying his own C.P. rate-Assessing Officer rejecting the same, assessed the assessee at higher rate on the ground that his declared version was too low to believe -Assessee's case was selected for detailed scrutiny under S.62 of the Ordinance -C.I.T. (A), giving him some relief regarding estimate of sales, confirmed the selection of case for detailed scrutiny-Validity-Held, as assessee was unable to controvert the finding of the C.I.T. (A), therefore, the case was rightly held for selection for detailed scrutiny in circumstances. [p. 772] A", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.770/LB of 1994, decision dated: 22-05-1997.hearing DATE : 28-03-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javaid Ahmad Ch. for Appellant\nShahid Bashir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 97 = 1998 SLD 97 = 1998 PTD 773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 22-Income from business -Addition-Assessee deriving income from manufacturing and sale of yarn and declared yield results and rate of sale which were not accepted by Assessing Officer being low-Assessing Officer assessed same at higher figure -C.I.T.(A) keeping in view the better result declared by assessee gave some relief-Validity-Held, sale rates adopted by Assessing Officer were without any basis as he thought it fit to increase the sale rates by about Rs.7 per kg. in each year-Such treatment was followed in the year 1994-95 also when the average sale rate was pitched at Rs.130 per kg. on the assumption that declared rate was Rs.122.77 per kg.-Sale rate as per accounts for assessment year 1994-95 came to Rs.141.92 per kg and this addition in trading account for assessment year 1994-95 was modified by C.I.T.(A) who found the declared sale rate of Rs.141.92 as quite reasonable-Assessing Officer had adopted the sale rates without making any effort to find out the market position-¬Arbitrary increase in the sale rates was found untenable in circumstances.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n-S. 50(4-A)-Finance Act, 1995, S.24-Non-deduction of tax at source-¬Brokerage-Effect-Claim of brokerage was disallowed to the assessee on ground of non-deduction of the tax at source under S.50(4-A) of the Ordinance-Held, deduction on account of brokerage on which tax had not been deducted under S.50(4-A) was made inadmissible by virtue of substitution of cl. (c) in S.24 vide Finance Act, 1995-This provision being not retrospective was held not to be applicable to assessment for 1994-95-Disallowance being not warranted by law was deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,50(4A) Finance Act, 1995=24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2320/LB to 2322/LB of 1996, 437/LB of 1992-93, 2539/LB, 2540/LB and 2537/LB of 1996, heard on 20-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Ali Ch., I.T.P. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2320/LB to 2322/LB of 1996). Mian Qasim Ali, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.2320/LB to 2322/LB of 1996). Mian Qasim Ali, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.437/LB of 1992-93, 2539/LB, 2540/LB and 2537/LB of 1996). Yousaf Ali Ch., I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.437/LB of 1992-93, 2539/LB, 2540/LB and 2537/LB of 1996)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 98 = 1998 SLD 98 = 1998 PTD 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 16, 59, 62 & 12(7)-Salary-Self-Assessment-Loan advanced Addition -Assessee returned income under Self-Assessment Scheme-I.T.O. finding that assessee had advanced loan to his wife, required assessee to declare interest under S.12(7) of the Ordinance which he failed-Assessing Officer found same to be concealment and made addition by processing case under S.62-Validity-Held, Assessing Officer's finding that the action of assessee tantamounted to concealment was not tenable as the assessee had declared the loan in his wealth statement-As all the facts had been disclosed, the conclusion of Authorities was unwarranted.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n-S. 9-Charge of tax-Agricultural income-Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer-Probe into agricultural income is beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction as agricultural income does not come within the ambit of jurisdiction of provision of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Addition regarding agricultural income was deleted in circumstances.\nCIT v. Muhammad Hanif SC (1972) 83 ITR 215; CIT v. Anwar Ali SC (1970) 76 ITR 696; Muhammad Yaqoob v. Muhammad Ibahim (1986) 54 Tax 49 and I.T.A. No.666/LB of 1985-86 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,59,62 & 12(7),9 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1199/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 23rd May, 1997, hearing DATE : 4-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Hamid, Assessee for Appellant. Abdul Rauf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 99 = 1998 SLD 99 = 1998 PTD 789 = (1998) 77 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 62 & 65-Additional assessment-Re-opening of assessment-¬Validity- Information had been received by the Assessing Officer and prior approval of the I.A.C. had been obtained-Requirement for re-opening of assessment, held, were fulfilled.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n-S.155-Assessment order-Validity-Wrong citation of law-Effect-¬Held, notwithstanding the wrong citation of provision of law, all other requirements of law had been compiled with and no prejudice having been caused to the assessee, no adverse inference could be drawn and the assessment order in circumstances would not be vitiated.\n(c) Administration of justice-\n- Court to help only such person who comes with clean hands.\n(d) Income-tax-\n-Assessee an industrial concern-Past history-Parallel cases-Principles-¬When the parallel case was available then past history was of no help particularly when the circumstances were not the same, inasmuch as, the machinery which had been acquired in the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration was not available in the earlier years.\n(e) Income-tax-\n- Trading -Connotation-Trading is a wider term and is not confined to the purchasing and selling only.\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n-S.23(1)(vii)-Deduction-Interest-Borrowed capital-Interest being a trading liability, deduction could be made while computing income from business or profession in respect of any interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for purpose of business or profession.\n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n-S.25(c), proviso-Deduction-Interest-Where a trading liability referred to S.25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is paid in subsequent year the amount so paid shall be deducted in computing the income in respect of that year and by virtue of proviso to said S.25 if the liability on account of interest is not paid within the period specified in S.25(c), addition is made-Whenever the assessee discharges liability on account of interest same is deducted in the computation of income in the year of payment.\n(b) Income-tax-\n-Addition-Deletion-Assessing Officer had made disallowance without considering the fact that expenses claimed were much lower as compared to the earlier years as allowed by the department-Addition was justifiably ordered to be deleted by the Appellate Forum.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,65,155,23(1)(vii),25(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6/LB, 7/LB, 8/LB, 9/LB of 1986-87, 136/LB, 137/LB of 1987-88, 164/LB of 1986-87, 80/LB and 7027/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 4-09-1997, hearing DATE : 23rd July, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND AHSAN ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sarfraz, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.6/LB to 9/LB of 1986-87, 136/LB and 137/LB of 1987-88).\nShahid Bashir, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As..Nos.6/LB to 9/LB of 1986-87, 136/LB and 137/LB of 1987-88).\nShahid Bashir, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.164/LB of 1986-87, 80/LB and 7027/LB of 1992-93).\nMuhammad Sarfraz, F.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 164/LB of 1986-87, 80/LB and 7027/LB of 1992-93).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 100 = 1998 SLD 100 = 1998 PTD 813 = (1996) 221 ITR 695", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Disallowance of Remuneration to Directors or Persons with Substantial Interest\n•\nTopic: Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Disallowance of business expenditure on director remuneration.\n•\nConclusion: Section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act imposes a ceiling of Rs. 72,000 per annum on the remuneration paid to directors or persons with substantial interest in the company. Payments exceeding this limit are disallowed outright, irrespective of whether the payments are excessive or unreasonable. The income tax officer can, however, disallow remuneration that is excessive or unreasonable even if it does not exceed Rs. 72,000.\n•\nReference: Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 496 (Cal.) and Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 584 (Cal.).\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Disallowance of Perquisites to Employee Directors\n•\nTopic: Perquisites to employee directors - Fleet of cars and valuation under Rule 3(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.\n•\nConclusion: Expenditures related to providing perquisites to employee directors, including the use of cars, should be valued according to the methods specified in Rule 3(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The value of these perquisites, for tax deduction purposes, should be computed based on the cost of the assets used by the employees for personal benefit. The Tribunal justified applying this rule in cases where valuation was challenging. The decisions of CIT v. Rajesh Textile Mills Ltd. (1988) 173 ITR 179 (Guj) and CIT v. Electro Steel Castings Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 103 (Orissa) were not followed.\n•\nReferences: CIT v. Britannia Industries Co. Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 35 (Cal.) and CIT v. Nuchem Plastics Ltd. (1989) 179 ITR 196 (P & H).\n________________________________________\n(c) Income-tax - Export Markets Development Allowance - Weighted Deduction\n•\nTopic: Expenses not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35-B.\n•\nConclusion: Expenses related to duties, clearing charges, delivery, insurance, and freight charges were not eligible for a weighted deduction under Section 35-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The expenses were not directly related to the promotion of export markets.\n•\nReference: Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom.).\n________________________________________\n(d) Precedent - Binding Nature of High Court's Decision\n•\nTopic: The binding nature of High Court decisions.\n•\nConclusion: A High Court’s decision is binding only within its territorial jurisdiction. It does not bind Tribunals or Courts outside its jurisdiction, though it may have persuasive value. The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all Courts and Tribunals in the country.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom.) and Consolidated Pneumatic, Tool Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 209 ITR 277 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 433 of 1983, decision dated: 14-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " DR B.P. SARAF AND M.L. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. D. Mistry instructed by Dhru & Co. for the Assessee. T.U. Khatri with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GEOFFREY MANNERS & CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 101 = 1998 SLD 101 = 1998 PTD 830 = (1996) 221 ITR 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Sales Tax Liability Deduction\n•\nTopic: Sales tax liability claimed as a deduction.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that since there were no genuine sales, the sales tax liability claim could not be allowed as a deduction. Even though the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, the claim was rejected because the fundamental condition of actual sales was missing.\n•\nReference: No specific case reference cited.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 282 of 1979, decision dated: 7-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDASI RAM SRI KRISHNA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 102 = 1998 SLD 102 = 1998 PTD 834 = (1996) 221 ITR 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Powers of Tribunal\n•\nTopic: Raising additional grounds of appeal based on the limitation of the ITO's order.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional ground that the order of the Income-tax Officer was barred by limitation. The Tribunal held that the assessments were time-barred, as the issue raised was one of fact.\n•\nReference: No specific case reference cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. C. C. No.51 of 1990, decision dated: 9-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Adhikari for the Commissioner. B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMUHAMMAD IQBAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 103 = 1998 SLD 103 = 1998 PTD 836 = (1996) 221 ITR 568", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Transfer of Cases - Notice Requirement under Section 127\n•\nTopic: Transfer of cases without notice and failure to deal with objections.\n•\nConclusion: The order transferring the assessees' cases from Kanpur to Raipur was set aside because the Commissioner failed to give notice specifying reasons for the transfer, as required under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner also failed to address the objections raised by the assessees.\n•\nReference: V.K. Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Assistant CIT (1991) 187 ITR 403 (AP) and Ajantha Industries v. CBDT (1976) 102 ITR 281 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions Nos.998, 999, 988 and 1001 of 1994, decision dated: 8-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Upadhyay and Vikram Gulati for Petitioners. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "VINAY KUMAR JAISWAL and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 104 = 1998 SLD 104 = 1998 PTD 839 = (1996) 221 ITR 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Recovery of Tax - Appeal - Jurisdiction of CIT(Appeals) for Stay of Collection\nSummary: In this case, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) and requested a stay for the recovery of taxes. The CIT(A) passed an order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, which required the assessee to pay 50% of the demand and the remaining balance in installments. The issue was whether the CIT(A) had the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The discretion to stay recovery lies with the Assessing Officer, not the CIT(A).\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have jurisdiction under Section 220(6) to pass an order relating to the stay of recovery. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to dispose of the stay petition expeditiously, and the recovery proceedings were stayed until such disposal.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.3253 of 1996-K, decision dated: 26-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N. DHINAKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.M.V. Pandalai for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PRADEEP RATANSHI\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 105 = 1998 SLD 105 = 1998 PTD 841 = (1996) 221 ITR 504", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Business Income - Remission of Liability - Refund of Excise Duty\nSummary: The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing battery separators, had paid excise duty under protest and maintained a separate account for it. The excise authorities refunded the excise duty after contesting the levy. The question arose whether this refund would be taxable under Section 41(1), since it was not claimed as a deduction in prior years.\nConclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the refund received from excise authorities was taxable under Section 41(1) as remission of liability, even though the excise duty had not been claimed as a deduction earlier.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2005) 279 ITR 227 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Case No.152 of 1993, decision dated: 21st December, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " M.F. SALDANHA AND CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Sarangan with S. Parthasarathi for the Assessee. M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MYSORE THERMO ELECTRIC (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 106 = 1998 SLD 106 = 1998 PTD 856 = (1996) 221 ITR 520", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Capital Gains - Amalgamation of Companies - Transfer of Capital Asset\nSummary: The assessee received bonds and shares of the amalgamated company in exchange for shares held in the amalgamating company. The case was to determine if capital gains arose in such a scenario under Section 45. The department argued that a transfer of capital assets occurred; however, the assessee maintained that it did not trigger capital gains due to the amalgamation.\nConclusion: The Tribunal found that no transfer of capital asset occurred under Section 2(47), and thus no capital gains were to be assessed in this case. Since the transaction involved the exchange of shares in the same group of companies, the matter was decided in favor of the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Raghavendra Rao (2008) 304 ITR 11 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 130 of 1990, decision dated: 1st March, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " M. B. SHAH AND R. K. ABICHANDANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore instructed by M.R. Bhatt, Mrs. M.M. Bhatt and Maulik R. Bhatt of R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner. D.A. Mehta and R.K. Patel for K.C. Patel for the Assessee\nKhushdil Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate-on-Record. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLEENA SARABHAI (N. CH)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 107 = 1998 SLD 107 = 1998 PTCL 19 = 1998 PTD 860", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Rejection of Accounts - Estimation of Gross Profit\nSummary: The assessee’s audited accounts were rejected by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), citing discrepancies in the sales and expenses reported. Despite the books being duly certified by a chartered accountant, the department estimated the gross profit based on previous years’ figures. The primary issue was the rejection of the books without clear justifications.\nConclusion: The Tribunal found that the rejection of accounts without specific evidence of discrepancies was unjustified. The gross profit estimation based on past years’ figures lacked a legal foundation, and the auditor’s report could not be disregarded without valid reason.\nCitations:\n•\nS. S. V. S. R. S. Chit Funds (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 320 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3),32A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6666/LB, 6665/LB of 1992-93, 2009/LB, 2010/LB of 1995, 5588/LB, 5589/LB of 1992-93, 1989/LB, 1990/LB of 1995 and 1860/LB of 1996, decision dated: 3r-11-1997, hearing DATE : 25-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.6666/LB, 6665/LB of 1992-93, 2009/1.13 and 2010/LB of 1995).\nFiza Muzaffar, D.R. and Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.6666/LB, 6665/LB of 1992-93, 2009/LB and 2010/LB of 1995).\nFiza Muzaffar, D.R. and Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.5588/LB, 5589/LB of 1992-93, 1989/LB, 1990/LB of 1995 and 1860/LB of 1996).\nMian Ashiq Hussain for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.5588/LB, 5589/LB of 1992-93, 1989/LB, 1990/LB of 1995 and 1860/LB of 1996).\nMalik Ain-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court. Nemo for the State", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 108 = 1998 SLD 108 = (1996) 76 TAX 238 = 1998 PTD 874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Constitutional Petition - Time-barred Reference to High Court\nSummary: The assessee filed a constitutional petition seeking to convert the matter into a reference under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance after the appeal period had passed. The High Court was asked to intervene, but the matter was time-barred, leading to an issue of whether the petition could still be entertained.\nConclusion: The court held that the constitutional petition could not be converted into a reference as it was time-barred. The delay in filing the reference was excessive, and the Tribunal's order was upheld without any further intervention.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. G.D. Naidu (1967) 63 ITR 241 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,5.136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.70 of 1997, heard on 23rd September, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fayyaz Ahmad Khawaja for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL HAMEED AWAN\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER-04, COYS ZONE, Income Tax BUILDING AT RAWALPINDI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 109 = 1998 SLD 109 = 1998 PTD 878 = (1998) 77 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Self-Assessment Scheme - Evidence of Concealment\nSummary: The assessee filed a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme, but evidence of concealment was found during the assessment. The question was whether such concealment disqualified the assessee from the benefits of the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that if evidence of concealment was present, the return could not fall under the Self-Assessment Scheme. Concealment of material facts disqualified the assessee, and the tax authorities were justified in rejecting the return under the scheme.\nCitations:\n•\nB. S. Baliga & Co. v. ITO (1994) 207 ITR 229 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.685/HQB of 1987-88, decision dated: 21st October, 1997, hearing DATE : 15-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Misri Ladhani, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Saleem, C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 110 = 1998 SLD 110 = 1998 PTD 884 = (1997) 227 ITR 552", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax: Company in which the public are not substantially interested - Additional tax on undistributed profits - Exemption\n•\nIssue: The exemption under Section 104(4) of the Income-tax Act applies to companies primarily involved in manufacturing or processing goods, provided 51% of their total income is attributable to such manufacturing or processing activities.\n•\nFacts: A private company, engaged in tanning hides and skins, had a significant portion of its income from the sale of chemicals imported under licenses linked to export sales. However, more than 51% of the company's income came from the export of third-party goods (not its own manufactured goods).\n•\nRuling: The Supreme Court held that since the company’s income from manufacturing or processing goods was less than 51%, and its income from chemical sales did not directly relate to the manufacturing process, the company was not eligible for the exemption under Section 104(4). Income from chemicals imported did not have a direct connection to the company's core manufacturing business.\n•\nLegal Principle: For income to be attributable to manufacturing or processing under Section 104(4), it must be directly linked to the manufacturing activity. Mere association through indirect means (such as export licenses) does not suffice.\n________________________________________\n(b) Words and phrases: Attributable to \n•\nMeaning: The phrase attributable to implies a causal connection. For income to be attributable to a specific activity, such as manufacturing, it must be primarily caused or closely linked to that activity. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that merely deriving income in the context of related activities is not sufficient to meet the threshold for exemptions like those under Section 104(4).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.292 of 1982 with S.L.Ps. (C) Nos.8179 of 1980 and 4141 of 1981, decision dated: 30-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C.AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellant. J. Ramamoorthy, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad, C. Radhakrishna and D. Mehta Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "INDIA LEATHER CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 111 = 1998 SLD 111 = 1998 PTD 889 = (1997) 227 ITR 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax: Business Expenditure - Purchase of Machinery on Deferred Payment Terms\n•\nIssue: Whether the commission paid to a bank for guaranteeing deferred payments on machinery purchases is a deductible revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act.\n•\nFacts: A company purchased machinery on deferred payment terms and secured a guarantee from a bank for payment. The bank charged a commission on the guaranteed amount, which the company sought to deduct as a business expense.\n•\nRuling: The Supreme Court affirmed that the guarantee commission was a revenue expenditure, as it was directly related to the business operations and did not result in the creation of an asset or enduring benefit. Hence, it was allowable as a deduction.\n•\nLegal Principle: Expenditure that is incurred as part of carrying on business, such as a guarantee commission related to deferred payments for machinery, is treated as revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure, provided it is not tied to acquiring capital assets.\n________________________________________\n(b) Interest on Deferred Payments - Revenue Expenditure\n•\nIssue: Whether interest paid on deferred payment terms for machinery acquisition is a deductible revenue expenditure.\n•\nRuling: The Supreme Court upheld that interest paid on deferred payments for machinery was a revenue expenditure, as it was directly connected to the business’s day-to-day operational requirements and did not generate enduring assets.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.6488 of 1983 with 9542 of 1995, decision dated: 4-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSIVAKAMI MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 112 = 1998 SLD 112 = 1998 PTD 891 = (1997) 227 ITR 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Revision - Firm Registration under Section 184(7) and Powers of CIT under Section 263\n•\nIssue: Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) has the power under Section 263 to revise an order passed by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) regarding the continuation of a firm's registration under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act.\n•\nFacts: The firm had been granted registration under Section 185, and the registration was continued each year. However, discrepancies in the partnership deed and profit-sharing ratios came to light, which led the CIT to issue a notice under Section 263 to cancel the registration.\n•\nRuling: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and held that the CIT has the jurisdiction to revise the ITO’s order under Section 263, as the ITO’s order on continuing the registration is subject to revision if it is prejudicial to the revenue.\n•\nLegal Principle: The registration of a firm under Section 184(7) can be revisited by the CIT under Section 263 if the ITO’s order is deemed incorrect or prejudicial to the revenue, as the ITO must apply his mind before issuing an order on the continuation of registration.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=184(7),263 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 111 and 111-A of 1982, decision dated: 8-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, Lakshmi Iyengar and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant. Ms. Purnima Bhat and E.C. Agrawala, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNITYA NAND DEVKINANDAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 113 = 1998 SLD 113 = 1998 PTD 900 = (1997) 227 ITR 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Interest - General principles: Income-tax applies to interest earned as part of income. Interest income is considered revenue in nature unless specifically classified otherwise (such as damages or compensation). The taxability of income depends on the nature of the income and not how it is utilized, whether it is spent on expenses like loan interest or saved. Simply utilizing the interest to pay off a liability (like a loan) does not alter its taxability.\n(b) Income-tax - Other sources - Interest from borrowed funds before commencement of business: Interest earned from investing borrowed funds before a business starts is still taxable under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The fact that the funds were borrowed for business purposes does not change the nature of the interest income. This income is taxable even though it is not used for business expenses before the business begins.\n(c) Income-tax - Diversion of income by overriding title - Investment of borrowed funds before business commencement: Interest income earned from borrowed funds, even if used temporarily before the business begins, is taxable. The concept of diversion of income by overriding title does not apply here. The taxpayer has complete discretion over the use of this income, and accounting principles do not override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which states that such interest income must be taxed.\n(d) Interpretation of statutes - Accountancy principles do not override tax statutes: The court reaffirmed that income tax laws supersede accounting principles. Whether the income is earned or received, its taxability must be determined based on legal provisions and case law, not accounting standards.\nCase Analysis (CIT v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.): In this case, a company invested surplus funds from borrowed capital in short-term deposits and earned interest. This interest was deemed taxable income, irrespective of whether the funds were borrowed for business operations or not. The company argued that it should not be taxed on the interest income, as it was used to offset interest payments on the borrowed capital. However, the court ruled that interest earned from such investments is taxable as income, and the expenditure could not be set off against the interest income.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Cases Nos. 1 and 2 of 1992, decision dated: 8-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA, SUHAS C. SEN AND M, JAGANNADHA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (V. Balachandran, Advocate with him) for the Assessee. B.S. Ahuja, Advocate for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 114 = 1998 SLD 114 = 1998 PTD 914 = (1997) 227 ITR 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Capital Gains - Estate Duty Payment - Not deductible as cost of acquisition or improvement: When a property is inherited, the estate duty paid by the heir is not deductible from the capital gains for tax purposes. The estate duty does not create or improve the title of the heir and is not considered part of the cost of acquisition or improvement under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The full ownership is transferred even before the payment of the estate duty, making the duty irrelevant to the calculation of capital gains.\n(b) Income-tax - Capital Gains - Discharge of mortgage on inherited property: If an inherited property is subject to a mortgage, the amount paid by the heir to discharge the mortgage can be considered part of the cost of acquisition under Section 48 and Section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act. This deduction is allowed because the heir acquires the mortgagee's interest by clearing the debt. However, if the mortgage was created after the heir acquired the property, the payment would not be deductible.\nCase Analysis (Smt. S. Valliammai v. CIT): In this case, the heir was required to pay estate duty on inherited properties. However, the estate duty payment was not deductible from capital gains when the property was later sold. The court concluded that the payment of estate duty did not alter the title or improve the property, so it could not be included in the cost of acquisition for capital gains tax purposes. The payment made to discharge a mortgage on inherited property, however, was considered part of the cost of acquisition and could be deducted when calculating capital gains.\nSupreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing that estate duty payments do not affect the cost of acquisition or improvement of inherited properties under tax law. The court emphasized that the discharge of a mortgage on inherited property is an acceptable deduction under capital gains, but estate duty is not.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.6098 to 6101 of 1983 with 860(NT) of 1988 and 4386 of 1997, decision dated: 9-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, J,1", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellants. G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad, B.S. Ahuja and C. Radha Krishna, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RM. ARUNACHALAM\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 115 = 1998 SLD 115 = 1998 PTD 930 = (1997) 227 ITR 414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation v. CIT (1985) 151 ITR 255 (SC)\n•\nIssue: Whether the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) is exempt from income-tax under Section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nDecision: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, ruling that GIDC was entitled to exemption under Section 10(20A). The Court emphasized that development includes industrial activities like creating industrial estates, which contribute to the development of cities, towns, and villages. The broad concept of development under Section 10(20A) encompasses industrial projects, not just non-industrial activities.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe term development should be interpreted broadly.\no\nExemption should apply to public bodies whose purpose is urban or rural development.\no\nIndustrial development involves significant infrastructure like roads, parks, sanitation, and education facilities, which improve the area.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2950 of 1985 with 3482 of 1990 and 2267 of 1991, decision dated: 20-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND K. T. THOMAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sameer Parekh and Ms. Mushanaf Chawdhary, Advocates for P.H. Parekh, Advocate for Appellants. Ranbir Chandra, Arun K. Sharma and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 116 = 1998 SLD 116 = 1998 PTD 936 = (1997) 227 ITR 409", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961, S.33(1)(b)\n•\nIssue: Whether machinery used for manufacturing automobile parts and other items is eligible for a higher development rebate (35%).\n•\nDecision: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the machinery, even if used for producing both items listed in the Fifth Schedule (automobile ancillaries) and other items, qualifies for the higher rebate (35%). The machinery need not be exclusively used for the listed items.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe machinery need not be used exclusively for producing items listed in the Fifth Schedule.\no\nThe rebate applies if the machinery is used for manufacturing any item in the schedule, even if other non-scheduled items are produced.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.4003 and 4004 of 1984 with 1286 of 1982 and 5637 of 1995, decision dated: 6-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND K. T. THOMAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, B. Krishna Prasad and Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar, Advocates for Appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAMBAL PVT. LTD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 117 = 1998 SLD 117 = 1998 PTD 940 = (1997) 227 ITR 356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "CIT v. Rattan Trust (1980) 123 ITR 562 (SC)\n•\nIssue: Whether a trust created before April 1, 1962, can claim income and wealth tax exemptions when its amended deed allows investments in a concern where trustees have an interest.\n•\nDecision: The Supreme Court ruled that the trust was not entitled to exemption under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act and Section 21-A of the Wealth Tax Act. A trust created before April 1, 1962, must have had a mandatory provision in its original trust deed (not amended later) to invest in concerns where trustees have an interest. A later amendment could not qualify for exemption.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nExemptions depend on the terms in the original trust deed, not subsequent amendments.\no\nAny change after April 1, 1962, does not qualify for the exemption if it contradicts the mandatory provisions required by the law.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.6328 to 6333 of 19$3 and 4302 of 1997, decision dated: 8-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (B. K. Prasad, Dhruv Mehta, C. Radha Krishna, Advocates with him) for Appellant.\nM. L. Verma,10Senior Advocate (R.K. Maheswari, Advocate with him) for Respondent.\nMalik Waheed Anjum, Advocate Supreme Court. Siddique Khan Baloch, Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab for the State", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRATTAN TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 118 = 1998 SLD 118 = 1998 PTD 949 = (1997) 227 ITR 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (SC)\n•\nIssue: How to calculate the extra shift allowance for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nDecision: The Supreme Court ruled that extra shift allowance should be calculated based on the number of days the entire concern worked double or triple shifts, not based on individual items of machinery. The concern as a whole must be considered for calculating this allowance.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nExtra shift allowance applies to the whole concern's working hours, not just individual machinery.\no\nThe allowance is determined based on the number of days the entire concern operates in double or triple shifts.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.376 of 1985, decision dated: 9-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellant. Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (B. Krishna Prasad and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SUNDARAM SPINNING MILLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 119 = 1998 SLD 119 = 1998 PTD 950 = (1997) 227 ITR 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax: Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance\nConclusion:\nThis case deals with the correct method of calculating extra shift depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the extra shift depreciation is to be calculated based on the total number of days the entire concern worked in double or triple shifts, rather than the days on which any specific machinery or plant operated in double or triple shifts.\nThe key point is that the extra shift depreciation allowance does not require assessing individual machinery use but should consider the entire concern’s operational schedule during the year. The court reversed the earlier decision in South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1982) which had ruled that the extra shift depreciation should be calculated based on the number of days a particular machine worked extra shifts.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nSouth India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 206 (reversed)\n•\nAnantapur Textiles Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 851 (Cal.)\n•\nCirculars and Instructions from CBDT dated September 28, 1970, March 20, 1973, and February 26, 1985\n•\nCWT v. Vasudeo v. Dempo (1992) 196 ITR 216 (SC)\n•\nGanesh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 395 (Cal.)\n•\nKerala Financial Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.3179 to 3181 of 1982, decision dated: 9-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sunil Dogra, Ms. Monika Sharma and Suresh A. Shroff, Advocates for Appellant. Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (B. K. Prasad and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SOUTH INDIA VISCOSE LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 120 = 1998 SLD 120 = 1998 PTD 963 = (1996) 221 ITR 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Undisclosed Sources\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the Tribunal reduced an addition of Rs.93,000 made by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) as income from undisclosed sources. The sum of Rs.93,000 was split into Rs.78,000 credited to the assessee’s account by a firm and Rs.15,000 as repayment by the assessee. The assessee explained that Rs.78,000 originated from his wife, who had saved from household expenses and other small sources, including commissions from insurance companies.\nThe Tribunal found that Rs.51,000 out of Rs.78,000 was explained satisfactorily, and therefore, the addition was reduced to Rs.42,000. The Tribunal’s decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the probabilities, and the High Court upheld the findings.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nExecutive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh AIR 1996 SC 691\n•\nTribunal's factual findings based on evidence", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference N o.203 of 1972, decision dated: 28-07-1994", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSURINDER KUMAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 121 = 1998 SLD 121 = 1998 PTD 967 = (1996) 221 ITR 694", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Writ Petition Against Show-Cause Notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act\nConclusion:\nThis case highlights that the High Court will not interfere with a show-cause notice issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision under section 263 allows the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise any order that is deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. However, the High Court maintains that judicial interference is not warranted at the stage of a show-cause notice.\nThe case relies on the principle that the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is not applicable to a show-cause notice under section 263. This ruling reaffirms the principle that procedural matters, like a show-cause notice, should be dealt with by the authorities concerned, and not be preemptively challenged in court.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nExecutive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh AIR 1996 SC 691\n•\n(1995) 8 JT 331 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.238 of 1996, decision dated: 18th March 1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "KHAJANCHI PAPER MILLS (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 122 = 1998 SLD 122 = 1998 PTD 968 = (1996) 221 ITR 524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains and Amalgamation of Companies\nConclusion:\nThis case revolves around the capital gains tax liability of an assessee who was a shareholder in a company that underwent amalgamation. Under the amalgamation scheme, the shareholders of the transferor company were allotted shares and debentures in the transferee company.\nThe Income-tax Officer initially did not tax the capital gains from the shares, but the Commissioner of Income-tax, under section 263, disagreed, arguing that the extinguishment of the shareholding rights in the transferor company amounted to a transfer, and thus capital gains tax should apply. The Tribunal, however, concluded that the transfer of shares and debentures was not a taxable event under section 45, as it was an exempt transaction under section 47(vii), as it was part of a single indivisible transaction during the amalgamation.\nThe decision was upheld, confirming that there was no transfer for capital gains purposes due to the nature of the transaction under the amalgamation scheme. Even if there were a transfer, the gains arising from the transaction were exempt from taxation under section 47(vii).\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nCentral India Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 211 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. Amin (R.M.) (1977) 106 ITR 368 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Gautam Sarabhai Trust (1988) 173 ITR 216 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Leena Sarabhai (N. Ch.) (1996) 221 ITR 520 (Guj.)\nTopic: Reference Application by Revenue and Tribunal's Power to Refer Questions\nConclusion:\nThis case deals with the power of the Tribunal to refer questions of law to the High Court in situations where the Revenue (Income-tax Department) requests such a reference. The key point established is that even if the Revenue does not suggest a particular question, the Tribunal has the authority to refer any question of law that arises from the facts and findings in the case.\nThe Tribunal can refer questions to the High Court, even if the Revenue has not specifically requested them. Additionally, the Tribunal has discretion in framing the questions of law, and in cases where the assessee succeeds, they can suggest questions for consideration in the reference application.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 256\n•\nThe case reiterates the Tribunal's discretion and authority in handling reference applications.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(47),45,47(ii) ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1152 and Reference No.707 of 1982, decision dated: 13-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Meenakshi Sundaram for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. CT. M. CORPORATION (PRIVATE) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 123 = 1998 SLD 123 = 1998 PTD 977 = (1996) 221 ITR 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-Tax - Reference\nTopic: Academic Questions Cannot Be Referred\nConclusion:\nThe case deals with the scope of referring questions to the High Court under section 256 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. It was held that academic questions, i.e., those that do not involve a substantial issue of law and are merely theoretical, cannot be referred for adjudication. In this instance, questions regarding whether payments made for reimbursement of medical expenses and insurance premiums could be considered as perquisites for tax purposes were ruled to be academic and not subject to reference under section 256.\nThe Delhi High Court's decisions in CIT v. Bharat Ram Charat Ram (Pvt.) Ltd. (1986) and Instalment Supply (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1984) were followed, which had previously held that payments made by an employer to an employee by way of reimbursement of medical expenses or payment of insurance premiums were not perquisites.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nCIT v. Bharat Ram Charat Ram (Pvt.) Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 199 (Delhi)\n•\nInstalment Supply (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 457 (Delhi)\n•\nCIT v. Knan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 431 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. (1992) 197 ITR 431 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 146 of 1990, decision dated: 23rd August, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. WADHWA AND DR. M. K. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajendra with D.C. Taneja for Petitioner. S.K. Aggarwal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK. G. KHOSLA COMPRESSORS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 124 = 1998 SLD 124 = 1998 PTD 979 = (1996) 221 ITR 585", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Reimbursement of Medical Expenses and Insurance Premium\nConclusion:\nThe question of whether reimbursement of medical expenses and the payment of insurance premiums to employees could be considered perquisites for the purpose of tax disallowance under sections 40(c) and 256 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, was held to be academic and therefore not subject to reference. The Delhi High Court, in earlier cases, had clarified that these payments would not amount to perquisites for the purpose of tax disallowance.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nCIT v. Bharat Ram Charat Ram (Pvt.) Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 199 (Delhi)\n•\nInstalment Supply (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 457 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.38 and 37 of 1992, decision dated: 9-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. Markos Vellappally for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTRAVANCORE RUBBERS AND TEA CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 125 = 1998 SLD 125 = 1998 PTD 987 = (1996) 221 ITR 574", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income – Definition of Income – Forfeiture of Earnest Money\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the assessee had entered into agreements for the sale of old rubber trees. When the purchasers failed to make the necessary payments, the agreements were terminated, and the earnest money was forfeited. The Court ruled that the forfeited earnest money was assessable as income under section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nThe Court clarified that even if an agreement of sale does not proceed, any amount forfeited due to breach of contract is considered income. The forfeiture was linked directly to the breach of the agreements and was therefore taxable.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nCIT v. G.R. Karthikeyan (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 508 (Ker.)\n•\nCIT v. Raja Bahadur Kamakhaya Narayan Singh (1948) 16 ITR 325 (PC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.590 and Reference No.516 of 1984, decision dated: 24-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND SATHASIVAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBAKHEAR AHMED & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 126 = 1998 SLD 126 = 1998 PTD 995 = (1996) 221 ITR 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-Tax - Undisclosed Income – Repayment of Loan on Hundi\nTopic: Scope of Section 69-D – Repayment Using Demand Draft\nConclusion:\nThis case dealt with the repayment of a loan borrowed on Hundi, where the repayment was made by an account payee demand draft. The Court ruled that section 69-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not apply to amounts repaid through an account payee demand draft, which is considered a negotiable instrument akin to a cheque. As such, the repayment could not be treated as income from undisclosed sources.\nThe Court emphasized that a demand draft, although similar to a cheque, is treated differently under the law and does not attract the provisions of section 69-D, which is typically invoked for cash repayments.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nCIT v. Intraven Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 225 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 535 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Vaidyanathan (K.S.) (1985) 153 ITR 11 (Mad.)\n•\nFernandez (A.V.) v. State of Kerala (1957) 8 STC 561\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\nTopic: Reasonable Interpretation – Casus Omissus\nConclusion:\nThe Court held that tax laws should be interpreted reasonably, and the omission of certain provisions (casus omissus) must be inferred when a literal interpretation of the statute leads to absurd results. In the context of section 69-D, the repayment by demand draft was not deemed income from undisclosed sources because it did not fall under the specific criteria of the section.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1993, decision dated: 11-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf for the Commissioner. R.K. Joshi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKESHRICHAND JAISUKHLAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 127 = 1998 SLD 127 = 1998 PTD 998 = (1996) 221 ITR 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Disallowance for Cash Payments\nConclusion:\nThe case concerns disallowance of business expenditure under section 40-A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit were made in violation of the law. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the assessee failed to prove the exceptional circumstances for such payments. The Tribunal, however, deleted the disallowance but did not consider the factual findings of the CIT (Appeals), which led to an incorrect judgment.\nThe Court ruled that the Tribunal should have considered the findings of the CIT (Appeals) regarding the exceptional and unavoidable circumstances laid down under the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal’s decision was not justified.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 40-A(3)\n•\nIndian Income Tax Rules, 1962, Rule 6-DD(j)\n•\nCBDT Circular No. 220, dated May 31, 1977", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.28 of 1978, decision dated: 15-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. WADHWA AND DR. M. K. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta with R.N. Verma for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHANDER BHAN RAJ KUMAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 128 = 1998 SLD 128 = 1998 PTD 1001 = (1996) 221 ITR 474", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Entertainment Expenditure\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the assessee had incurred expenditure on providing meals to merchants as part of trade custom. The expenditure was claimed as a business deduction under section 37(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court ruled that such expenditure on meals was allowable as a deduction, as it was in accordance with trade customs, and could not be disallowed.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nCIT v. Supreme Motors (P.) Ltd. (1984) 147 ITR 48 (Delhi)\n•\nSandal Kashmirilal v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 422 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petitions Nos.14533 alongwith 14825, 14826 and 15307 of 1995-S, decision dated: 16-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. P. Balchandran for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCOMMONWEALTH TRUST (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 129 = 1998 SLD 129 = 1998 PTD 1008 = (1996) 221 ITR 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-Tax – Reassessment – Limitation\nTopic: Powers of Tribunal – Reassessment and Limitation\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the Tribunal considered the issue of reassessment under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in connection with the disallowance of a trading loss claim. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings could only be initiated under section 147(b) and were time-barred. Since the Revenue did not appeal the decision, and no cross-objection was filed, the Tribunal’s decision was upheld.\nThe Court ruled that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147(a) were invalid, as the limitation period had passed, and no question of law arose.\nLegal Citations & References:\n•\nBadridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 35 ITR 10 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Damodaran (V.) (1980) 121 ITR 572 (SC)\n•\nEapen Joseph v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 26 (Ker.)\n•\nGadgil (S.S.) v. Lai & Co. (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC)\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\nTopic: Procedural Law – Limitation\nConclusion:\nThe Court reiterated that procedural laws, including limitations, should be approached as tools for justice rather than obstacles. The limitation for reassessment proceedings must be respected to avoid unjust outcomes.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Applications Nos.829 to 832 with 845 to 850 of 1996, decision dated: 28-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. C. PATEL AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioners. B.J. Shelat for M.R. Bhatt for R.B. Bhatt & Co. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NITI TRUST and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 130 = 1998 SLD 130 = 1998 PTD 1014 = (1996) 221 ITR 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: CIT v. Deepak Family Trust No. 1 (1995) 211 ITR 575 (Guj.)\n•\nIssue: Status of Private Discretionary Trust for Assessment\nThe primary issue was regarding the status of a private discretionary trust for the purposes of income tax assessment under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The representative assessee of a discretionary trust was treated as an individual in the return filed, but the Commissioner of Income-tax raised a concern regarding the assessment status.\n•\nFacts: The assessee was a private discretionary trust. In the assessment for the year 1993-94, the trust filed its return declaring long-term capital gains and requested to be assessed as an individual. The Assessing Officer applied the rate of 20% as per Section 112(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice under Section 263, indicating that the assessee was an association of persons (AOP), and that the applicable tax rate should have been 30%.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the representative assessee of a discretionary trust should be treated as an individual or as an AOP for the purpose of assessment.\n•\nRuling: The Court held that the representative assessee in the case of a discretionary trust should be regarded as an individual. The Assessing Officer's treatment of the assessee as an individual was valid, and the notice issued by the Commissioner was quashed. The Court emphasized that the determination of the status of an assessee is a prerequisite before proceeding with any assessment under the Income Tax Act.\n•\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Deepak Family Trust, CIT v. Shri Krishna Bandar Trust (1993) 201 ITR 989 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.400 and Reference No.182 of 1983, decision dated: 18-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND, JAYARAMA CHOUTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Mrs. Pushya Seetharaman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK. M. N. NAIDU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 140 = 1998 SLD 140 = 1998 PTD 1018 = (1996) 221 ITR 410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC)\n•\nIssue: Rejection of Accounts and Estimate of Income\nThe issue in this case was whether the accounts of the assessee could be relied upon for estimating peak credit in the assessment for the year 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer had found discrepancies between the balance sheet and the seized books and had added the difference to the income of the assessee.\n•\nFacts: The assessee had a share of income from a partnership and reported a loss in its return. However, the Income-tax Officer observed that the credit in the capital account in the balance sheet was different from that reflected in the seized books, leading to a difference of Rs.93,631. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the income under other sources. \n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the peak credit should be calculated based on the balance sheet figures or the seized books.\n•\nRuling: The Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, who concluded that the books of account, which had not been relied upon for business income estimation, should not be used for determining peak credit. The Tribunal directed that the balance sheet figure of Rs.3,54,110 be accepted as unexplained cash credit.\n•\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC), Kale Khan Muhammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.551 and Reference No.291 of 1983, decision dated: 10-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND GOVARDHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSEMBI TRADERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 141 = 1998 SLD 141 = 1998 PTD 1023 = (1996) 221 ITR 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: CIT v. Coimbatore Pictures (P.) Ltd. (1973) 90 ITR 452 (Mad.)\n•\nIssue: Business Loss for Film Distribution\nThe case involved the claim of business loss by a registered firm in the film distribution business, for amounts advanced for film production. The Income-tax Officer had disallowed the claim, but the Tribunal allowed it.\n•\nFacts: The assessee, a firm engaged in film distribution, advanced funds to film producers with the intent to acquire distribution rights. The assessee claimed this as a business loss. However, the Income-tax Officer argued that there was no evidence that the firm was involved in a money-lending business, and the advances were made solely to acquire a capital asset (distribution rights).\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the loss incurred by advancing funds to acquire distribution rights for films is deductible as a business loss.\n•\nRuling: The Court ruled that the loss was not deductible because the amounts were advanced as capital expenditure for acquiring distribution rights, not as part of the firm's business operations. The Tribunal’s decision to allow the business loss was overturned.\n•\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Coimbatore Pictures (P.) Ltd. (1973) 90 ITR 452 (Mad.), CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors (1995) 212 ITR 620 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 1202 of 1996, decision dated: 4-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. C. PATEL AND MS R. M. DOSHIT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.H. Kaji with S.N. Soparkar and M.K. Kaji for Petitioner\nB.J. Shelat for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GUJARAT MUNICIPAL FINANCE BOARD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 142 = 1998 SLD 142 = 1998 PTD 733 = (1996) 221 ITR 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: CIT v. Gujarat Municipal Finance Board (1985) 151 ITR 255 (Guj.)\n•\nIssue: Interest Earned on Grants and Taxability\nThe issue involved whether interest earned on surplus funds of the Gujarat Municipal Finance Board, a statutory body, could be considered taxable income.\n•\nFacts: The Gujarat Municipal Finance Board, created under a state act, was responsible for disbursing grants from the state government for various municipal purposes. It had surplus funds, which were invested and earned interest. The State Government instructed that the interest earned be treated as part of the grant. The Income-tax Officer initiated reassessment proceedings for the years 1984-85 to 1993-94, seeking to tax the interest income.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether interest earned by the Board, which was treated as part of the grant, was taxable.\n•\nRuling: The Court held that the interest was not taxable because the Board acted on behalf of the State Government and was directed to treat the interest as part of the grant. The interest was diverted at the source, meaning that it was never part of the Board’s taxable income.\n•\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC), Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation v. CIT (1985) 151 ITR 255 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 140 of 1993, decision dated: 9-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goyal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDO ASIAN SWITCHGEARS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 143 = 1998 SLD 143 = 1998 PTD 1044 = (1996) 221 ITR 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC)\n•\nIssue: Jurisdiction for Levying Penalty in Case of Concealment of Income\nThe issue involved whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) had the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the penalty proceedings were initiated before the amendment of Section 274(2) in 1976.\n•\nFacts: The penalty proceedings were referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before 1st April 1976, and the penalty was levied in March 1977. The question arose whether the IAC still had the jurisdiction after the amendment of Section 274(2), which divested the IAC of such jurisdiction after the amendment.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether penalty proceedings could still be completed by the IAC after the amendment of Section 274(2).\n•\nRuling: The Court ruled that the penalty proceedings were valid. Since the referral was made before the amendment, the IAC had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty, despite the subsequent amendment of Section 274(2).\n•\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC), Verkey Chacko v. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 885 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.217 and Reference No. 166 of 1984, decision dated: 10-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND GOVARDHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Raj an for the Commissioner\nP.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSETH PURSHOTHAMDAS DWARKADAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 144 = 1998 SLD 144 = 1998 PTD 1049 = (1996) 221 ITR 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: CIT v. Govind Narain (1975) 101 ITR 602 (All.)\n•\nIssue: Referring Questions of Law to the High Court\nThe issue was whether a question that did not arise from the Tribunal’s order or was based purely on factual findings could be referred to the High Court.\n•\nFacts: The assessee entered into an agreement with a party (A.P.J.) for the sale of tea. The Income-tax Officer questioned the genuineness of the transaction, and the Tribunal upheld the agreement's authenticity. The Revenue filed a reference under Section 256(2) seeking the High Court’s opinion on whether the Tribunal’s findings were legally tenable.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the question about the genuineness of the agreement should be referred to the High Court.\n•\nRuling: The High Court held that questions relating to the genuineness of the agreement were factual in nature. The Court refused to answer the question, as it was purely a question of fact, and the Tribunal had applied its mind based on the available evidence.\n•\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Govind Narain (1975) 101 ITR 602 (All.), CIT v. Prithvi Raj Daga (1986) 159 ITR 193 (Raj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. l(M) of 1996, decision dated: 27-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner\nDr. A. K. Saraf, K. K. Gupta and R. K. Agarwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASSAM FRONTIER TEA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 145 = 1998 SLD 145 = 1998 PTD 1055 = (1996) 221 ITR 392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: CIT v. Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC)\n•\nIssue: Interest Earned on Share Capital and Its Taxability\nThe issue was whether the interest earned on fixed deposits from share capital funds could be treated as capital receipt or income from other sources.\n•\nFacts: The assessee, a State Government undertaking, deposited its share capital in a bank fixed deposit. The interest earned on these deposits was treated as income from other sources.\n•\nLegal Issue: Whether the interest earned on share capital funds is capital income or taxable income from other sources.\n•\nRuling: The Court held that the interest earned on the share capital was income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and could not be treated as a capital receipt. Furthermore, the interest could not be offset against the interest on loans during the pre-production period.\n•\nLegal Precedents: Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC), CIT v. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 375 (AP).\nYou said:\nupto 3242\nChatGPT said:\nChatGPT\nHere are the detailed summaries for cases up to SLD 3242:", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.45 of 1990, decision dated: 31st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N .S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf for the Commissioner\nDr. B.P. Todi and R.K. Joshi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASSAM PLANTATION CROPS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 146 = 1998 SLD 146 = 1998 PTD 1072 = (1996) 221 ITR 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: CIT v. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 55 (SC)\n•\nIssue: Taxability of Lease Premium Received\nThe issue in this case was whether the lease premium received by the assessee for granting a lease on its land was capital or revenue income for the purposes of taxation.\no\nFacts: The assessee received a sum as lease premium for granting a lease of land for 99 years. The Assessing Officer treated the amount as revenue income and added it to the total taxable income of the assessee.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether the lease premium received is capital or revenue income.\no\nRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that the lease premium received by the assessee for granting the lease was a capital receipt and not taxable as revenue. It noted that the nature of the income from a long-term lease should be regarded as capital, and not subject to income tax under the head Income from other sources. \no\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 55 (SC), CIT v. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.30 of 1980, decision dated: 28-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " V. N. KHARE AND S. RAFAT ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nALLAHABAD MILLING CO. (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 147 = 1998 SLD 147 = 1998 PTD 1073 = (1996) 221 ITR 365", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC)\n•\nIssue: Capital Gain on Transfer of Goodwill\nThe issue revolved around whether capital gains tax could be levied on the transfer of goodwill in the context of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nFacts: The assessee transferred goodwill in connection with the sale of a business. The Income Tax Officer sought to impose capital gains tax on the transfer of goodwill, arguing that the transfer resulted in a capital gain.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether the transfer of goodwill results in capital gains tax under the Income Tax Act, and if so, whether the provisions apply in the same manner as to other assets.\no\nRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that goodwill is not a capital asset as defined under the Income Tax Act because it lacks a definite value or can be transferred without a clear assessment of value, making it difficult to apply capital gains tax. Therefore, the transfer of goodwill does not attract capital gains tax. The ruling was based on the fact that the valuation of goodwill for tax purposes under Section 45 is not feasible.\no\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC), CIT v. C. B. Patel & Co. (1977) 106 ITR 151 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.50 of 1990, decision dated: 24-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. K. Saraf and K. Gupta for the Assessee\nG.K. Joshi and K. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SARDARMAL SHIVDAYAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 148 = 1998 SLD 148 = 1998 PTD 1076 = (1996) 221 ITR 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: Income-tax—Recovery of tax—Sale of property—Writ—Proclamation of sale rejecting objections of assessee\n•\nIssue: Recovery of tax through sale of property\nThe case dealt with the procedure for recovering tax through the sale of property and the rights of the assessee to raise objections.\no\nFacts: The Tax Recovery Officer had issued a proclamation for the sale of the assessee's property. The assessee raised objections regarding the sale even after the proclamation was drawn up. However, the Tax Recovery Officer rejected these objections.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether the assessee can raise objections even after the proclamation of sale has been drawn up and whether a writ petition could be filed after the sale was held.\no\nRuling: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the assessee can raise objections even after the proclamation of sale, and can file a petition even after the sale has been held. However, the sale could not be confirmed until the petition was disposed of. The Court further held that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226, as the assessee had clear remedies available before the Tax Recovery Officer.\no\nLegal Precedents: None cited explicitly in the judgment.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.25653 of 1995, decision dated: 15-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " S. PARVATHA RAO AND KRISHNA SARAN SHRIVASTAV, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Subba Rao, R.V. Prasad and R. V. Nagabhushana Rao for Petitioner\nS.R. Ashok for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "N. BALA RAJU and another\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 149 = 1998 SLD 149 = 1998 PTD 1077 = (1996) 221 ITR 362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: Income-tax—Business expenditure—Payments not deductible—Payments otherwise than by crossed cheque\n•\nIssue: Taxability of cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500\nThe case concerned payments made by the assessee to a supplier in amounts less than Rs. 2,500 each, but in aggregate exceeding Rs. 2,500.\no\nFacts: The assessee firm was engaged in selling paper on commission for a supplier. The payments made to the supplier were less than Rs. 2,500 in each transaction, but the total payments exceeded Rs. 2,500. These payments were not reflected correctly in the supplier's books. The Income-tax Officer questioned the payments, citing Section 40-A(3) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows deductions for payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 unless made by cheque.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether the payments made by the assessee are deductible under the provisions of Section 40-A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\no\nRuling: The Tribunal erred in ruling that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The Court held that the Income-tax Officer did provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancy, and the Tribunal’s decision was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.\no\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Orient Paper Mills (1987) 163 ITR 7 (SC), CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills (1981) 134 ITR 18 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 192-A of 1980, decision dated: 20-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Srivastava for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKRISHNA PAPER MART" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 150 = 1998 SLD 150 = 1998 PTD 1080 = (1996) 221 ITR 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: Income-tax—Firm—Assessment—Death of partner—Reconstitution of firm with new partners\n•\nIssue: Applicability of sections 187 and 188 after death of a partner\nThe case concerned the assessment of a firm after the death of a partner and the reconstitution of the firm.\no\nFacts: The firm, initially consisting of three partners, was reconstituted after the death of one of the partners. The firm filed two separate returns, one for the period up to the death of the partner and another for the period after the reconstitution. The Income-tax Officer made a single assessment, treating the case under Section 187.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether two assessments should be made in this case, under Section 187 or 188.\no\nRuling: The Tribunal held that Section 188 applied, and two assessments were necessary—one for the period up to the death of the partner and one for the period after the reconstitution of the firm. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s ruling, stating that Section 188 applied in cases of death of a partner, and the proper procedure was to make two separate assessments.\no\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Isthmian Steamship Lines (1951) 20 ITR 572 (SC), CIT v. Girdharilal Nannelal (1984) 147 ITR 529 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.537 of 1984, decision dated: 16-08-1993", + "Judge Name:": " GULAB C. GUPTA AND R. P. AWASTHY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Tankha with Adhikari for the Commissioner\nNone for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAHESH OIL AND RICE MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 160 = 1998 SLD 160 = 1998 PTD 1084 = (1996) 221 ITR 449", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: Income-tax—Income—Sugar industry—Amount credited to create reserve fund under Government order\n•\nIssue: Taxability of amount credited to reserve fund by sugar company\nThe case concerned a reserve fund created by a sugar manufacturing company under a government order and whether the amount credited to this fund should be considered part of the company's income.\no\nFacts: The assessee, a sugar company, created a reserve fund under the Molasses Control Order, 1961. The amount was credited to the reserve fund, which the company had no control over, and could only be withdrawn upon the instructions of the Molasses Controller.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether the amount credited to the reserve fund should be included in the company’s income.\no\nRuling: The Court ruled that the amount credited to the reserve fund was not includible in the assessee's income as the company had no control over it and was obligated by the government to create the reserve. The sum of Rs. 1,07,933 was not part of the company's taxable income.\no\nLegal Precedents: Keshkal Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 437 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No.30 of 1990, decision dated: 9-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Adhikari for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 161 = 1998 SLD 161 = 1998 PTD 1087 = (1996) 221 ITR 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: Income-tax—Total income—Inclusions in total income—Firm—Assessee partner in firm as Karta of H.U.F.\n•\nIssue: Exclusion of wife’s share income from firm in assessee’s individual income\nThe case dealt with the share income of the wife of the Karta (assesse) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) from the same firm in which the Karta was a partner.\no\nFacts: The assessee was a partner in a partnership firm in his capacity as the Karta of his HUF. The wife of the Karta was also a partner in the same firm. The assessee’s wife’s share of income from the firm was being clubbed with his individual income.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether the share income of the wife from the firm should be included in the individual income of the Karta under Section 64(1)(i).\no\nRuling: The Court held that the provisions of Section 64(1)(i) do not apply to club the income of the wife with the Karta’s individual income when the wife is a partner in the firm, and the income must be treated separately.\no\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Jhabarmal Agarwalla (1992) 195 ITR 351 (Gauhati).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.48 of 1990, decision dated: 3rd June, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND. S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAGHUBIRDAYAL AGARWALLA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 162 = 1998 SLD 162 = 1998 PTD 1089 = (1996) 221 ITR 430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: Income-tax—Income—Annuity deposit—Refund—Assessee executor of estate\n•\nIssue: Taxability of annuity income in the hands of the executor of an estate\nThe case concerned the taxability of annuity income received by the executor of a deceased person’s estate.\no\nFacts: The assessee, as the executor of an estate, received annuity payments along with interest, which had been deposited by the deceased under the Annuity Deposit Scheme.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether the annuity payments received by the executor are taxable in his hands as income.\no\nRuling: The Court held that the annuity payments received by the executor are taxable as income in his hands. The refund of the annuity deposit was deemed income assessable in the hands of the assessee.\no\nLegal Precedents: Padam Shree N.N. Mohan v. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 92 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 168 to 171 of 1978 and 268 and 269 of 1982, decision dated: 21st May, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.N. Monga and Manu Monga for the Assessee\nRajendra with R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Maj. KAPIL MOHAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 163 = 1998 SLD 163 = 1998 PTD 1096 = (1996) 221 ITR 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: Income-tax—Unabsorbed depreciation—Loss—Carry forward and set off\n•\nIssue: Set off of unabsorbed depreciation after suspension of business\nThe case concerned the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of a company that had suspended its business operations and later resumed them.\no\nFacts: The assessee, a public limited company, suspended its manufacturing activities in 1965 and resumed them in 1971. It claimed the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from the years 1965-1969 in the assessment year 1973-74.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether the unabsorbed depreciation and losses of earlier years could be set off against income in the resumed period.\no\nRuling: The Court held that since the company is a distinct legal entity, a change in ownership did not affect its identity. The Tribunal found that the business remained the same despite the suspension, and therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation and losses from previous years could be set off against the income in 1973-74.\no\nLegal Precedents: CIT v. Isthmian Steamship Lines (1951) 20 ITR 572 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 124 of 1979, decision dated: 20-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND M. KATJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMASS PRODUCTS (IND.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 164 = 1998 SLD 164 = 1998 PTD 1099 = (1998) 77 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Case Title: Income Tax Ordinance—Income of educational institution—Mode of determination\n•\nIssue: Taxability of income of an educational institution\nThe case dealt with whether the income of an educational institution should be taxed when the institution is established solely for educational purposes and not for profit.\no\nFacts: The Assessing Officer attempted to tax the income of an educational institution without bringing evidence of disqualification under the relevant provisions.\no\nLegal Issue: Whether the income of an educational institution should be treated as taxable income under the Income Tax Ordinance.\no\nRuling: The Court ruled that the income of the institution was not taxable, as the institution was established solely for educational purposes and not for profit. The relevant provisions under the Income Tax Ordinance did not apply to the institution.\no\nLegal Precedents: None cited explicitly in the judgment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cls.86,93 & 94 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1999/LB, 2000/LB and 2002/LB of 1996, decision dated: 17-12-1997.hearing DATE : 18-11-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Appellant\nSyed Aftab Hameed, F.C.A. and H. U. Baig, Member, Board of Directors for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 165 = 1998 SLD 165 = 1998 PTCL 12 = 1998 PTD 1103 = (1998) 77 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unearned Income in Insurance Companies\n•\nTopic: Unearned Income\n•\nConclusion: The concept of unearned income is not explicitly defined in Pakistani insurance law or income tax law. It is a term generally used in accounting and insurance contexts but lacks a clear legal standing.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nProperty and Liability Insurance by John H. Magee and Oskar N. Serbein, 4th Edn., 1967, p.806\no\nAdvanced Accounts by N.C. Shukla and T.S. Grewal\no\nTreatise on Advanced Accounting by J.R. Batliboi, 29th Edn., 1987, p.887\no\nAdvanced Accounting by R.L. Gupta and M. Radhaswamy, 1988 Edn.\nEarned Income and Net Income for Insurance Companies\n•\nTopic: Earned Income\n•\nConclusion: As soon as an insurance company receives the premium, the income is considered earned. However, net income is only recognized after the policy expires and any claims are paid, which means it is not earned income until the policy risk period is complete.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nAdvanced Accounting by R.L. Gupta and M. Radhaswamy, 1988 Edn., p.560\nReserve for Unexpired Risk\n•\nTopic: Reserve for Unexpired Risk\n•\nConclusion: Insurance companies are required to create a reserve for unexpired risks, which is treated as a liability in the financial statements. The amount to be reserved is specified by law, with guidelines such as 40% of net premiums for fire, marine, and miscellaneous insurance, and 100% for marine and aviation hull insurance.\n•\nCitations/References:\no\nProperty and Liability Insurance by John H. Magee and Oskar N. Serbein, 4th Edn., 1967, p.806\no\nAdvanced Accounts by N.C. Shukla and T.S. Grewal\no\nTreatise on Advanced Accounting by J.R. Batliboi, 29th Edn., 1987, p.887\no\nAdvanced Accounting by R.L. Gupta", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FourthSched.,R.5,65,R.6A,10,25,26(a) & 12,24(1),111,80D,80D(2),8(8)(a),23 Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2A) & 10(7),10(4)(a) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 150/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 13-08-1997. dates of hearing: 29th July and 1st August, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq Memon. Iqbal Naeem Pasha, E.U. Khawaja, Muhammad Farid, Muhammad Jawaid Khurram, Shabbar Zaidi, F.C.A., arshad Siraj. Tai-yab G. Adeeb, F.C.A., Saqib Masood, C.A., Noor Muhammad. C.A., Muhammad Salecm, C.A., S.M. Sohail, A.C.A., Amin Malik, A.C.A., Tahir Muchalla, C.A., S.M. Tanauli, I.T.P., Muhammad Rafique, I.T.P. and Khaliqur Rehman for Appellants. Ali Nasir Bukhari, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 166 = 1998 SLD 166 = 1998 PTD 1140 = (1997) 224 ITR 727", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax – Business Expenditure\n•\nConclusion (a): Expenditure on share issuance to comply with government requirements of diluting foreign shareholding is allowable as a business expense under Section 37(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The expenditure incurred in connection with the same share issue in the preceding assessment year is also allowable in the current year.\nCitations/References: CIT v. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 59 (Bom.)\n•\nConclusion (b): The limits under Section 40(c) should be applied when computing disallowable expenditure on employee-directors, and not those under Section 40A(5).\nCitations/References: CIT v. Hico Products (P) Ltd. (No.1) (1993) 201 ITR 567 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.58 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P. SARAF AND M. L. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. U Khatri with J. P. Devadhar instructed by Mrs. S. G. Shah for the Commissioner. J.D. Mistry instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGODFRAY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 167 = 1998 SLD 167 = 1998 PTD 1142 = (1997) 224 ITR 757", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax – Exemption for Charitable Trusts\n•\nConclusion (a): The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, a government company, was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because it was not a charitable trust. It was permitted to engage in commercial activities, and there were no restrictions on the application of its income.\nCitations/References: CIT (Addl.) v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nConclusion (b): The proceeds from the sale of clear felled trees did not constitute capital receipts in the hands of the corporation.\nCitations/References: V. Venugopala Varma Rajah v. CIT (1970) 76 ITR 460 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Cases Nos. 115 and 116 of 1984, decision dated: 26-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA C.J. AND S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.N. Rastogi and Mrs. Anjana Mishra for the Assessee. S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BIHAR STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 168 = 1998 SLD 168 = 1998 PTD 1150 = (1997) 224 ITR 739", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax – Rejection of Accounts\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating income when it found that the accounts were unreliable. The estimation was a factual matter and did not give rise to a question of law.\nCitations/References: CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC); CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy & Sons (1971) 79 ITR 499 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 178 of 1991, decision dated: 21st March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Bagdiya for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "ISHWARCHAND\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 169 = 1998 SLD 169 = 1998 PTD 1153 = (1997) 224 ITR 729", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax – Professional Income\n•\nConclusion: Income derived from brokerage and commission on foreign transactions between scheduled banks and the Reserve Bank of India under Exchange Control is not taxable as professional income.\nCitations/References: CIT v. Lallubhai Nagardas & Sons (1993) 204 ITR 93 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 103 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P. SARAF AND M.L. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.U. Khatri with J.P. Devadhar instructed by Mrs. S.G. Shah for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVAKHARIA & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 170 = 1998 SLD 170 = 1998 PTD 1156 = (1997) 224 ITR 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Income-tax – Firm Reconstitution\n•\nConclusion: When a minor partner attains majority and opts to become a full partner, and another minor opts out, the partnership firm is reconstituted, not dissolved. A single assessment for the entire previous year is to be made.\nCitations/References: CIT v. Ramesh Biscuit Factory (1994) 205 ITR 205 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.253 of 1980, decision dated: 4-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHAR NATH RAM NATH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 171 = 1998 SLD 171 = 1998 PTD 1158 = (1997) 224 ITR 715", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic (a): Income-tax – Scope of High Court's Power in Reference\n•\nConclusion (a): The High Court’s role in directing a reference under Section 256 is to assess whether the Tribunal’s findings raise a question of law, based on principles of law. In the case of mixed questions of law and fact, only the law-related aspects are referred to the court.\nCitations/References: Anjani Alankar Mandir v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 67 (All.); Chuharmal v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC); CIT v. Kilco Refrigeration (1990) 183 ITR 318 (Ker.); CIT v. Mahim (K.) (1988) 174 ITR 149 (Ker.)\n•\nTopic (b): Income-tax – Search and Seizure\n•\nConclusion (b): No question of law arose when the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation regarding seized assets and allowed deductions for certain items. The findings of fact were based on circumstantial evidence, making them matters of pure fact.\nCitations/References: Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC); New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 11 (SC); Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 28 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.222 connected with M.C.Cs. Nos.220, 221, 192 to 199 and 280 of 1991, decision dated: 6-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND FAKHRUDDIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.P Mittal for the Commissioner. C.S. Agrawal for the Assessee\"\"", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 172 = 1998 SLD 172 = 1998 PTD 1183 = (1997) 224 ITR 464", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Reassessment of a charitable trust’s income due to failure to disclose material facts.\nDetails: The Income-tax Officer (ITO) initially granted exemption under section 11 to the trust, but later reopened the assessment under section 147 on the ground that income had escaped assessment. The reopening was based on the failure to disclose facts about the trust’s financial relations with firms in which the trustees had substantial interest. The Tribunal upheld the reopening, confirming that the failure to disclose the relationship of the trustees to these firms justified the action.\nHeld: The reassessment was valid, as the failure to disclose material facts led to an incorrect exemption under sections 11 and 12.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.42 of 1991, decision dated: 23rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SREE NARAYANA CHANDRIKA TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (No.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 173 = 1998 SLD 173 = 1998 PTD 1187 = (1997) 224 ITR 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Reassessment due to failure to disclose material facts about the transfer of property.\nDetails: The assessee had entered into an agreement to sell land in 1983, but no sale deed was executed, and possession was transferred to the buyer. The ITO issued a reassessment notice in 1993 for capital gains tax, alleging that the income from the transaction had escaped assessment. The assessee argued that the facts were already disclosed to the ITO and that no further assessment was necessary.\nHeld: The notice of reassessment was quashed as the material facts had been disclosed, and no new grounds for reassessment existed.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 710 of 1995, decision dated: 27-07-1995", + "Judge Name:": " C.K. THAKKAR AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner. B.R. Shah for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NAGINBHAI G. PATEL\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 174 = 1998 SLD 174 = 1998 PTD 1042 = (1996) 221 ITR 308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Disallowance of business expenditure on reimbursement of medical expenses to a director.\nDetails: The company reimbursed medical expenses for a director, but the ITO disallowed this as it was deemed a benefit or amenity under sections 40(c) and 40-A(5).\nHeld: The reimbursement of medical expenses was not considered a benefit or amenity under the relevant provisions and could not be disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 51 of 1983, decision dated: 8-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Sood for the Assessee. R.P. Sawhney with Sanjay Goyal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SUKHJIT STARCH AND CHEMICALS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 175 = 1998 SLD 175 = 1998 PTD 1201 = (1998) 77 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Jurisdictional issues in assessing income under section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nDetails: Under section 80-C, no order is required to be made by the ITO for income covered by this section. The presumptive tax regime applies, and no return of income needs to be filed. The Assessing Officer wrongly made an assessment order for income covered under section 80-C.\nHeld: The order was illegal, as no assessment or return was required for income under section 80-C, and the ITO had no jurisdiction to make such an order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,62,59A,143B,4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2286/KB and 2287/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 5-01-1998, hearing DATE : 1st November, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehmatullah Wazir, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 176 = 1998 SLD 176 = 1998 PTD 1208 = (1998) 77 TAX 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue: Applicability of section 79 regarding income from transactions with non-residents.\nDetails: A pharmaceutical company was importing raw materials from its non-resident parent company. The ITO invoked section 79 due to a suspicion that raw materials were being purchased at higher rates than the international market. However, the company argued that the prices were consistent with market rates.\nHeld: Section 79 could only be invoked if the ITO could prove that the raw materials were imported at higher prices than the international market. The burden of proof lay with the ITO, and until evidence was provided, section 79 could not be applied.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=79,24(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2758/KB, 2762/KB, 2761/KB, 2759/KB, 2760/KB, 1628/KB of 1986-87, 402/KB, 403/KB, 530/KB, 531/KB of 1985-86, 641/KB and 719/HQ of 1987-88, decision dated: 9-01-1998, hearing DATE ; 13-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sikandar Aslam, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2758/KB to 2762/KB, 1628/KB of 1986-87, 402/KB, 403/KB of 1985-86 and 641/KB of 1987-88).\nI.N. Pasha for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.2758 to 2762/KB, 1628/KB of 1986-87, 402/KB, 403/KB of 1985-86 and 641/KB of 1987-88).\nI.N. Pasha for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.530/KB, 531/KB of 1985-86 and 719/HQ of 19.87-88.\nSikandar Aslam, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.530/KB, 531/KB of 1985-86 and 719/HQ of 1987-88)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 177 = 1998 SLD 177 = 1998 PTD 1217 = (1998) 77 TAX 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Section 32-A: Furnishing of Documents by Company\n•\nThe protection under Section 32-A will not apply if the Assessing Officer can prove that the auditor's report and the audited accounts provided by the company are clearly false. This highlights that the Assessing Officer can question and probe the accuracy of audited accounts.\n(b) and (c) Section 80-D: Interpretation and Applicability\n•\nSection 80-D refers to the minimum tax payment on turnover. The key phrase “where no tax is payable or paid” means that the Assessing Officer must first determine the tax liability before requiring the assessee to pay a minimum tax.\n•\nSection 80-D only comes into play after the tax liability has been assessed.\n(d) Section 80-D: Minimum Tax Liability\n•\nIf an assessee declares a loss, it does not necessarily mean they are only liable to the minimum tax under Section 80-D. The income-tax authorities can determine the tax liability based on their assessment.\n(e) and (f) Section 80-D: Return of Total Income\n•\nIf an assessee has already filed a return of total income under Section 55, they cannot later claim that the minimum tax under Section 80-D is their entire tax liability.\n•\nWhen the Assessing Officer calculates income, if it exceeds the minimum tax liability, Section 80-D does not apply, and the taxpayer is required to pay based on actual income.\n(g) Sections 32-A & 32: Audited Accounts and Scrutiny\n•\nSection 32 addresses how incomes, profits, and gains are computed based on the accounting method regularly employed by the assessee. However, if there are doubts about the veracity of the accounts, the Assessing Officer is allowed to probe further and gather additional evidence, including oral and documentary evidence.\n•\nSection 32-A does not imply automatic acceptance of audited accounts. The income and profits need to be computed correctly, and the method of accounting is protected only if it’s consistent.\n•\nAudited accounts are not irrefutable evidence but a declared version of the company’s financial status, subject to further scrutiny by the Assessing Officer.\n(h) Sections 11 & 13: Deemed Income and Disallowance of Expenses\n•\nA disallowance in the profit and loss account, due to lack of proof or inadmissibility, is not deemed income but an adjustment for tax purposes.\n•\nDeeming provisions (e.g., Section 13) apply when sums or investments are unexplained or not consistent with declared sources of income.\n•\nDisallowed expenses are not added to income unless deemed so under certain circumstances (e.g., unexplained investment).\n(i) Audited Accounts and Estimate of Income\n•\nAn Assessing Officer’s estimate of income after rejecting the assessee’s returned figures must be based on facts and circumstances. The basis for the estimate must be reasonable and disclosed to the assessee.\n•\nIn cases where a claim is disallowed, the Assessing Officer must confront the assessee with the material used for making additions or estimates.\n(j) Addition on Excess Stock\n•\nThe hypothecation report prepared by the bank could not be used as the sole basis for adding excess stock to the taxable income without proper confrontation with the assessee. The rights of the assessee would be prejudiced if the evidence was used without confronting them.\nIn summary, the case emphasizes the Assessing Officer’s authority to scrutinize the submitted accounts, probe for evidence, and make adjustments where necessary, while also stressing that any additions to taxable income must be based on substantiated facts and must involve proper confrontation with the assessee. The protection of accounting methods under certain sections is not absolute and is subject to verification and further scrutiny.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32A,80D,32A & 32,32(1)(3),62,11 & 13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5921/LB of 1996, decision dated: 15-01-1998, hearing DATE : 29-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant. Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 178 = 1998 SLD 178 = 1998 PTD 1238 = (1998) 77 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – Assessment\n•\nTopic: Connotation of Assessment\n•\nConclusion: The term assessment is defined broadly. It includes the entire process of tax determination, starting from the initial procedure and culminating with the final order, which is signed and sealed by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nReference: The term assessment is not limited to just the computation of tax but includes all the steps involved, and the finality is achieved only when the assessment order is signed and sealed.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 160 & 66\n•\nTopic: Computation and Limitation Period\n•\nConclusion: Section 160 of the Income Tax Ordinance extends the limitation period prescribed under Section 66 for six months, allowing more time for the completion of assessments.\n•\nCitation: This provision directly affects the timeline within which tax assessments must be completed, granting an additional six months to ensure procedural fairness in assessments.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 13(1)(c)\n•\nTopic: Unexplained Investment\n•\nConclusion: The partners of the registered firm failed to provide proof that the funds deposited in their personal bank accounts belonged to the firm and were recorded in the firm's books. As a result, the amount deposited in their personal accounts was rightfully included in their individual income.\n•\nCitation: This case reflects the burden on the assessee to prove that any unexplained deposits or investments are not personal and should be attributed to a different entity (in this case, a firm). The failure to discharge this burden results in the amount being added to their total income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=160,66,13(l)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2803/LB and 2804/LB of 1997, decision dated: 13-12-1997, hearing DATE : 10-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Ahmad Sheikh for Appellants. Shahbaz Butt, L.A. and Abdul Rauf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 179 = 1998 SLD 179 = (1998) 77 TAX 91 = 1998 PTD 1250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 19(2)(a)\n•\nTopic: Income from House Property – Real Ownership\n•\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer correctly taxed the rental value of the property in the hands of the assessee since they failed to prove through independent documentary evidence that they were not the real owner of the property.\n•\nCitation: The case emphasizes the importance of providing valid evidence to substantiate claims regarding ownership. The tax burden remains on the person who cannot prove they are not the rightful owner.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 134 & 56\n•\nTopic: Raising New Legal Points in Appeal\n•\nConclusion: Even though the assessee had not raised the point regarding the validity of the notice under Section 56 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or in the appeal memo to the Appellate Tribunal, they were allowed to do so. The legal issue was considered significant, and the Tribunal granted the assessee the right to raise this point at the appeal stage.\n•\nReference: This case reinforces the legal principle that a pure question of law can be raised at any stage of the appeal process, including before the Appellate Tribunal.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 1(3) & 166(2)\n•\nTopic: Date of Enforcement of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nConclusion: The Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 came into force after its promulgation, and its provisions only apply to assessments for the 1979-80 assessment year onward, except for specific exceptions outlined in Section 166(2). The provisions of the Ordinance are not retroactive unless explicitly stated.\n•\nReference: The case emphasizes that new laws do not typically have retrospective application unless specifically indicated, as provided under Section 166(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n________________________________________\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 56\n•\nTopic: Notice for Furnishing Return of Total Income\n•\nConclusion: The provisions of Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance cannot be applied beyond the effective date of the Ordinance, and the assessment year in question. Section 56 applies only to the current assessment year and not to prior years. The wording of the section ( at any time and for any income year ) does not mean an indefinite period; rather, it is limited to the current assessment year.\n•\nCitation: The intent of Section 56 is not to allow an indefinite period for issuing notices but to ensure notices are issued within a reasonable time period for the current assessment year.\n________________________________________\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 56 & 65\n•\nTopic: Issuance of Notice for Furnishing Return of Total Income\n•\nConclusion: Notices under Section 56 must be issued only for the current assessment year, not for past years. If income from past years has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer should issue a notice under Section 65. The incorrect issuance of a notice under Section 56 does not invalidate the assessment if the officer has proper jurisdiction and the limitation period under Section 65 has not expired.\n•\nCitation: The case reinforces that notices for returns under Section 56 apply to the current year and that a procedural mistake in the form of notice does not necessarily invalidate the assessment if the correct procedures are followed elsewhere.\n________________________________________\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 56 & 65\n•\nTopic: Invalidity of Notice Issued under Section 56\n•\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 56 instead of Section 65, where prior approval from the Income-tax Appellate Commissioner (IAC) was required. As this approval was missing, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the assessment proceedings were invalid due to a jurisdictional error, and annulled the assessment order.\n•\nReference: The case highlights the importance of following correct procedural steps, including obtaining the necessary approval before initiating proceedings, which when not followed results in the annulment of assessment orders.\n________________________________________\n(g) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nTopic: Meaning and Usage of Statutory Terms\n•\nConclusion: Every word used in a statute must be interpreted based on its usage and context. A word's meaning can vary, but in legal interpretation, it must be consistent within the section and the statute as a whole.\n•\nReference: Statutory interpretation principles dictate that legislative language must be construed carefully to ensure consistency and clarity.\n________________________________________\n(h) Interpretation of Statutes – Different Meanings for Same Words\n•\nTopic: Consistency in Statutory Interpretation\n•\nConclusion: Different meanings cannot be attributed to the same word, even if it appears in different sections of a statute, unless the statute specifically provides for such an interpretation.\n•\nReference: This principle ensures that the legal interpretation remains consistent throughout the statute, preventing ambiguity and misapplication of terms.\n________________________________________\nSummary of Key Legal Principles\n•\nAssessment and its scope: The entire process of determining tax liability, which culminates in the assessment order.\n•\nExtension of limitation period: Section 160 of the Income Tax Ordinance extends the limitation period provided in Section 66, allowing additional time for assessments.\n•\nUnexplained investment: The onus is on the assessee to prove that deposits in their bank account were not their personal funds.\n•\nNotice issuance: Notices under Section 56 apply only to the current assessment year, and incorrect notices can be invalidated depending on the circumstances.\n•\nInterpretation of statutes: Legislative terms must be interpreted in a consistent and contextually appropriate manner.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19(2)(a),134,56,1(3),166(2),65,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.925(IB) to 954(IB) of 1991-92, heard on 8-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Saifullah, F.C.A. for Appellant. Abdul Jalil, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 180 = 1998 SLD 180 = 1998 PTD 2161 = (1996) 221 ITR 750", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reference - Assessee showing trading loss and cash credit - Tribunal not accepting assessee's claim\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, a partnership firm, engaged in the sale of cloth, showed a trading loss of Rs. 22,198 and received Rs. 21,000 from one entity during the assessment year 1980-81. The Tribunal rejected these claims. The question of whether there was any material justifying the Tribunal's decision, specifically regarding the disallowance of the trading loss and the addition of the cash credit, was considered a question of law. The case was referred for further clarification under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReferences:\n•\nOrient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 147 of 1989, decision dated: 12-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. M. Chaphekar with Subhash Samvatsar and Sharda for the Assessee. D.D Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "R.G. AGRAWAL & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 181 = 1998 SLD 181 = 1998 PTD 1264 = (1998) 77 TAX 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Doctrine of Res Judicata & Estoppel by Record - Erroneous action\nConclusion:\nThe doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to the decisions of Income Tax Authorities. A prior decision can be revisited or departed from in subsequent years, especially if the original decision lacked proper inquiry or if new facts emerge. In the context of the assessment, the department's claim regarding the taxability of services as technical services under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was upheld as the services provided met the definition of fees for technical services, hence taxable under Section 80-AA of the Ordinance.\nReferences:\n•\nS.M. Abdullah v. CIT (1966) 14 Tax 161\n•\nTejmal Bhojraj v. CIT (22 ITR 208)\n•\nCIT v. Farrukh Chemical Industries (1992 PTD 523)\n•\nShorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 Edn.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=11,80AA,12(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.425(IB) to 427(IB) of 1996-97, decision dated: 8-12-1997, hearing DATE : 6-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rustum Jee, F.C.A. and Muhammad Shahid Sadiq, F.C.A. for Appellant. Khawaja Muhammad Sadiq Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 182 = 1998 SLD 182 = 1998 PTD 1280 = (1998) 77 TAX 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance - Commercial Expediency - Payments as Illegal Gratification\nConclusion:\nThe phrase commercial expediency excludes illegal gratification and bribery. Payments made for manipulating procedures or shortening rules cannot be considered as business expenses under Section 23(1)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such payments were deemed illegal and against public policy. The assessee's claim for deductions related to these payments was rejected because these expenditures, even if made for business purposes, were unlawful.\nReferences:\n•\nHashrpi Can Company Limited v. C.I.T. 1989 PTD 570\n•\nBlack's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., pp.245,1350\n•\nCIT, Kerala v. Malayalam Plantations Limited (1964) 53 ITR 140\n•\nCIT, Madras v. Ramakrishna Mills Limited (1974) 93 ITR 49", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(1)(xviii),23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1944/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 10-12-1997, hearing DATE : 23rd October, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant. Mrs. Fiza Muzaffar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 183 = 1998 SLD 183 = 1998 PTD 1293 = (1997) 224 ITR 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Gifts to Foreign Collaborators & Foreign Tour Expenses\nConclusion:\n(a) The expenditure on gifts presented to foreign suppliers and collaborators was not classified as publicity or advertisement expenses but as a business expenditure aimed at fostering good relations. These were allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, a limit was imposed on the per-item deduction based on existing rules.\n(b) Regarding the foreign tour expenses, the Tribunal ruled that a portion of the expenditure was associated with the existing business and was therefore allowable as revenue expenditure, while the remainder was capital expenditure related to new business expansion. Depreciation and investment allowance were claimed accordingly and the Assessing Officer was directed to review the claims.\nReferences:\n•\nBengal Enamel Works Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 119 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 200(SC)\n•\nCIT v. S.L.M. Maneklal Industries Ltd (1977) 107 ITR 133 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 18 of 1990, decision dated: 31st October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney and Mahavir Ahlawat for Petitioner. G.S. Sandhawalia for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nESCORTS EMPLOYEES ANCILLARIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 184 = 1998 SLD 184 = 1998 PTD 1198 = (1997) 224 ITR 749", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Penalty - Concealment of Income\nConclusion: The penalty imposed for concealment of income was canceled by the CIT (Appeals) on the grounds that the Explanation referred to by the Income-tax Officer was not in force when the notice was issued. The Tribunal set aside the CIT (Appeals) order for a fresh review of the penalty on merits. The High Court refrained from answering the reference since the matter was still before the CIT (Appeals) for reconsideration.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 256(1) & 271(1)(c).\nCIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co. (1990) 183 ITR 69 (P & H) cited.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 113 and 114 of 1982, decision dated: 16-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.N. Goswami, S.S. Mahajan and Ms. Aparna Mahajan for the Assessee. R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Goyal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MODerN TEXTILES FINISHING MILLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 185 = 1998 SLD 185 = 1998 PTD 1305 = (1997) 224 ITR 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nConclusion: The assessee-firm incurred legal expenses defending a suit filed by a partner for dissolution, and the High Court ruled that these expenses were for the protection of the firm’s business, not for capital expansion. The Tribunal allowed the deduction, affirming that such expenditure is revenue in nature. Legal fees incurred to safeguard business operations are deductible as revenue expenses.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37.\nCases Cited: Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 434 (Pat.), Adarsha Dugdhalaya v. CIT (1971) 80 ITR 49 (Bom.), CIT v. Jagatjit Distilling and Allied Industries Ltd (1966) 60 ITR 308 (Punj.), Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC), Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 23 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 12 and 13 of 1985, decision dated: 9-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, C.J. AND AFTAB ALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. L.N. Rastogi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCARD BOARD PRODUCTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 186 = 1998 SLD 186 = 1998 PTD 1310 = (1997) 224 ITR 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Depreciation and Investment Allowance\nConclusion: The Tribunal ruled that capital subsidy cannot be deducted from the cost of assets when calculating depreciation and investment allowance. Additionally, the gas cylinders used for production were considered part of the plant and machinery, and the pre-production expenses were included in the actual cost. No question of law was raised for reference.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 256(2).\nCases Cited: Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC), CIT v. Bhandari Capacitors (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 647 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.229 of 1992, decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 187 = 1998 SLD 187 = 1998 PTD 1313 = (1997) 224 ITR 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Investment Allowance\nConclusion: The assessee, engaged in civil contract works, was not entitled to investment allowance, as the Supreme Court’s ruling in N.C. Budharaja clarified that construction work does not involve manufacturing or processing. The Tribunal’s decision was reversed, and the assessee’s claim for investment allowance was denied.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 32A(2) & 263.\nCases Cited: CIT. v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 663 (Reference No. 364 of 1983), decision dated: 7-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND BALSUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSri RANGANATHAR & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 186 = 1998 SLD 186 = 1998 PTD 1314 = (1997) 224 ITR 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Income-tax - Appeal to Supreme Court\nConclusion (a): A summary rejection of a special leave petition does not mean that the Supreme Court has approved the High Court's decision on merits. It simply indicates that the Supreme Court did not wish to interfere with the High Court’s order.\nTopic (b): Income-tax - Interest for Delay in Filing Returns\nConclusion (b): The assessee is not entitled to a hearing before interest is levied under Section 139(8) of the Income Tax Act. The absence of a specific reference to the provision under which interest is charged does not invalidate the order.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.139(8).\nCases Cited: Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC), CIT v. Prayaglal Agarwala & Co. (1986) 162 ITR 570 (Pat.), Monohar Gidwany v. CIT (1983) 139 ITR 498 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 124 of 1984, decision dated: 15-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND M. Y. EQBAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Vikash Jain for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nQUALITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 187 = 1998 SLD 187 = 1998 PTD 1319 = (1997) 224 ITR 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusion: The penalty for the concealment of income was imposed after the assessee’s claim for commission deductions was disallowed. The Tribunal later canceled the penalty. The High Court, however, refused to answer the reference as the main appeal regarding the quantum of the commission was still pending before the Appellate Authority.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 256 & 271(1)(c).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.48 and 49 of 1978, decision dated: 1st October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " G. S. SINGHVI AND B. RAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate instructed by Mahabir Ahalawat for the Commissioner. N.K. Sood for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 188 = 1998 SLD 188 = 1998 PTD 1322 = (1997) 224 ITR 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reassessment and Provision for Central Sales Tax\nConclusion: The Tribunal, after analyzing the facts, affirmed the inclusion of an amount as income from other sources, while reducing an addition related to the value of purchases. The provision for Central Sales Tax was disallowed after the tax levy was lifted. No question of law arose.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 15272 of 1994, decision dated: 2-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K. K. USHA AND T. RAMACHANDRAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair and C.S. Ullasan for Petitioner. N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "A.M. ZAINALABDEEN MUSLIAR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 189 = 1998 SLD 189 = 1998 PTD 1325 = (1997) 224 ITR 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure and Amortization of Preliminary Expenses\nConclusion: Under Section 35-D of the Income Tax Act, the assessee must provide evidence that expenditures are covered by the section’s provisions to qualify for amortization. Without such evidence, the claim for amortization was denied.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 35-D.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 556 (Reference No.296 of 1983), decision dated: 7th, March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AGROCARGO TRANSPORT LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 190 = 1998 SLD 190 = 1998 PTD 1329 = (1997) 224 ITR 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reassessment and Notice for Reassessment\nConclusion: The High Court held that reassessment notices can be issued under Section 148 even if proceedings under Section 143(2) are ongoing. Explanation 2(b) to Section 147 applies to scrutiny cases, and thus, the reassessment notice was valid.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 147 & Explanation 2(b).\nCases Cited: CIT v. Syed Rafiqur Rahman (1991) 189 ITR 476 (Pat.), Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC), Jaikishan Gopikishan & Sons v. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 481 (MP), Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 129 (SC), Navnit Lai C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen; AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.J.Cs.Nos. 1493, 1494, 1491 and 1492 of 1996(R), decision dated: 16-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " AFTAB ALAM AND P. K. SARKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Bajla for Petitioners. Debi Prasad for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "DEEPAK KUMAR PODDAR and 3 others\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 191 = 1998 SLD 191 = 1998 PTD 1332 = (1997) 224 ITR 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\nIssue: Whether the presumption of concealment arises when the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income and the assessee fails to prove that no fraud or gross neglect was involved.\nConclusion:\nThe Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, creates a rebuttable presumption that if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, it will be treated as concealed unless the assessee proves that no fraud or gross neglect was involved.\nIn this case, the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income, and the assessee failed to prove the absence of fraud or neglect. Therefore, the penalty was rightly levied. The Tribunal's decision that the onus lay on the Department was incorrect.\nCitations/References:\n•\nVishwakarma Industries v. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 652 (P & H)\n•\nChuhrmal v., CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC)\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Karnail Singh V. Keralan (1974) 94 ITR 505 (P & H)\n•\nCIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=271(1)(c),Expln ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.63 of 1983, decision dated: 18-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Mahavir Ahlawat for the Commissioner. B.R. Mahajan and Suvir Sehgal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAJAY TEXTILES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 192 = 1998 SLD 192 = 1998 PTD 1337 = (1997) 224 ITR 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains Tax - Sale of Property\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal's conclusion about the sale price being lower than stated in the seized agreement was correct, given discrepancies in pricing during assessment.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal correctly found that the agreement for a higher sale price was not meant to be acted upon, and there was no valid basis to treat the higher price as the actual transaction price. Thus, the income should be assessed based on the lower sale price stated in the sale deed. The following questions of law were raised and are to be referred to the High Court:\n1.\nWas the land actually sold at the higher price?\n2.\nWas the agreement for the higher price meant to be acted upon?\n3.\nWas the sum of Rs.1,36,060 intended to be paid to a third party?\nCitations/References:\n•\nNone specified", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petitions Nos.224, 225 and 1552 of 1993, decision dated: 2-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.K. USHA AND T. RAMACHANDRAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. C. Kochunni Nair for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSint. K.C. AGENS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 193 = 1998 SLD 193 = (1996) 76 TAX 265 = 1997 TAX 265 = 1998 PTD 1340 = (1997) 223 ITR 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Cash Credits - Undisclosed Income\nIssue: Whether discrepancies in cash credit entries in the accounts justify treating them as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a sufficient explanation for the disputed credits, and there was no undisclosed income. The Department had failed to prove the genuineness of the cash credit. No referable question of law arose, as the explanation was already part of the material before the Income Tax Officer.\nCitations/References:\n•\nNone specified", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 4392 of 1995/S, decision dated: 4-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. Arikkat Vijayan Menon for Respondent\nSh. Saeed Akhtar, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBEENA RUBBER WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 194 = 1998 SLD 194 = 1998 PTD 1344 = (1997) 224 ITR 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains - Exemption under Section 54\nIssue: Whether the investment in a flat from Delhi Development Authority qualifies for capital gains exemption under Section 54.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal was correct in granting the exemption, as the CBDT Circular No. 471 dated 15-10-1986 treated the purchase of a flat from the Delhi Development Authority as a form of construction. The assessee had invested a substantial amount in the purchase, satisfying the requirements of section 54 for exemption from capital gains tax.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCBDT Circular No. 471, dated 15-10-1986\n•\nNone specified", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.467 of 1989, decision dated: 15-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.S. Malhotra for the Assessee. V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Smt. SHASHI VARMA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 195 = 1998 SLD 195 = (1996) 76 TAX 277 = (1997) 223 ITR 343 = 1998 PTD 1350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment - Failure to Disclose Material Facts\nIssue: Whether reassessment was valid when the assessee had disclosed all material facts necessary for the original assessment.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal was correct in holding that the reassessment was not valid. The assessee had disclosed all primary and material facts during the original assessment. The Income Tax Officer's reassessment was therefore unjustified. No referable question of law arose.\nCitations/References:\n•\nNone specified", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 23 of 1991, decision dated: 4-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney with Mahavir Ahlawat for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMATHURA DASS LAXMI NARAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 196 = 1998 SLD 196 = (1996) 76 TAX 260 = 1997 TAX 260 = 1998 PTD 1353 = (1997) 223 ITR 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes in Assessment\nIssue: Whether a second order of rectification, which altered the initial rectification based on a High Court decision, was valid.\nConclusion:\nThe second rectification order, which reinstated the share income in the assessee's account, was not valid. The Tribunal's decision to restore the second rectification was erroneous. The question of law arising from the case was whether the second rectification was correct, which is to be referred to the High Court.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Mrs. Banno E. Cowasji (1984) 147 ITR 744 (MP)\n•\nDavis Contractors Ltd. v. Fareham Urban District Council (1956) AC 696 (HL)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 206, 209, 212 and 213 of 1991, decision dated: 28-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.M. Chaphekar with S.S. Samvatsar for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. BANOO E. COWASJI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 197 = 1998 SLD 197 = 1998 PTD 1358 = (1997) 224 ITR 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains - Sale of Property by Partner to Firm\nIssue: Whether the sale of property by a partner to a firm is subject to capital gains tax on the difference between the sale price and the market value.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal was correct in concluding that the sale of immovable property by a partner to the firm is subject to capital gains tax. The sale consideration was credited to the partner's capital account, and the difference between the sale price and the fair market value of the property is taxable as capital gains.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.798 and Reference No.406 of 1983, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nR. RANGASWAMY NAIDU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 3 = 1976 SLD 3 = (1996) 76 TAX 273 = 1998 PTD 1364 = (1997) 223 ITR 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Additional grounds of appeal-Leave to urge additional grounds may be sought either in writing or by oral prayer-¬Indian Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, R.11.\n \nNormally, under the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the grounds are to be stated in the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal. But the parties are not prohibited from taking additional grounds at the time of hearing. Under rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the appellant shall not, except by leave of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal. However, if the appellant desires to urge any additional ground, leave of the Tribunal has to be sought for. Rule 11 of the Rules speaks only of leave and the leave may be sought for either in writing or by an oral prayer:\n \nHeld, accordingly, that as the additional ground was urged by the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal and the Tribunal did not disbelieve that leave was sought for, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the said additional ground. (The Court directed that if the additional ground was urged, it would be the duty of the Tribunal to give sufficient opportunity to the other side of being heard).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=254 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.4 of 1993, decision dated: 20-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf and K.K. Gupta for the Assessee. G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AMINES PLASTICIZERS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 198 = 1998 SLD 198 = 1998 PTD 1367 = (1997) 224 ITR 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Business expenditure-Disallowance-Perquisites to employees-Motor car provided to employees-Valuation of perquisite-Rule 3(c)(ii) and S.40-A(5) are distinct and different-Valuation must be made after careful consideration and R.3(c)(ii) cannot be applied automatically-Matter remanded-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.40-A(5)-Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, R.3 (c)(ii).\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Business expenditure-Disallowance-Perquisite to employees-¬Reimbursement of medical expenses is not a perquisite-Not subject to ceiling under S.40-A(5)-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.40-A(5).\n \n(c) Income-tax-\n \n-Capital or revenue expenditure-Amalgamation of companies-Fees and expenses paid to auditor and legal adviser-Tribunal directed to decide matter after considering the scheme of amalgamation and in the light of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.35-D & 37.\n \nThe scope of section 40-A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and rule 3(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, are distinct and different. Section 40-A(5) is intended to effectively check extravagant expenditure by the employer. On the other hand, rule 3(c)(ii) is a provision for bringing to tax the amount or perquisites actually received by an employee. The taxability of such amounts in the hands of the employee cannot ordinarily be a criterion for the deductibility of the said amount in the hands of the employer. The perspective with which the provisions of the Act and the provisions in the rules should be viewed are different. These are matters for a detailed and in-depth consideration as a result of which alone, a proper conclusion can be arrived at.\n \nCIT v. Malayalam Plantations (India Ltd. (1990) 186 ITR 322 (Ker.) fol.\n \nPayment on account of reimbursement of medical expenses of an employee would necessarily have a fluctuating character depending on the expenses incurred in relation to the illness or suffering. It would not have any fixed character. Such payments cannot be considered to be perquisites and would not be subject to the ceiling under section 40-A(5).\n \nAspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (No.l) (1996) 220 ITR 611 (Ker.) fol.\n \nHeld, that with regard to the expenditure incurred, namely, the fees and expenses paid to auditors and legal advisers, in connection with the amalgamation of the company, though the Tribunal had referred to the scheme of amalgamation, it had not taken pains to understand the terms under which the scheme was approved by the High Court. The Tribunal had not considered the question with reference to the principles governing the matter laid down by the Supreme Court and by the Kerala High Court, except to hold that the expenses were of a capital nature. Even with regard to section 35-D(2)(a), (b) and (c), the Tribunal had not bestowed any consideration. The Tribunal had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing ten per cent. of the expenses. The question whether the expenditure was of revenue nature could not be answered.\n \nAssam-Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC); CIT v. Coal Shipments (P.) Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 902 (SC); CIT v. Polyformalin td. (1996) 221 ITR 276 (Ker1; L.capire Jute Co. Ltd. v-. CIT (1980) t24 ITR 1 (SC) and M.K. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 38 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=40A(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos.97 and 98 of 1991, decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C.N. Ramachandran Nair fin the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMALAYALAM PLANTATIONS (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 199 = 1998 SLD 199 = (1996) 76 TAX 269 = 1998 PTD 1375 = (1997) 223 ITR 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal was correct in casting the burden of proof on the Revenue and whether it failed to consider Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal canceled the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, but the Revenue's reference application was rejected. The Court held that the application of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) requires consideration within the context of the facts. It was necessary to evaluate whether the Tribunal rightly cast the burden of proof on the Revenue and whether its decision was vitiated for not considering the explanation properly. The case was referred for clarification on these points.\nAdditionally, it was noted that the preparation of statements for submission to the High Court should not be a formality and must involve thorough preparation by both the Revenue and the assessee.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, Sections 256(2), 271(1)(c)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.3468-S alongwith Original Petition No. 12497 of 1995-S, decision dated: 14-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon for Petitioner. G. Sarangan and E.R. Venkiteswaran for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nP.K. NARAYANAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 200 = 1998 SLD 200 = 1998 PTD 1387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Stock-in-Trade Valuation & GP Rate\nIssue: Whether the value of land held for construction by a private company can be enhanced, and whether the Assessing Officer's application of the GP rate was valid.\nConclusion:\n(a) The assessee, a private limited company involved in flat construction, could not enhance the valuation of plots of land held as stock-in-trade, as the law specifically prohibits such enhancement.\n(b) The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to address the details and issues raised by the assessee. As a result, the Tribunal cancelled the order of the Assessing Officer and remanded the case for proper discussion and re-hearing.\n(c) The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Authority's reduction of the GP rate after determining that the Assessing Officer had failed to provide a proper basis for the increased GP rate.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Sections 12(12), 62\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 65", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(12),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5806/KB, 5807/KB, 6309/KB of 1991-92 and 893/Kbof 1996-97, decision dated: 3rd December, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Udharam for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.5806/KB and 5807/KB of 1991-92).\nMajid Qureshi, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.5806/KB and 5807/KB of 1991-92).\nMajid Qureshi, D.R, for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.6309/KB of 1991-92 and 893/KB of 1996-97)\nUdharam for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.6309/KB of 1991-92 and 893/KB of 1996-97)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 201 = 1998 SLD 201 = 1998 PTD 1391 = (1998) 77 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment – Change of Opinion\nIssue: Whether the reopening of an assessment was valid when the Assessing Officer determined the market price of a plot without summoning the assessee.\nConclusion:\nThe reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer was found to be invalid, as the officer determined the value of the plot without consulting the assessee and based on notional, rather than genuine, facts. The reopening was a mere change of opinion and did not involve the introduction of new material facts.\nCitations/References:\n•\n1987 PTD (Trib.) 653", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.331/HQB of 1989-90, decision dated: 28-06-1997.hearing DATE : 14-06-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMAD BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saeed, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Javed Zakaria for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 202 = 1998 SLD 202 = 1998 PTD 1393 = (1998) 77 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme and Random Audit\nIssue: Whether the selection of the assessee for a random audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme (1992-93) was legal.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that the assessee's return under the Self-Assessment Scheme was valid and qualified for acceptance. Since no deficiency was pointed out, its selection for a total audit via random ballot was considered illegal. The application of the law in such cases should align with the Scheme’s provisions and the related circulars.\nCitations/References:\n•\nI.T.O. v. Chappal Builders (1993 PTD 1108)\n•\nC.I.T. v. Siemen A.G. (1991 PTD 488)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.391/KB of !995-96, decision dated: 23rd September, 1997, hearing DATE : 20-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Javed Zakaria for Appellant. Amjad Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 203 = 1998 SLD 203 = 1998 PTD 1396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment and Documentary Evidence\nIssue: Whether reopening of assessment under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979) was valid, and the role of documentary evidence in such cases.\nConclusion:\n(a) The reopening of the assessment could be considered valid only if the Assessing Officer applied his mind independently, not merely following orders from higher authorities.\n(b) The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation should aim to make laws workable.\n(c) The Tribunal ruled that service of notice was valid, and the assessee’s failure to produce original documents did not invalidate the proceedings.\n(d) Even though photocopies cannot be equated with original documents, if the correctness of the photocopy is not denied by the assessee, it is presumed to be correct.\n(e) The Tribunal also ruled that affidavits from a person proved to be bogus should be disregarded.\n(f) In cases of benami transactions, the term fake transaction could be used, even if it did not strictly align with the legal term benami. \nCitations/References:\n•\nMessrs Al Ahram Builders v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1992 PTD 1672)\n•\nPLD 1996 SC 1\n•\nPLD 1989 SC 503\n•\n1993 SCMR 956", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,154(6),148 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4263/LB to 4266/LB of 1996, decision dated: 14-06-1997, hearing DATE : 7-06-1997", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANSOOR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem Ch. and Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja for Appellant. Shahbaz Butt, Legal Advisor and Farooq Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 204 = 1998 SLD 204 = 1998 PTD 1421 = (1997) 224 ITR 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Appeal Decision on Sales Return & Capital Expenditure\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal correctly upheld the disallowance of a sales return and capital expenditure claim.\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal refused to refer the questions sought by the Commissioner for further clarification, stating that they were issues of fact. The Tribunal had already determined that the sales return and technical consultancy charges were not substantiated, leading to disallowances. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s position that no question of law arose.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy & Sons (1971) 79 ITR 499 (SC)\n•\nIndian Oxygen Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 164 ITR 466 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.282 of 1992, decision dated: 14-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. K.N. Puntambekar for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAHUL STEEL FORGINGS (PVT) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 205 = 1998 SLD 205 = 1998 PTD 1424 = (1997) 224 ITR 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure and Deductions\nIssue: Whether the employer must disallow the actual amount paid for rent-free accommodation, and the deductibility of various business expenditures.\nConclusion:\n(a) The actual amount paid for house rent allowance by the employer must be disallowed under sections 40(c) and 40-A(5) of the Income Tax Act.\n(b) The Tribunal ruled that expenses related to preparation of statements and schedules for tax return filing should be considered in computing the special deduction under section 80-VV, with a limit of Rs.5,000.\n(c) The Tribunal confirmed that surtax is not deductible in computing total income under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCIT v. Britannia Industries Co. Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 35 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. Ramakrishnan (P.R.) (1980) 124 ITR 545 (Mad.)\n•\nSundaram Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 646 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.559 and Reference No.299 of 1983, decision dated: 12-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BRAKES INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 4 = 1976 SLD 4 = (1996) 76 TAX 276 = 1998 PTD 1428 = (1997) 223 ITR 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reference - Assessment - Appeal to CIT (Appeals)\nKey Issue: Direction by CIT (Appeals) to enquire into investment by assessee.\nConclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the direction from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to make an inquiry into the assessee's investments did not amount to the enhancement of income or investigation into a new source of income. The Tribunal further held that such directions were based on a factual assessment and did not involve any question of law.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax. Case No.49 of 1994, decision dated: 19-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA AND DR. M. K. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S. Sya1i with Satyen Sethi for Petitioner. Rajendra with R.N. Verma for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GULSHAN KUMAR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 206 = 1998 SLD 206 = 1998 PTD 1429 = (1997) 224 ITR 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reference - Assessment - Separate Partnerships\nKey Issue: Whether two partnerships, formed by the same two partners, should be treated as one for taxation purposes.\nConclusion: The Tribunal's findings, supported by several facts such as the firms' separate business operations, locations, employee structures, and independent financials, concluded that the two firms were distinct entities. Therefore, their incomes could not be clubbed together. The decision was based on a factual review, and there was no interference needed from the court.\nCitations: Vissonji Sons & Co. v. CIT (1946) 14 ITR 272 (Bom.); Dy. CST (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. K. Kelukutty (1985) 155 ITR 158 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 74, 75 and 76 of 1983, decision dated: 16-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. N, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. K. Vidyarthi and S. K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHREE ANNAPURNA ELECTRIC CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 207 = 1998 SLD 207 = 1998 PTD 1434 = (1997) 224 ITR 166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Accounting - Deduction for Statutory Liabilities\nKey Issue: Provision made under the Bidi and Cigar Workers’ (Conditions of Employment) Act for holiday and leave wages.\nConclusion: The Tribunal upheld the assessee’s claim for the deduction of Rs. 2,07,722, stating that it was an ascertained liability under the relevant statute. The claim was valid despite not having made an actual payment, as the liability was due under the law.\nCitations: CIT (Addl.) v. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif (1978) 114 ITR 812 (MP); CIT v. Alim Beg Salim Bhai (1987) 163 ITR 767 (MP); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 28 of 1990, decision dated: 15-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Tankha for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nALIMBEG SALIMBHAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 208 = 1998 SLD 208 = 1998 PTD 1437 = (1997) 224 ITR 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Penalty - Limitation for Levy of Penalty\nKey Issue: Whether the time limit under section 275 for levying a penalty applies when a penalty is ordered by a higher authority.\nConclusion: The court ruled that the limitation period under section 275 only applies to the initial order of penalty and does not apply if a penalty order is passed following a higher authority’s directions. Thus, the penalty could be levied even after the standard two-year period prescribed.\nCitations: J.P. Sharma & Sons v. CIT (1985) 151 ITR 138 (Raj.); CIT v. Vakharia Cotton Traders (1986) 161 ITR 441 (Guj.); CIT v. National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 535 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=263,271(1)(c),275 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.864 and Reference No. 439 of 1983, decision dated: 12-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSARA ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 209 = 1998 SLD 209 = 1998 PTD 1447 = (1997) 224 ITR 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBmTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Cash Credits - Explanation for Cash Credits\nKey Issue: Whether cash credit entries were properly explained or were indicative of unaccounted income.\nConclusion: The Tribunal found that the cash credits had been sufficiently explained. The creditors had confirmed the loans, and evidence such as bank statements and repayment records with interest was provided. The Tribunal ruled that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unwarranted, and no question of law arose from this case.\nCitations: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.24 of 1991, decision dated: 5th November,.1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Mahavir Ahlawat for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAM NARAIN GOEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 210 = 1998 SLD 210 = 1998 PTD 1450 = (1997) 228 ITR 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Undistributed Profits - Levy of Additional Super-Tax\nKey Issue: Whether the assessee company’s failure to declare dividends within the prescribed period due to logistical issues and restrictions was valid.\nConclusion: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, accepting the assessee's explanations for not declaring dividends within the prescribed period. The circumstances, including the inability to remit funds and the need for a local auditor due to the company’s location in East Pakistan, justified the delay in declaring dividends, and thus, the imposition of super-tax was unjustified.\nCitations: CIT v. Asiatic Textiles Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 816 (SC); CIT v. Abdul Rahim Osman & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. (1972) 86 ITR 436 (SC); CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 176 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No:2269 of 1977, decision dated: 8-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "U.V. Eradi, Advocate and Darshan Singh and Krishan Kumar, Advocates for Appellant. J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Manoj Arora, Advocate for S.N. Terdol, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NORTH BENGAL SUGAR MILLS CO. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 211 = 1998 SLD 211 = 1998 PTD 1379 = (1998) 77 TAX 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Various Sections\nKey Issue: Interpretation of terms such as person, rectification of mistakes, and the chargeability of interest income for companies under the Income Tax Ordinance of 1979.\nConclusion:\n(a) An artificial juridical person includes companies and local authorities,\n(b) Companies are not covered by provisions of S.80-B,\n(c) Rectification of mistakes under S.156 must be immediately obvious and not involve a lengthy analysis,\n(d) Mistakes under S.156 should be clear without requiring extensive argument,\n(e) Procedures for charging interest income for companies outlined.\nCitations: Law of Income Tax by Acharya and Shuklendra, 1988 Edn., p.2648; PLD 1976 Kar. 1022.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(32),80B,156,5.156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 378 to 380/PB of 1995-96, decision dated: 20-09-1997, hearing DATE : 26-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUR REHMAN AFRIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND FAZALUR REHMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hidayatur Rehman, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Mirza for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 212 = 1998 SLD 212 = 1998 PTD 1484 = (1997) 228 ITR 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Capital Gains—Transfer of Capital Asset\n•\nDetailed Issue: The question centered on whether the reduction in the face value of shares and the amounts received on such reductions constituted a transfer of capital assets under Section 2(47) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby making such amounts liable to capital gains tax.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nSection 2(47) defines transfer in relation to capital assets as including relinquishment or extinguishment of rights in the asset, which is not limited to sales. Thus, the reduction in the face value of preference shares of a company represents an extinguishment of rights proportional to the reduction and qualifies as a transfer. \n2.\nThe amounts received upon such reductions are taxable as capital gains under Section 45 of the Act.\n3.\nThe appellant’s claim that no transfer had occurred was dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Income Tax Officer, Tribunal, and High Court. The appellant was found liable to capital gains tax on the difference between the purchase price and amounts received during reductions.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 2(47) & 45.\n•\nIndian Companies Act, 1956, Sections 87 & 100.\n•\nCase laws: Anarkali Sarabhai Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 422 (SC); Kartikey V. Sarabhai v. CIT (1982) 138 ITR 425 affirmed; CIT v. Amin (R.M.) (1977) 106 ITR 368 (SC) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1098 of 1982, decision dated: 4-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND K. T. THOMAS, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "(Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order, dated August 6, 1981 of the Gujarat High Court in I.T.R. No. 68 of 1976)\nS. Ganesh and Mrs. A.K. Verma Advocates for J.B.D. & Co., Advocates for Appellant. S. Rajappa and B. K. Prasad, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KARTIKEYA V. SARABHAI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 213 = 1998 SLD 213 = 1998 PTD 1537 = (1997) 228 ITR 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Income-Tax—Export Markets Development Allowance—Burden of Proof\n•\nDetailed Issue: The eligibility criteria and burden of proof for claiming weighted deductions under Section 35-B(1)(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, were analyzed.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nIt is the responsibility of the assessee to establish that the claimed expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes enumerated under the specific sub-clauses of Section 35-B(1)(b).\n2.\nExpenditures not fitting these categories, such as local customs duties or commissions paid to domestic intermediaries, cannot qualify for weighted deductions.\nTopic 2: Income-Tax—Tribunal Jurisdiction on Claims Not Raised Earlier\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether the Appellate Tribunal can allow claims for weighted deductions not raised before the Income Tax Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal cannot entertain or allow such claims unless they are substantiated with facts and evidence presented at earlier stages of proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 35-B & 254.\n•\nCase laws: CIT (Addl.) v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. National Palayacot Co. (1997) 228 ITR 476 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1275 of 1997 with Nos.3280 of 1995, 1465 and 1466 of 1981, 1624, 1625 of 1988, 2365, 9105 of 1994, 2324 to 2326, 3200, 3201, 3975, 4106, 6411, 6715, 6941, 8044, 8045, 8482, 8790 and 9835 of 1995 and 2293 of 1996, decision dated: 27-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L.V. Iyer and G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocates (Ms. Ranu George, B.K. Prasad, H.K. Purr, Rajesh Srivastva, Ujjwal Banerjee, Vineet Kumar, Ms. Janaki Ramachandran, S. Ganesh, K.J. John, Ms. Manju Mishra, B. Kanta Rao, K. Janjani and K.L. Janani, Advocates with them) for the Appearing Parties", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSTEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 214 = 1998 SLD 214 = 1998 PTD 1549 = (1997) 225 ITR 879 = (1998) 77 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Income-Tax—Income Classification—Capital vs. Revenue Receipts\n•\nDetailed Issue: Determination of whether compensation received for government acquisition of land used in a business constitutes a capital or revenue receipt.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nLand acquired by the government for public purposes, such as railway siding construction, is a capital asset.\n2.\nCompensation received for the acquisition of such land represents a capital receipt and cannot be treated as a trading receipt.\nTopic 2: Income-Tax—Accrual of Interest on Delayed Compensation\n•\nDetailed Issue: Tax treatment of interest received for delays in compensation payments under the mercantile system of accounting.\n•\nConclusion: Interest accrues year-by-year and should be taxed in the specific assessment year to which it pertains, irrespective of when the actual payment is made.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Vazir Sultan & Sons (1959) 36 ITR 175 (SC) applied.\n•\nCIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Golden Horse Shoe (New) Ltd. v. Thurgood (1933) 18 TC 280 (CA) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.84 of 1990, decision dated: 3rd December, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMOTILAL CHHADAMI LAIL JAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 215 = 1998 SLD 215 = 1998 PTD 1552 = (1997) 225 ITR 106 = (1998) 77 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Income-Tax—Assessment of Deceased Persons\n•\nDetailed Issue: Validity of assessments made after the death of an assessee without proper identification and notice to the legal heirs.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nIf the Income Tax Officer fails to identify and serve notices to the legal heirs, any assessment made is invalid.\n2.\nSubsequent rectification under Section 154 cannot validate such an assessment, as it does not correct the foundational defect of lack of jurisdiction.\nTopic 2: Income-Tax—Rectification of Orders under Section 154\n•\nConclusion: Rectification cannot be used to cure substantive defects or transform an invalid order into a valid one.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 154 & 256(2).\n•\nJai Prakash Singh v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gauhati).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 137 of 1989, decision dated: 27-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nFATELAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 216 = 1998 SLD 216 = 1998 PTD 1555 = (1997) 224 ITR 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Salary—Perquisites—Interest Subsidy on Loans for Housing Construction\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether interest subsidies provided to employees for loans taken for house construction are taxable as perquisites under Section 17(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nInterest subsidies for loans taken for building houses are not considered taxable perquisites following the deletion of Section 17(2)(vi) by the Finance Act, 1985.\n2.\nThe Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 421, dated June 12, 1985, further clarifies that such subsidies are exempt, reinforcing relief for salaried taxpayers.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 17.\n•\nCBDT Circular No. 421, dated June 12, 1985.\n•\nCIT v. M.K. Vaidya (1997) 224 ITR 186 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8726 of 1993, decision dated: 13-01-1994", + "Judge Name:": " S. B. MAJMUDAR, C, J. AND K. B. NAVADGI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. B. Guttal for Petitioner. S. V. Seshachala for H. L. Dattu for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "P. KRISHNA MURTHY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 217 = 1998 SLD 217 = 1998 PTD 1558 = (1997) 224 ITR 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Salary—Perquisites—Interest-Free or Concessional Loans\n•\nDetailed Issue: Taxability of interest-free loans or loans at concessional rates provided by employers for house construction as perquisites under Section 17(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nInterest-free loans or concessional-rate loans granted for house-building purposes are not taxable as perquisites due to the deletion of Section 17(2)(vi) by the Finance Act, 1985.\n2.\nThe CBDT’s Circular No. 421 supports this interpretation, offering relief to salaried taxpayers and aligning with the legislative intent to exempt such benefits.\nAdditional Insight: Legislative history and CBDT circulars can be used as interpretive aids, emphasizing that fiscal provisions must favor taxpayers when two reasonable interpretations exist.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 17(2).\n•\nRelevant cases: CIT v. Lakshmi (A.K.) (Late) (1978) 173 ITR 368 (Mad.); CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988) 173 ITR 290 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. C. Nos. 161 and 162 of 1987, decision dated: 11-06-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Raghavandra Rao and M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. G. Sarangan for King and Patridge for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM.K. VAIDYA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 218 = 1998 SLD 218 = 1998 PTD 1574 = (1997) 224 ITR 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 3308\nTopic: Income-Tax—Capital Gains—Transfer of Assets by Partner\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether sums received by a partner upon retirement or dissolution of a firm are taxable as capital gains under Section 45 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nAmounts received by a partner during retirement or dissolution represent the realization of their pre-existing right in the firm and do not involve the transfer of a capital asset.\n2.\nHence, such receipts are not chargeable to capital gains tax.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 45.\n•\nCIT v. Balvantrai Vithaldas Shah (1992) 196 ITR 379 (Guj.); Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC); Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.256 of 1983, decision dated: 27-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore for Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. J.P. Shah for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nANANT NARHAR NIMKAR (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 219 = 1998 SLD 219 = 1998 PTD 1579 = (1997) 224 ITR 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Special Deduction—Cooperative Societies\n•\nDetailed Issue: Applicability of deductions under Section 80-P(2) for interest on securities, subsidies from the government, and dividends received by cooperative societies.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nCooperative societies are entitled to deductions under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) for interest on securities and subsidies received from the government.\n2.\nDividends received on shares are also deductible under Section 80-P(2)(c) if the total income does not exceed the prescribed threshold.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80-P(2).\n•\nCIT v. Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1984) 148 ITR 196 (Mad.); CIT v. Ramanathapuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1997) 224 ITR 226 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1153 and 1154 of 1982 (References Nos.708 and 709 of 1982), decision dated: 10-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Venkatraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 220 = 1998 SLD 220 = 1998 PTD 1581 = (1997) 224 ITR 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Business Expenditure—Deduction on Actual Payment Basis (Section 43-B)\n•\nDetailed Issue: Scope of Section 43-B, which mandates deductions only on actual payments for certain liabilities, including sales tax.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nSection 43-B overrides the mercantile system of accounting, requiring actual payment for deductions related to specified liabilities.\n2.\nThe proviso added from April 1, 1988, allows deductions if payments are made before the due date of filing the return.\n3.\nThe matter of whether payment qualifies under this proviso was remanded for further examination by the Tribunal.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 43-B.\n•\nRelevant cases: Chief Commissioner (Administration) v. Sanjay Sales Syndicate (1992) 197 ITR 255 (Kar.); CIT v. Chandulal Venichand (1994) 209 ITR 7 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.23 of 1992, decision dated: 8-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Premjit Nagendran, K.V. Narayanan end Sathish Moorthy for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DAMODAR ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 221 = 1998 SLD 221 = 1998 PTD 1585 = (1997) 224 ITR 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Revision of Orders—Jurisdiction Post Rectification\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether the Commissioner can revise an original assessment order after it has been rectified under Section 154.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nOnce an order is rectified under Section 154, the original order ceases to exist.\n2.\nRevision of such an order under Section 263 is invalid. Subsequent cancellation of the rectification order does not revive the original order for revision purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 154 & 263.\n•\nCommissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case.No.43 of 1989, decision dated: 19-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.M. Chaphekar with Subhash Samvatsar for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CHUNNILAL ONKARMAL (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 222 = 1998 SLD 222 = 1998 PTD 1589 = (1997) 227 ITR 656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Income-Tax—Transfer of Assets to Trusts for Minors\n•\nDetailed Issue: Taxability of income and assets transferred to trusts created for the deferred benefit of minor grandchildren under Section 64(1)(vi).\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nIncome from trusts is not includible in the total income of the transferor if no income accrues to minors in the relevant assessment year.\n2.\nThe corpus of the trusts is excluded from the transferor's net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 64(1)(vi) & 161.\n•\nIndian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Section 21.\n•\nCIT v. Abhijit Sen (1968) 68 ITR 23 (Cal.); CIT v. Doshi (M.R.) (1995) 211 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.823 and 824 of 1984 (References Nos.738 and 739 of 1984), decision dated: 1st July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K-A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. N. MUTHAMMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 223 = 1998 SLD 223 = 1998 PTD 1612 = (1997) 228 ITR 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Export Markets Development Allowance—Insurance Business\n•\nDetailed Issue: Applicability of Section 35-B to insurance businesses and expenditures such as commissions or contributions to export bodies.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nSection 35-B does not apply to insurance businesses, as profits and gains are computed per the First Schedule of the Act under Section 44.\n2.\nCertain expenditures like staff bonuses, directors’ remuneration, and general contributions are not eligible for weighted deductions.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 35-B, 44, & 154.\n•\nUnited India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 638 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.7665 of 1996 with C.As. Nos. 7666, 7667, 7965 of 1996, 1494-96 of 1988, 5567 of 1990, 5755 of 1995, 4043 of 1984, 7763 of 1995, 7045 of 1995, 12419 of 1996, 5620-21 of 1995, 6942 of 1995, 387 of 1985, 786-88, 7847, 2230-31 and 3120 of 1995 with C.As. Nos.6085, 6087 M of 1997, 6086, 6", + "Judge Name:": " SUTHAS C. SEN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. L. V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Ms. Renu George, S. Rajappa, C. Radha Krishna, Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Ms. Meenakshi Arora and A.T.M. Sampath, Advocates, with him), for the appellant in C.As. Nos.4671 of 1988, 4043 of 1984, 5755 of 1995, 5620-21 of 1995 and 2230-31 of 1995.Uma Datta and B. Kanta Rao, Advocates for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHERO CYCLES (PVT.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 224 = 1998 SLD 224 = 1998 PTD 1624 = (1997) 224 ITR 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Special Deduction—Cooperative Societies—Interest and Dividends\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether interest, subsidies, and dividends received by cooperative societies qualify for deductions under Section 80-P.\n•\nConclusion: Cooperative societies are entitled to deductions under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) for interest on securities, subsidies, and Section 80-P(2)(c) for dividends.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80-P.\n•\nCIT v. Ramanathapuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1997) 224 ITR 226 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.47 and Reference No. 15 of 1984, decision dated: 12-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND BALASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMADURAI DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 225 = 1998 SLD 225 = 1998 PTD 1626 = (1997) 224 ITR 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Depreciation—Actual Cost—Capital Subsidy\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether capital subsidy received from the government should be deducted from the value of assets while determining their actual cost for depreciation purposes.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nCapital subsidy received by an assessee is not to be deducted from the asset’s cost for calculating depreciation.\n2.\nThe subsidy is intended to support asset acquisition and does not reduce the actual cost of the asset itself.\n3.\nSince this issue involves a clear interpretation, no substantial question of law arises for reference.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 32, 43(1), & 256(2).\n•\nCIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC); CIT v. Janak Steel Tubes (Pvt.) Ltd. (1989) 179 ITR 536 (P & H); CIT v. Jindal Brothers Rice Mills (1989) 179 ITR 470 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.37 of 1989, decision dated: 10-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " G. S. SINGHVI AND B. RAJ, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Mahajan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHARYANA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 226 = 1998 SLD 226 = 1998 PTD 1628 = (1997) 224 ITR 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Income-Tax—Firm Registration—Law Applicable\n•\nDetailed Issue: Applicability of procedural laws for the registration of a firm when the application was filed under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, but the assessment was conducted under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nRegistration of a firm is considered part of the assessment process. Hence, the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, apply.\n2.\nThe Tribunal correctly directed the Income Tax Officer to consider the application under the provisions of the new Act.\nTopic 2: Genuineness of Firm After Partner's Death\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether a partnership can remain valid when surviving partners carry on the business and agree to pay a share of profits to the deceased partner’s estate.\n•\nConclusion: The partnership is genuine if the arrangement complies with Section 37 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which allows the estate of a deceased partner to receive a share of profits from the use of the deceased’s capital.\nTopic 3: Deductibility of Payments to Legal Representatives\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether payments made to the estate of a deceased partner are deductible as business expenditure.\n•\nConclusion: Payments made to the legal representative of a deceased partner as part of a valid arrangement under the partnership deed are deductible, as they represent an obligation incurred for business purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 184, 185, 246, & 297.\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 26-A.\n•\nIndian Partnership Act, 1932, Section 37.\n•\nUdhavji Anandji Ladha v. Bapudas Ramdas Darbar AIR 1950 Bom. 94.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Civil Income-tax Reference No.l of 1975, decision dated: 22-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. S. Bapna for the Commissioner. J.K. Singhi for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHASSAN CHAND & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 227 = 1998 SLD 227 = 1998 PTD 2241 = (1997) 224 ITR 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Offenses and Prosecution—Wilful Attempt to Evade Tax\n•\nDetailed Issue: The validity of granting probation to a company, its Managing Director, and its Accountant convicted under Section 276-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, for willful attempts to evade tax.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nSection 292-A of the Indian Income Tax Act permits probation only for minors.\n2.\nThe Magistrate’s order granting probation to the company and its officers was invalid. The case was remanded for sentencing in accordance with the law.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 276-B & 292-A.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Revisions Nos.391 to 396 of 1987, decision dated: 18-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. S. SUDHALKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Mahavir Ahlawat for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nVs\nMIDDLEX ENGINEERING CO. (P.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 228 = 1998 SLD 228 = 1998 PTD 1648 = (1997) 224 ITR 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Business Expenditure—Investment Deposit\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether interest and dividends earned by a company engaged in tea manufacture and sale should be included in its income for calculating deductions under Section 32-AB of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nFor claiming deductions under Section 32-AB, the income must fall under the head Profits and gains of business or profession. \n2.\nSince interest and dividends are not classified as income under this head, they are excluded from the calculation of deductions.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 32-AB.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.25 of 1995, decision dated: 6-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUGH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. R.K. Joshi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDINJOYE TEA ESTATE (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 229 = 1998 SLD 229 = 1998 PTD 1651 = (1997) 224 ITR 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Firm Assessment—Change in Constitution or Succession\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether the income of a firm for periods before and after a partner's death could be combined when the partnership deed did not explicitly provide for continuity despite a partner's death.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nIn the absence of a clause ensuring the firm's continuation despite the death of a partner, the partnership is deemed dissolved.\n2.\nUnder Section 188, this dissolution results in two distinct periods, requiring separate assessments for income before and after the partner's death.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 188.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R. A. No.264 of 1980 in I.T.A. No.1004 of 1978-79, decision dated: 11-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND B.K. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Kumar for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS.G. TEJA SHAH CHIRANJIT LAL & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 230 = 1998 SLD 230 = 1998 PTD 1653 = (1997) 224 ITR 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Firm Registration—Minor Becoming Partner Upon Majority\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether the endorsement by a minor, electing to become a partner upon reaching majority, constitutes a fresh partnership for registration purposes.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nWhen a minor elects to become a partner within six months of attaining majority and endorses this decision in the partnership deed, it constitutes the creation of a new partnership.\n2.\nThe firm must apply for fresh registration under Section 185, rather than seeking continuation under Section 184(7).\n3.\nThe Tribunal’s directive to allow rectification of Form No. 11 for fresh registration was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 185 & 184(7).\n•\nIndian Partnership Act, 1932, Section 30.\n•\nRelevant cases: CIT v. Durgaprasad Rajaram Adatiya (1984) 146 ITR 580 (MP); CIT v. Ghanshyam General Stores (1984) 147 ITR 110 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.333 of 1992, decision dated: 23rd April, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDURGA PRASAD RAJARAM ADATIYA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 231 = 1998 SLD 231 = 1998 PTD 1657 = (1997) 224 ITR 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Income-Tax—Export Markets Development Allowance—Weighted Deduction\n•\nDetailed Issue: Eligibility of various export-related expenditures for weighted deductions under Section 35-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nExport inspection agency fees qualify as they involve furnishing technical information necessary for export.\n2.\nPremium paid to the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) for insuring against buyer default is eligible for deduction.\n3.\nInterest on export pre-shipment advances is not eligible for weighted deduction.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 35-B(1)(b).\n•\nUnion Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 558 (Cal.); CIT v. Alleppey Co. Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 598 (Ker.); Lucas TVS Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 382 (Mad.).\nTopic 2: Business Expenditure—Registration Fees for Increasing Capital\n•\nConclusion: Registration fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increasing capital is deductible as revenue expenditure.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Kishenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 385 (Mad.).\nTopic 3: Business Expenditure—Surtax Payments\n•\nConclusion: Surtax payments are not deductible in income-tax assessments.\n•\nCitations: Sundaram Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 646 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. Nos. 1137 to 1139 of 1982 (References Nas.692 to 694 of 1982), decision dated: 12-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. S.V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "LUCAS T.V.S. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 232 = 1998 SLD 232 = 1998 PTD 1665 = (1997) 224 ITR 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Capital or Revenue Expenditure—Fees for Issuing Rights Shares\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether fees paid to share registrars and solicitors for issuing rights shares constitute revenue or capital expenditure.\n•\nConclusion: Such fees are deductible as revenue expenditure because they are administrative expenses incurred for raising capital, not for acquiring new assets.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 37.\n•\nCIT v. Kishenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 385 (Mad.); Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 282 (Mad.); Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.216 of 1981 (Reference No.68 of 1981), decision dated: 30-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uttam Reddy for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ENGLISH ELECTRIC CO. OF INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 233 = 1998 SLD 233 = 1998 PTD 1668 = (1997) 224 ITR 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nDetailed Issue: Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income by the assessee.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nPenalty cannot be imposed if the claim is not proven to be false but merely disallowed.\n2.\nFindings on concealment are factual and do not raise a legal question for reference to the High Court.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 256 & 271(1)(c).\n•\nCIT v. Sethi Textiles (1992) 198 ITR 222 (MP); CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 135 of 1987 and 96 of 1988, decision dated: 24-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " A.S. TRIPATHI AND SHACHEENDRA DWIVEDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.N. Gupta for the Assessee. R.D. Jain for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SHIV NARAYAN SHIVHARE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 234 = 1998 SLD 234 = 1998 PTD 1675 = (1997) 224 ITR 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Income from Business or Other Sources—Real Estate Commission\n•\nDetailed Issue: Classification of commission received from real estate transactions as business income or income from other sources.\n•\nConclusion: Commission received from real estate transactions qualifies as business income since it arises from a regular trade or occupation.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 2(13).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.23 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. Mrs. M. Hazarika for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASSAM HARD BOARD LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 235 = 1998 SLD 235 = 1998 PTD 1677 = (1997) 224 ITR 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Depreciation—Higher Rate for Machinery\n•\nDetailed Issue: Eligibility for higher depreciation rates for machinery coming into contact with corrosive chemicals.\n•\nConclusion: Machinery in the sugar industry does not qualify for higher depreciation (15%) unless it comes into contact with recognized corrosive chemicals, which do not include iron, lead, or copper.\nTopic 2: Disallowance of Medical Expenses Paid to Managing Director\n•\nDetailed Issue: Tax treatment of monthly medical expenses paid to a Managing Director.\n•\nConclusion: Such payments are perquisites under Section 17(2) and are liable for disallowance under Section 40-A(5).\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 17(2), 32, & 40-A(5).\n•\nGwalior Sugar Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 415 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.252 of 1985, decision dated: 20-03-1995", + "Judge Name:": " S.K. DUBEY AND TEJ SHANKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jain for the Commissioner. Arun Mishra for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 236 = 1998 SLD 236 = 1998 PTD 1681 = (1997) 224 ITR 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Undisclosed Sources—Loan Pledge and Stock Deficiency\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether a shortfall in pledged stock indicates the existence of undisclosed income or stock.\n•\nConclusion: No addition on account of undisclosed stock is justified when the assessee provides sufficient evidence of disclosed stocks and proper documentation for pledged goods.\nCitations:\n•\nDhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.248 of 1983, decision dated: 28-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " R.K. ABICHANDANI AND R. BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.C. Patel for the Assessee. Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "P. MILAN TRADING CORPORATION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 237 = 1998 SLD 237 = 1998 PTD 1718 = (1997) 228 ITR 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Revenue or Capital Receipt—Subsidies Received from Government\n•\nDetailed Issue: Classification of subsidies as revenue or capital receipts.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nSubsidies granted after production begins are operational subsidies and are treated as revenue receipts.\n2.\nSuch subsidies are not tied to capital asset creation but are aimed at aiding business operations.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nCIT v. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (1985) 152 ITR 39; CIT v. Dusad Industries (1986) 162 ITR 784 (MP) overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2193 of 1985 with C.As. Nos. 10091 of 1995, 5279 of 1996, 2008 of 1988, 425 of 1985 and 1964-65 of 1997, decision dated: 19-09-1997.19", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S. Ganesh and Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocates for M/s. JBD & Co., A.V. Rangam, A. Ranganadhan, G. Gopalakrishnan Buddy A. Ranganadhan, S. Rajappa and Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar (Arvind Kumar), Advocate for Mrs. M. Karanjawala, Advocates with him) for the Appearing Parties.", + "Party Name:": "SAHNEY STEEL PRESS WORKS LTD. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 238 = 1998 SLD 238 = 1998 PTD 1755 = (1997) 228 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Capital Gains—Depreciable Assets—Computation of Cost of Acquisition\n•\nDetailed Issue: Whether a fair market value as of January 1, 1954, can be substituted for cost of acquisition for depreciable assets.\n•\nConclusion: Depreciable assets must follow the adjusted written-down value method under Section 50, which excludes the option to substitute fair market value.\nTopic 2: Business Expenditure—Employee Perquisites in Cash\n•\nConclusion: Payments in cash are not covered by Section 40(a)(v) and cannot be disallowed under this provision.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 32, 45, 48, 49, 50, & 55.\n•\nCIT v. Upper Doab Sugar Mills (1979) 116 ITR 240 (All.); Goculdas Dossa & Co. v. J.P. Shah (1995) 211 ITR 706 (Bom.) overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals (N.T.) Nos. 2978 and 2979 of 1982, decision dated: 30-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (S. Prasad and S. Balakrishnan, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Dr. V. Gourishankar, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad, S. Rajappa and C. Radhakrishna, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMONWEALTH TRUST LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 239 = 1998 SLD 239 = 1998 PTD 1772 = (1997) 224 ITR 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Business Expenditure—Interest Payments on Deposits\n•\nIssue: Whether interest paid to directors and shareholders on their current accounts qualifies as deposits under Section 40-A(8).\n•\nConclusion: Interest paid on running current accounts of directors and shareholders does not amount to deposits under Section 40-A(8), and thus, such disallowance is unwarranted.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC)\no\nCIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy & Sons (1971) 79 ITR 499 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.76 of 1989, decision dated: 19-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. S.C Bagadiya for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKALANI ASBESTOS CEMENT (PVT) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 240 = 1998 SLD 240 = 1998 PTD 1776 = (1997) 224 ITR 378 = (1993) 67 TAX 353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Capital Gains—Short-Term vs. Long-Term Assets\n•\nIssue: Determining whether an asset is short-term or long-term at the time of transfer.\n•\nConclusion: The classification of capital assets (short-term or long-term) must align with the law as of the date of transfer. Liability for tax is based on the event's occurrence and not subsequent amendments unless explicitly stated by the statute.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Laxman Singh (1986) 159 ITR 983 (Raj.).\no\nCIT v. Isthmian Steamship Lines (1951) 20 ITR 572 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.252 of 1982, decision dated: 14-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " RAJESH BALIA AND S. K KESHOTE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore for R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner. N.R. Divetia for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNIRMAL TEXTILES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 241 = 1998 SLD 241 = 1998 PTD 1787 = (1997) 224 ITR 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Assessment of Association of Persons (AOP)\n•\nIssue: Can two individuals sharing lottery winnings be classified as an AOP?\n•\nConclusion: A casual agreement to share prize money from a lottery ticket does not constitute an AOP as it lacks consensus to form a partnership for income generation.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Friends Enterprises (1988) 171 ITR 269 (AP).\no\nCIT v. Indira Balkrishna (1960) 39 ITR 546 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.49 and Reference No. 15 of 1983, decision dated: 5-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND, JAYARAMA CHOUTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. K. Vaitheeswaran for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani for the Assessees\nA. R. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Ali, Advocate-on-Record.\nPervaiz Akhtar Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate on-Record No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nO.K. ARUMUGHAM CHETTIAR and another\nMUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN\nvs\nNOOR MUHAMMAD ETC." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 242 = 1998 SLD 242 = 1998 PTD 1794 = (1997) 224 ITR 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Reassessment of Charitable Trust Exemption\n•\nIssue: Withdrawal of exemption for a charitable trust due to prohibited investments under Section 13.\n•\nConclusion: Reassessment under Section 147(b) was valid. Contributions to a partnership firm by the trust constituted investments, breaching Section 13 conditions, and disqualified the trust from exemption under Section 11.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Chandrika Educational Trust (1997) 224 ITR 449 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.R. No 164 of 1985, decision dated: 29-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND K. NARAYANA KURUP, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SREENARAYANA CHANDRIKA TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (N0.1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 243 = 1998 SLD 243 = 1998 PTD 1798 = (1997) 224 ITR 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Charitable Trusts—Exemption Withdrawal\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 11 exemption when trust funds remain with firms connected to trustees.\n•\nConclusion: Trust income not applied for charitable purposes is ineligible for Section 11 benefits. Funds with connected firms breached Section 13(1)(c). Reassessment was valid.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Chandrika Educational Trust (1994) 207 ITR 108 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos.31 of 1990 and 145 of 1994, decision dated: 4-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P. A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair, M.A. Firoze and Dale P. Kurian for the Assessee. P. K. R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CHANDRIKA EDUCATIONAL TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 244 = 1998 SLD 244 = 1998 PTD 1878 = 1999 PTCL 55 = (1998) 77 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax Ordinance—Reopening of Assessments and Bad Debt\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of reopening assessments without approval from the appropriate authority.\n2.\nTaxability of interest income and the treatment of bad debts.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nReopening without mandatory approval is invalid.\n2.\nInterest income on securities is taxable on an accrual basis.\n3.\nBad debts can be allowed when sufficient evidence satisfies Section 23(1)(x).\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (1996) 219 ITR 644 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,5(1),5(i)(c)(cc),164,17,22,23(1)(x) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=1 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 443/KB, 444/KB of 1995 96, 1226/KB of 1994 95, 1560/KB of 1996 97, 445/KB, 1286/KB, 446/KB, of 1995 96, 1561/KB to 1563/KB of 1996 97, 1040/KB of 1997 98, 3325/KB of 1993 94, 1334/KB of 1994 95, 1299/KB and 1300/KB of 1997 98, decision dated: 20-02-1998, hearing DATE : 10-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ul Haque and Tayyab G. Adeeb, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 443/KB, 444/KB of 1995 96, 1226/KB of 1994 95, 1560/KB of 1996 97, 445/KB, 1286/KB, 446/KB of 1995 96, 1561/KB to 1563/KB of 1996 97 and 1040/KB of 1997 98).\nMuhammad Majid, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 443/KB, 444/KB of 1995 96, 1226/KB of 1994 95, 1560/KB of 1996 97, 445/KB, 1286/KB, 446/KB of 1995 96, 1561/KB to 1563/KB of 1996 97 and 1040/KB of 199.7 98).\nMuhammad Majid, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.3325/KB of 1993 94, 1334/KB of 1994 95, 1299/KB and 1300/KB of 1997 98).\nSiraj ul Haque and Tayyab G. Adeeb, F.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 3325/KB of 1993 94, 1334/KB of 1994 95, 1299/KB and 1300/KB of 1997 98)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 245 = 1998 SLD 245 = 1998 PTD 1908 = (1998) 77 TAX 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Valuation of Land and Ambiguity in Tax Laws\n•\nIssue: Resolving ambiguity in fiscal laws concerning valuation of properties.\n•\nConclusion: Ambiguities in tax laws should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.\n•\nCitations: Circulars Nos. 7 & 11 of 1994 by CBR.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "W. T. A. No. 180/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 16-02-1998, hearing DATE : 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ebrahim Dahodwala, F.C.A. for Appellant. Muhammad Majid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 246 = 1998 SLD 246 = 1998 PTCL 62 = 1998 PTD 1912 = (1998) 77 TAX 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Reopening for Valuation of Property\n•\nIssue: Justification for reopening assessment based on new information.\n•\nConclusion: Reassessment under Section 65 is valid when new information, unavailable earlier, prompts reconsideration.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. Jennings Private School 1993 SCMR 96.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 818/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 26-02-1998, hearing DATE : 7-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Siraj for Appellant. Misri Ladhani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 247 = 1998 SLD 247 = 1998 PTD 1935 = 1999 PTCL 33 = (1998) 77 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductions for Gratuity and Golden Handshakes\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDeductibility of gratuity transferred to the fund.\n2.\nAllowability of golden handshake expenses.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nOnly transferred gratuity amounts are deductible.\n2.\nEntire golden handshake costs are allowable.\n3.\nMedical reimbursements and excess perquisites qualify as taxable income.\n•\nCitations: 1996 PTD (Trib.) 100.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.5977/LB and 6591/LB of 1996, decision dated: 17-02-1998, hearing DATE : 20-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 5977/LB of 1996).\nShafqat Mahmood, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 5977/LB of 1996).\nZia H. Rizvi for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 6591)\nShafqat Mahmood, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 6591/LB of 1996)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 248 = 1998 SLD 248 = 1998 PTCL 56 = 1998 PTD 1945 = (1998) 77 TAX 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Principles of Statutory Interpretation\n•\nIssue: Application of literal construction to fiscal statutes.\n•\nConclusion: Literal construction of fiscal statutes is paramount. Additional taxes must exclude periods of set-aside assessments.\n•\nCitations: M.O. Devassia & Co. v. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 525 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=89 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4643/LB of 1997, decision dated: 17-01-1998, hearing DATE : 13-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem Shah for Appellant. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 249 = 1998 SLD 249 = 1998 PTD 1944 = 1999 PTCL 89 = (1998) 77 TAX 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Rectification of Mistakes\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 156 when no original assessment order exists.\n•\nConclusion: Section 156 does not apply where there is no error in the original assessment; short tax payment can be recovered via demand notice.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2075/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 25-02-1998, hearing DATE : 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rahmat Ali Shaikh for Appellant. Amjad Jamshed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 250 = 1998 SLD 250 = 1998 PTD 1962 = (1998) 77 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation and Lease Income under Income-Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of amended depreciation provisions.\n2.\nTaxability of income from lease rentals and related fees.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nAmendments apply from the assessment year 1994-95.\n2.\nIncome from leases is distinct from unrelated income sources.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(v),12(19),134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.244/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 8-07-1997, hearing DATE : 2-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aleem for Appellant. Rahim-ud-Din Ghauri, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 251 = 1998 SLD 251 = 1998 PTCL 54 = 1998 PTD 1971 = (1998) 77 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Double Taxation Agreement with Switzerland\n•\nIssue: Concessional assessment of dividend income under the agreement.\n•\nConclusion: Entire dividend income derived from industrial undertakings qualifies for concessional tax treatment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1316/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 26-02-1998, hearing DATE : 11-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Majid, D.R. for Appellant. Shabbar Zaidi, F. C. A. for Respondent\nA. k. Brohi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, with S. M. Abbas,\nAdvocate-on-Recqrd for Appellants (in C. As. K-48, 49, 50, 53, 56, 61 and 62 of 1972).\nNasim Ahmad Farooqi, Adoveate with S. Anwar All, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C. A. K-1/1972).\nAll Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C. A. K-59/1972).\nMunir A. Shaikh, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan with Muzzaffar Hasan, Advocate-on-Record (in all Appeals).\nNemo for the Remaining Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "ZAIBTUN TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND others-RespEndEnts" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 252 = 1998 SLD 252 = 1998 PTD 1981 = (1998) 229 ITR 662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax and Priority over Debts\n•\nIssue: Priority of tax recovery over other creditor claims.\n•\nConclusion: Tax recovery applications under Section 226(4) take precedence over other claims if the Court has custody of the money.\n•\nCitations: Union of India v. Somasundaram Mills P. Ltd. (1985) 152 ITR 420 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No .1654 of 1982, decision dated: 6-05-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Markendaya for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "LAKSHMAN SWARUP OM PRAKASH\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 253 = 1998 SLD 253 = 1998 PTD 1985 = (1998) 229 ITR 534 = (2000) 81 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Business Expenditure—Fines and Penalties\n•\nIssue: Whether expenses incurred in violation of the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act are deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nConclusion: Expenditure incurred for contravening the law or evading provisions cannot be deducted as business expenditure. Allowing such deductions would undermine the penal provisions of other statutes and violate public policy.\n•\nCitations:\no\nHaji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC).\no\nIRC v. Alexander Von Glehn & Co. Ltd. (1920) 12 TC 232 (CA).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4205 of 1985, decision dated: 2-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramesh P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate (M.N. Shroff and Ms. Ragini Singh, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Ranvir Chandra, C.V.S. Rao, S.R. Tardol, Nagpal and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MADDI VENKATARAMAN & CO. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 254 = 1998 SLD 254 = 1998 PTD 2001 = (1998) 229 ITR 458 = (2000) 81 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Business Expenditure—Commission Paid to Partner\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 40(b) to commissions paid to a partner representing an HUF.\n•\nConclusion: Section 40(b) disallows deductions for payments made to partners. Partners act in their individual capacity even if they represent an HUF, and such payments cannot be claimed as business expenses.\n•\nCitations:\no\nDulichand Laxminarayan v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 535 (SC).\no\nRashiklal & Co. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 106.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4589 and 4590 of 1992, decision dated: 9-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta, Mrs. Rakhi Ray, Ms. Bina Gupta and Mrs. T. Sudha, Advocates for Appellant. B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RASHIK LAL & Co\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 255 = 1998 SLD 255 = 1998 PTD 2012 = (1999) 79 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Constitutional Petition for Exemption\n•\nIssue: Maintainability of a writ petition for refund of tax deducted on exempt securities.\n•\nConclusion: High Courts can exercise constitutional jurisdiction to determine void orders made without lawful authority. Limitations under the Income Tax Act do not apply if the assessee is not liable to pay tax.\n•\nCitations:\no\nNoor Hussain v. Estate PLD 1966 SC 88.\no\nBaradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit AIR 1972 SC 2466.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=50,48 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4135 of 1981, decision dated: 22-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Waheed for Petitioner. Zahid Pervaiz for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 256 = 1998 SLD 256 = 1998 PTCL 64 = 1998 PTD 2017 = (1998) 78 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Liability of Societies Registered under the Societies Registration Act\n•\nIssue: Whether societies qualify as companies under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nConclusion: Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act are corporate entities but not companies as per Section 2(16)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance. Tax is calculated per First Schedule, Part I, Para A.\n•\nCitations:\no\nS.M. Zakir v. CIT PLD 1976 Kar. 1022.\no\nPepper v. Hart (1992) 3 WLR 1032.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(16),2(32) & FirstSched,2(16)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1705/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 1st April, 1998, hearing DATE : 17-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Mansoor Khan for Appellant. Misri Ladhani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 257 = 1998 SLD 257 = 1998 PTCL 57 = 1998 PTD 2078 = (1998) 77 TAX 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Exemption for Industrial Undertakings\n•\nIssue: Validity of exemption under Clause 125-B of Second Schedule when conditions are unmet.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption granted erroneously can be revoked in subsequent years. Each assessment year is evaluated independently.\n•\nCitations:\no\nPLD 1990 SC 1156 = 1990 PTD 768.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,C1.125B,S.66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1482/KB, 1483/KB, 1484/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 17-03-1998, hearing DATE : 10-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ather Saeed for Appellant. Ladhani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 258 = 1998 SLD 258 = 1998 PTD 2091 = (1998) 77 TAX 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Reopening of Assessment Post Amendment\n•\nIssue: Applicability of procedural amendments to earlier approvals by I.A.C.\n•\nConclusion: Amendments in Section 65(2) cannot retroactively nullify approvals already granted.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCentral Insurance Co. v. C.B.R. 1993 SCMR 1232.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1627/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 3rd April, 1998, hearing DATE : 13-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANSOOR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan, L.A. for Appellant. I.N. Pasha and Kh. M. Iqbal, for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 259 = 1998 SLD 259 = 1998 PTD 2106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Rejection of Accounts\n•\nIssue: Validity of rejecting accounts without finding defects.\n•\nConclusion: Accounts, if audited and complete, cannot be rejected arbitrarily. Assessment must be based on facts of each year.\n•\nCitations:\no\nPLD 1992 SC 562.\no\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 860.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.7183/LB, 7184/LB of 1996, 2015/LB to 2017/LB of 1997, decision dated: 17-03-1998, hearing DATE : 7-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi and Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 1 = 1980 SLD 1 = 1980 PTD 2113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Addition of Unverified Income\n•\nIssue: Burden of proof for additions to income.\n•\nConclusion: Assessing Officer must prove that disputed income was earned in the relevant year; failure to do so invalidates the addition.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=37 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.30 of 1978-79, decision dated: 9-07-1980, hearing DATE : 2-07-1980", + "Judge Name:": " M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taj Din for Appellant. Sikandar Kaleem, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 260 = 1998 SLD 260 = 1998 PTD 2114 = (1998) 77 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdiction of Central Board of Revenue (CBR)\n•\nIssue: Whether CBR circulars can influence judicial decisions.\n•\nConclusion: CBR cannot issue circulars dictating judicial outcomes; tribunals must independently apply applicable law.\n•\nCitations: 1997 PTD 124.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,8,2(13),3 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 28003 of 1997, heard on 11-02-1998, hearing DATE : 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Hamid and Ikramul Haq for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.\nZaki-ud-Din Pal, Senior Advocate instructed by Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants.\nBashir Ahmad Ansari, .Senior Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record.", + "Party Name:": "UNION BANK LTD\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN\nIMAM AND 7 others\nvs\nSAIFUR REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 261 = 1998 SLD 261 = 1998 PTD 2118 = (1998) 229 ITR 444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deemed Dividend under Section 2(22)(e)\n•\nIssue: Taxability of loans as deemed dividends.\n•\nConclusion: Loans or advances to shareholders are deemed dividends if drawn without a credit balance, irrespective of subsequent adjustments.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. P. Sarada (1985) 154 ITR 387 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.649 (NT) of 1987, decision dated: 9-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND K. VENKATASWAMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with him) for Appellant. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (K.N. Nagpal and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Miss P. SARADA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 262 = 1998 SLD 262 = 1998 PTD 2124 = (1998) 229 ITR 399 = (2000) 81 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-Tax—Limitation for Assessment\n•\nIssue: Impact of stay orders on limitation periods for assessment.\n•\nConclusion: Stay orders toll the limitation period for assessments. Assessment proceedings include filing returns to final orders.\n•\nCitations:\no\nAuto and Metal Engineerings v. Union of India (1981) 129 ITR 482 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2739 to 2747 of 1981, decision dated: 23rd April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL, K. T. THOMAS AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Puneet Bali and J.D. Jain, Advocates for Appellants. Ranbir Chandra, B.K. Prasad, C. Radhakrishna and Anil Shrivastava, Advocates for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "AUTO AND METAL ENGINEERS and others\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 263 = 1998 SLD 263 = 1998 PTD 2130 = (1998) 229 ITR 120 = (2000) 81 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Supreme Court Practice in Tax Appeals\n•\nIssue: Necessity of including Tribunal orders and case statements in appeals.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunal orders and case statements are mandatory for appeals to the Supreme Court.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1745 of 1984, decision dated: 2-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.C. Sharma and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant. S. Ganesh and Ms. A.K. Verma, Advocates for JBD & Co. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSERCON (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 264 = 1998 SLD 264 = 1998 PTD 2135 = (1998) 229 ITR 383 = (2000) 81 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tribunal’s Jurisdiction to Admit New Grounds\n•\nIssue: Whether new legal grounds can be raised before the Tribunal.\n•\nConclusion: Tribunals can admit new grounds if they involve questions of law based on facts already on record.\n•\nCitations:\no\nJute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No.4 of 1988, decision dated: 4-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I, K. RAMASWAMY AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.P. Bhatnagar, S. Rajappa, S.R. Gera. R.C. Misra and Agarwal Mishra & Co., Advocates for Appellants. Dr. R.R. Misra, Senior Advocate (Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar and V.K. Verma, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 265 = 1996 SLD 265 = 1996 PTD 2154 = (1996) 221 ITR 738", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification under Section 154\n•\nIssue: Whether an arguable issue constitutes a mistake apparent on record.\n•\nConclusion: An arguable issue does not qualify for rectification as an apparent mistake.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 16 of 1996, decision dated: 20-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rakesh Agarwal and V.K. Pandey for Applicant. Standing Counsel for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VISHNU KUMAR BAGHEL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 266 = 1998 SLD 266 = 1998 PTD 2155 = (1996) 221 ITR 739 = (1998) 78 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Effect of High Court Decisions on Tax Authorities\n•\nIssue: Binding nature of High Court decisions on tax authorities.\n•\nConclusion: High Court decisions are binding, even if appealed. Authorities cannot disregard such decisions.\n•\nCitations:\no\nBhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 618 (SC).\no\nBaradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit AIR 1972 SC 2466.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.6546 of 1986, decision dated: 23rd March, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " C. K. THAKKAR AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.G. Shah for Petitioner. M.J. Thakore for R.P. Bhatt & Co. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "AIR-CONDITIONING SPECIALISTS (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 267 = 1998 SLD 267 = 1998 PTD 2164 = (1996) 221 ITR 753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Surtax—Computation of Capital—Debenture Redemption Reserves\n•\nIssue: Whether debenture redemption reserves qualify as capital for surtax purposes.\n•\nConclusion: Reserves that can be used by a company until the redemption date qualify as capital for surtax purposes.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Elgin Mills Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 733 (SC).\no\nVazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.420 (Reference No.202 of 1983), decision dated: 21st December, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND, JAYARAMA CHOUTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLAKSHMI MILLS COMPANY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 268 = 1998 SLD 268 = 1998 PTD 2171 = (1996) 221 ITR 778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Insurance Business—Computation of Income—Special Provisions\n•\nIssue: Whether interest on sticky advances credited to the suspense account is assessable as income under Section 44.\n•\nConclusion: Section 44, a non obstante provision, governs the computation of income for insurance companies. Interest on sticky advances kept in suspense accounts is not assessable as income unless realized.\n•\nCitations:\no\nState Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 distinguished.\no\nLife Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 773 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.80 of 1992, decision dated: 21st April, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " K. C. AGARWAL, C.J. AND MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.C. Moitra and S. Gooptu for the Commissioner. Sukumar Bhattacharya and R.N. Saha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 269 = 1998 SLD 269 = 1998 PTD 2179 = (1996) 221 ITR 787", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Chit Funds—Appeal and Rectification of Mistakes\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 254(2) for rectification when Tribunal disallowed losses on mutuality grounds.\n•\nConclusion: If no reference application was filed against the Tribunal's order, it cannot be challenged later under rectification provisions.\n•\nCitations:\no\nSoda Silicate and Chemical Works v. CIT (1989) 179 ITR 588 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 35 of 1992, decision dated: 31st August, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND D.K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.N. Sawhney for Appellant. B. Gupta and R.K. Chaufla for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUTHOOT M. GEORGE CHITS (INDIA) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 270 = 1998 SLD 270 = 1998 PTD 2183 = (1996) 221 ITR 791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Delay in Filing Returns—Levy and Waiver of Interest\n•\nIssue 1: Is notice required before levying interest for delayed returns under Section 139(8)?\n•\nConclusion: No notice is required.\n•\nIssue 2: Can appellate authorities waive interest if there is sufficient cause for delay?\n•\nConclusion: Yes, appellate authorities can waive interest based on findings of fact.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 13 of 1986, decision dated: 25-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, C.J. AND S, J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. L.N. Rastogi, Senior Advocate, Sanjeet Kumar, A.K. Rastogi and Sandeep Kumar for the Assessee\nBashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record.\nKh. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record (absent).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRABHAT ZARDA FACTORY\nHaji MUHAMMAD RA MZAN SAIFI\nvs\nMian ABDUL MAJID AND others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 271 = 1998 SLD 271 = 1998 PTD 2188 = (1996) 221 ITR 797 = (2000) 82 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Accrual of Income—Cold Storage Charges\n•\nIssue: Assessability of excess collections kept in a bank under a court order.\n•\nConclusion: Excess charges accrued to the assessee under the mercantile system and are assessable as income, especially when the court ultimately ruled in the assessee’s favor.\n•\nCitations:\no\nNonsuch Tea Estate Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 189 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.20 of 1981, decision dated: 18-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goel for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANGAT RAM HAZARI LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 272 = 1998 SLD 272 = 1998 PTD 2193 = (1996) 221 ITR 802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains—Compulsory Acquisition\n•\nIssue: Determining the year of assessability for capital gains from land acquired compulsorily.\n•\nConclusion: The date of actual possession is decisive. Capital gains were assessable in the year possession was handed over.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.468 of 1989, decision dated: 14-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S.K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Adhikari for the Commissioner. H.S. Shrivastava for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUBODH KUMAR JAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 273 = 1998 SLD 273 = 1998 PTD 2196 = (1996) 221 ITR 805", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Delayed Filing of Wealth Tax Returns\n•\nIssue: Whether the absence of contumacious conduct by the assessee negates the penalty.\n•\nConclusion: The assessee must plead and prove reasonable cause for delay; failure to do so justifies the penalty.\n•\nCitations:\no\nGujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 455 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=18(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1134, 1135 (References Nos.689 and 690 of 1982), decision dated: 10-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER F WEALTH TAX\nVs\nP. NAINAKHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 274 = 1998 SLD 274 = 1998 PTD 2199 = (1996) 221 ITR 809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Transfer of Case—Stock Broker Cases\n•\nIssue: Validity of transferring a case to centralize stockbroker cases.\n•\nConclusion: The transfer was valid, as the notice to the assessee provided a valid reason for centralization.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.59 of 1994, decision dated: 20-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rakesh Agarwal for Petitioner. Standing Counsel for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MADHAV SHARAN AGRAWAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 275 = 1998 SLD 275 = 1998 PTD 2201 = (1996) 221 ITR 810", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains—Tenancy Rights\n•\nIssue: Whether payments for formalizing tenancy rights constitute acquisition costs.\n•\nConclusion: No cost was incurred to acquire tenancy rights in 1952, and expenditures made decades later do not qualify as acquisition costs. No capital gains tax was applicable.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 161 of 1991, decision dated: 28-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " K. C. AGARWAL, C, J. AND MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Mitra and Md. Nizzam-ud-Din for the Commissioner. Sukumar Bhattacharjee and R.N. Saha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nOCTAVIOUS STEEL & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 276 = 1998 SLD 276 = 1998 PTD 2207 = (1996) 221 ITR 836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Family Settlement in Muslim Law\n•\nIssue: Validity of a family settlement where a Muslim woman gave up part of her land to children.\n•\nConclusion: A valid family settlement requires an existing or anticipated dispute. As no such dispute existed, the settlement was invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.43 of 1990, decision dated: 7-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N. BARUAH AND S.B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U.Bhuyan for the Commissioner. B. Malakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMrs. BIBIJAN BEGUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 277 = 1998 SLD 277 = 1998 PTD 2213 = (1996) 221 ITR 849", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nIssue: Whether revised returns before assessment negate concealment penalties.\n•\nConclusion: Filing revised returns before assessment indicates no deliberate concealment; penalties were unwarranted.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Balakrishna Textiles (1992) 193 ITR 361 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1176 (Reference No.379 of 1980), decision dated: 10th January 1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramnian for the Commissioner. K. S. Sivaraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJ.V. APPADURAI CHETTIAR CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 278 = 1998 SLD 278 = 1998 PTD 2220 = (1996) 221 ITR 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation—Passive User of Plant and Machinery\n•\nIssue: Whether passive user qualifies for depreciation.\n•\nConclusion: Used includes both active and passive use, and depreciation is allowable.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCapital Bus Service (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 404 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=32(l) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 13 of 1991, decision dated: 17-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. Dr. A.K. Saraf. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIA TEA AND TIMBER TRADING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 279 = 1998 SLD 279 = 1998 PTD 2224 = (1996) 221 ITR 861", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision by CIT—Depreciation on Exchange Fluctuations\n•\nIssue: Can the CIT revise an assessment following High Court precedent?\n•\nConclusion: The CIT cannot ignore binding High Court decisions.\n•\nCitations:\no\nNew India Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 933 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 1191 of 1995, decision dated: 27-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.C. PATEL AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner. Mihir Thakore, Senior Advocate for M.R. Bhatt of R.P. Bhatt & Co. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 280 = 1998 SLD 280 = 1998 PTD 2231 = (1996) 221 ITR 868", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax—Claim on Attached Property\n•\nIssue: Validity of claims by heirs on attached property during recovery proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: A portion of sale proceeds must be set aside until the heir’s claim is resolved.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.3452 of 1996-J, decision dated: 27-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N. DHINAKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.P. Sukumar for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon for Respondent\nMuhammad Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record. S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.", + "Party Name:": "ELIZABETH VARGHESE\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER (IncomE tax) and another\nAHMAD KHAN\nvs\nKARAM ELAHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 281 = 1998 SLD 281 = 1998 PTD 2233 = (1996) 221 ITR 877", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty Jurisdiction under Section 271(1)(c)\n•\nIssue: Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner post-1976.\n•\nConclusion: The matter was remanded for reconsideration following the Supreme Court's ruling.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 98 of 1980, decision dated: 2-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK.K. AGARWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 282 = 1998 SLD 282 = 1998 PTD 2234 = (1996) 221 ITR 878", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Firm Registration—Genuineness\n•\nIssue: Whether a firm failing to produce partners can retain registration.\n•\nConclusion: Non-production of partners justified cancellation of registration.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.29 of 1990, decision dated: 18-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N. BARUAH AND S. BARMAN ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf and K.K. Gupta for the Assessee. U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "FRONTIER CONSTRUCTION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 283 = 1998 SLD 283 = 1998 PTD 2238 = (1996) 221 ITR 882", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Scientific Research—Deduction for Micro-Propagation\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of scientific research expenses related to the business.\n•\nConclusion: Research expenses related to existing business are deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.536 of 1996-S, decision dated: 25-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. C.N. Ramachandran Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA.V. THOMAS & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 284 = 1998 SLD 284 = 1998 PTD 2244 = (1996) 221 ITR 888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Total Income—Inclusion of Spouse’s Contribution\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 64 regarding spousal contributions to property purchases.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal directed further examination; no legal question arose.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 149 to 154, 156 and 157 of 1989, decision dated: 14-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Bagdiya for the Assessee. D.D Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Smt. REKHA DEVI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 285 = 1998 SLD 285 = 1998 PTD 2247 = (1997) 224 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Limitation on Recovery of Tax and Interest\n•\nIssue: Whether recovery of tax and interest for failure to deduct tax is time-barred.\n•\nConclusion: Once recovery of tax is time-barred, interest has no separate existence and cannot be recovered.\n•\nCitations:\no\nTraco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 278 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 10 of 1992, decision dated: 29-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C.N. Ramachandran Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 286 = 1998 SLD 286 = 1998 PTD 2254 = (1997) 224 ITR 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income—Benefit Received by Directors\n•\nIssue: Assessability of the difference between the market value and purchase price of vehicles sold by a company to its director and a person with substantial interest in the company.\n•\nConclusion: The difference constituted a taxable benefit under Section 2(24)(iv). The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition was reversed, as the benefit fell within the scope of taxable income, irrespective of whether the director was an employee or the benefit was capital in nature.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Kulandaivelu Konar (1975) 100 ITR 629 (Mad.)\no\nCIT v. Krishnaram Baldeo Bank (P.) Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 600 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1258 and 1959 (References Nos.758 and 759 of 1982), decision dated: 5-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. V. Ramakrishnan for N.C. Ananthachari for the Assessees", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS. VARADARAJAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 287 = 1998 SLD 287 = 1998 PTD 2270 = (1997) 224 ITR 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty—Concealment of Income\n•\nIssue: Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is justified when the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income due to disallowed expenditure.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty was not warranted as the difference arose from disallowance of expenditure rather than deliberate concealment.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Nathulal Agrawala & Sons (1985) 153 ITR 292 (Pat.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 11 of .1986, decision dated: 24-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. P. WADHWA, C, J. AND S, J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOURI SHANKAR SURESH PRASAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 288 = 1998 SLD 288 = 1998 PTD 2273 = (1997) 224 ITR 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure—Disallowance\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether motor car repair expenses under Section 31 should be included in disallowance computation under Section 37(3-A).\n2.\nDeductibility of Assam finance tax paid after the financial year but within statutory time.\no\nConclusion:\n1.\nSection 31 expenditures are excluded from disallowance under Section 37(3-A).\n2.\nTax paid within statutory time is deductible.\n•\nCitations:\no\nGeorge Williamson (Assam) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 203 (Gauhati).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1994, decision dated: 26-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N. BARUAH AND S. BARMAN ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. K. Saraf, K. K. Gupta and R. K. Agarwalla for the Assessee. G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASSAM CARBON PRODUCTS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 289 = 1998 SLD 289 = 1998 PTD 2291 = (1997) 225 ITR 496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment—Validity of Notices\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) bars further notice under Section 143(2).\n2.\nValidity of reassessment based on benefits received in lieu of low rent.\no\nConclusion: Notices under Sections 143(2) and 148 were valid, supported by the amended Section 147 permitting reassessment based on new material or belief of income escaping assessment.\n•\nCitations:\no\nApogee International Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 220 ITR 248 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.Ps. Nos.3796, 3797, 4092 and 4093 of 1992, decision dated: 18-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " Y. K. SABHARWAL AND D. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate and Anurag Chawla for Petitioner. Rajendra and R.N. Verma for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RAKESH AGGARWAL through Legal Heirs\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 290 = 1998 SLD 290 = 1998 PTD 2311 = (1996) 222 ITR 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening Assessment—CBDT Instructions\n•\nIssue: Whether reopening under Section 143(2)(b) conflicts with CBDT Instruction No. 1617.\n•\nConclusion: The statutory provisions take precedence over instructions. Reopening under Section 143(2)(b) was valid.\n•\nCitations:\no\nJaikishan Gopikishan & Sons v. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 481 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.203 of 1991, decision dated: 19-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Singh for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner\nManzoor Huss ain Gilani, Advocate General for NonPetitioner.", + "Party Name:": "DADAMCHAND KESHRIMAL & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nFAIZ ALI SHAH\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 291 = 1998 SLD 291 = 1998 PTD 2316 = (1996) 221 ITR 414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Unabsorbed Depreciation—Carry Forward\n•\nIssue: Allocation and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation between a firm and its partners.\n•\nConclusion: Unabsorbed depreciation can revert between the firm and its partners for future adjustments until fully set off.\n•\nCitations:\no\nGarden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 512 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.80 to 82 of 1991, decision dated: 5-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P. Balachandran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA.M.J. ANTHRAPER (LATE). through Legal Heirs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 292 = 1998 SLD 292 = 1998 PTD 2321 = (1996) 222 ITR 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax—Setting Aside Sale\n•\nIssue: Validity of setting aside a sale when the deposit is made during writ proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: Deposits must be made before the application is considered; deposits made during writ proceedings do not satisfy Rule 61 of the Second Schedule.\n•\nCitations:\no\nDevaki Ammal v. TRO (1996) 218 ITR 518 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. A. No. 1085 of 1995 and C.M. Ps. Nos. 13747 and 13748 of 1995, decision dated: 25-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. SWAMI, C.J. AND KANAKARAJ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Raghavan for Petitioner. S.V. Subramaniam for C.V. Rajan fer Respondent No. 1. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Respondent No. 3", + "Party Name:": "M. NEELAKANTAN and others\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 293 = 1998 SLD 293 = 1998 PTD 2324 = (1996) 222 ITR 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty—Procedural Irregularities and Limitation\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nCan procedural irregularities in penalty orders be cured?\n2.\nDoes limitation apply when penalty is imposed after remand?\no\nConclusion: Procedural irregularities can be rectified through remand, and limitation under Section 275 does not apply in such cases.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Sardarilal Bhasin (1989) 179 ITR 307 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 149 of 1991, decision dated: 19-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. Nazir Singh for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDAMODARDAS MURARILAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 294 = 1998 SLD 294 = 1998 PTD 2328 = (1996) 222 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductions—Winnings from Races\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of expenditure on winning lottery tickets.\n•\nConclusion: Expenditure based on reasonable estimates is deductible under Sections 56 and 57.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1082 (Reference No.363 of 1980), decision dated: 11th January; 1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramanian for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for K. Srinivasan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK.P. MADAN MOHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 295 = 1998 SLD 295 = 1998 PTD 2334 = (1996) 222 ITR 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Reassessment\n•\nIssue: Levy of interest under Section 139(8) during reassessment proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: Interest under Section 139(8) cannot be levied in reassessment cases under Section 148.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCharles DSouza v. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 694 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 156 of 1980, decision dated: 3rd April, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKAMLAPAT MOTI LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 296 = 1998 SLD 296 = 1998 PTD 2380 = (1996) 222 ITR 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment—Validity of Notices\n•\nIssue: Validity of notice under Section 148 and imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(a).\n•\nConclusion: Invalid notice under Section 148 rendered the reassessment and penalty proceedings invalid.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Prem Kumar Rastogi (1980) 124 ITR 381 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.231 of 1980, decision dated: 3rd April, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shekhar Srivastava for the Commissioner. Vikram Gulati for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAGANNATH PD. NANKOO PD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 297 = 1998 SLD 297 = 1998 PTD 2381 = (1996) 222 ITR 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains—Balancing Charge\n•\nIssue: Year of assessability of balancing charge when additional compensation is received.\n•\nConclusion: Profits under Section 41(2) are assessable in the year the compensation becomes ascertained.\n•\nCitations:\no\nOkara Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 493 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1978, decision dated: 6-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " K. SHIVASHANKAR BHATT AND K. RAMAMOORTHY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajendra and R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNATIONAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRADING CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 298 = 1998 SLD 298 = 1998 PTD 2386 = (1996) 222 ITR 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: High Court Powers in References\n•\nIssue: Whether the High Court can answer questions not arising from the Tribunal's order.\n•\nConclusion: The High Court cannot answer such questions, even if directed for reference.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Anusuya Devi (1968) 68 ITR 750 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Reference No. 12 of 1990, decision dated: 19th June 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N BARUAH AND S.B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nVs\nKANAK CHANDRA SARMA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 299 = 1998 SLD 299 = 1998 PTD 2389 = (1996) 222 ITR 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment—Change of Opinion\n•\nIssue: Validity of reassessment based on the same facts as the original assessment.\n•\nConclusion: A mere change of opinion does not justify reassessment.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Canara Bank Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 328 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Applications Nos.1189 and 1190 of 1995, decision dated: 26-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. C. PATEL AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner. Mihir Thakore for M.R. Bhatt of R.P. Bhatt & Co. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (N0.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 300 = 1998 SLD 300 = 1998 PTD 2394 = (1996) 222 ITR 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Firm Registration—Distribution of Profits\n•\nIssue: Whether prior distribution of profits is a prerequisite for firm registration.\n•\nConclusion: A certificate stating future distribution suffices for registration, and rectified mistakes are acceptable.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Khanna Theatre (1990) 184 ITR 156 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.68 of 1989, decision dated: 15-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner\nS.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, S. Zahid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CA. 376 of 1988 and No. 2 in C.A. 377 of 19M).\nMuhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate General Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C.A. 377 of 1988 and No. 2 in C.A. 376 of 1988).\nM.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) No. 1 (in both Appeals).", + "Party Name:": "DOSHI VASTRALAYA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nDr. NASEER MAHMOOD AKHTAR and another \nvs\nDr. MAHMOOD ALI MALIK and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 301 = 1998 SLD 301 = 1998 PTD 2397 = (1996) 222 ITR 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains—Cost of Acquisition\n•\nIssue: Deduction of sticky advances credited to a separate account but taxed as income earlier.\n•\nConclusion: Sticky advances previously taxed can be deducted from compensation as part of acquisition cost.\n•\nCitations:\no\nState Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1281 and Reference No.448 of 1980, decision dated: 31st July, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND, JAYARAMA CHOUTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner. C. V. Mahalingam for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 302 = 1998 SLD 302 = 1998 PTD 2404 = (1996) 222 ITR 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Undisclosed Sources\n•\nIssue: Whether the alleged loan of ₹46,000 was genuine.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal found that the loan was not genuine due to inconsistencies in the explanation and evidence provided. The sum of ₹46,000 was treated as income from undisclosed sources.\n•\nCitations:\no\nSarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 244 (Pat.).\no\nCIT (Addl.) v. Hanuman Agarwal (1985) 151 ITR 150 (Pat.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.21 of 1990, decision dated: 9-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, C, J. AND AFTAB ALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suraj Prasad Sinha for the Assessee. L.N. Rastogi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RAJENDRA PRASAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 303 = 1998 SLD 303 = 1998 PTD 2407 = (1996) 222 ITR 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Advance Tax—Interest under Section 215\n•\nIssue: Whether interest under Section 215 should exclude the enhanced share of profit determined in the firm’s case.\n•\nConclusion: The issue was recognized as a question of law that warranted reference.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Gurkartar Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. (1994) 209 ITR 634 (P & H).\no\nCIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 505 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 143 of 1994, decision dated: 24-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " G. S. SINGHVI AND N. K. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goyal for Petitioner. S.S. Mahajan with Ms. Aparna Mahajan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAHESH MUNJAL (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 304 = 1998 SLD 304 = 1998 PTD 2412 = (1998) 78 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Interest Received on Delayed Payments\n•\nIssue: Whether interest received by a cooperative society from delayed payments should be taxable.\n•\nConclusion: The interest was taxable on an accrued basis, as it did not relate to any injury to capital assets.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1050 to 1053/LB of 1986-87, 457 to 463/1,8 of 1989-90; 162/LB of 1984-85 and 958 to 961/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 19-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SHARIQ MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Ali Ch. I.T.P and Iqbal Hashmi for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1050/LB to 1053/LB of 1986-87 and 458/LB to 463/LB of 1989-90).\nRana Munir Hussain for Respondent ((in ITAs.Nos.1050/LB to 1053/LB of 1986-87 and 458/LB to 463/LB of 1989-90).\nRana Munir Hussain, L.A. for Appellant (in ITAs.Nos.162/LB of 1984-85, 958/LB to 961/LB of 1986-87).\nYousaf Ali Ch., I.T.P. and Iqbal Hashmi for Respondent (in ITAs.Nos.162/LB of 1984-85, 958/LB to 961/LB of 1986-87)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 305 = 1998 SLD 305 = 1998 PTD 2435 = (1996) 222 ITR 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Credit Balance in Reserve Fund\n•\nIssue: Whether credit balance used for business purposes qualifies as capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii).\n•\nConclusion: The credit balance in the reserve fund did not qualify as capital borrowed. Interest on such balances was not deductible.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 469 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.258 of 1981, decision dated: 4-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the Commissioner. U.S Awasthi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBAZPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 306 = 1998 SLD 306 = 1998 PTD 2437 = (1996) 222 ITR 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Underestimation of Advance Tax\n•\nIssue: Whether underestimation of advance tax justifies charging interest under Section 216.\n•\nConclusion: Mere underestimation is insufficient to charge interest unless it is deliberate.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 712 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.3 of 1993, decision dated: 20-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N. BARUAH AND S.B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. Dr. A.K. Saraf and K.K. Gupta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLANKASHI TEA AND SEED ESTATE (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 307 = 1998 SLD 307 = 1998 PTD 2441 = (1996) 222 ITR 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference—Special Leave Petition Pending in Supreme Court\n•\nIssue: Whether filing a special leave petition is grounds for directing a reference.\n•\nConclusion: The existence of a special leave petition does not justify a reference.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 1 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.242 of 1989 end other connected miscellaneous civil cases, decision dated: 15th February 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. J.W. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRINCESS USHA DEVI TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 308 = 1998 SLD 308 = 1998 PTD 2444 = (1996) 222 ITR 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBiTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment Procedure under Section 143\n•\nIssue: Whether an assessment initiated under Section 143(2) permits adjustments under Section 143(1).\n•\nConclusion: After issuing a notice under Section 143(2), adjustments under Section 143(1) are not permitted; the assessment must proceed under Section 143(3).\n•\nCitations:\no\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.425 of 1996, decision dated: 5-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.C. PATEL AND R. R, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner. Bharat J. Shelat for Bhatt & Co. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GUJARAT POLY-AVX ELECTRONICS LTD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 353 = 2000 SLD 353 = 2000 PTD 3442 = (1999) 237 ITR 859", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Royalty and Fees for Technical Services\n•\nIssue: Whether export commissions paid to a foreign company qualified as royalty or fees for technical services. \n•\nConclusion: Export commissions for services rendered did not qualify as royalty or fees for technical services. \n•\nCitations: None specified for this exact point.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 18 of 1987, decision dated: 26-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.B. Andhyarujina for the Assessee. R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CEAT INTERNATIONAL S.A\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 309 = 1998 SLD 309 = 1998 PTD 2454 = (1996) 222 ITR 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistakes\n•\nIssue: Validity of notice under Section 154(1)(b) after issuance of notice under Section 143(2).\n•\nConclusion: After issuing notice under Section 143(2), a subsequent notice under Section 154(1)(b) was invalid.\n•\nCitations:\no\nGujarat Poly-AVX Electronics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 140 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Applications Nos. 1047 and 2178 of 1996, decision dated: 5-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. C. PATEL AND R.R, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioners. Shelat for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for Respondents\nS.M.Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, S.Zahid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all Appeals).\nMaulvi Ehsanul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Oureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) (in all Appeals).", + "Party Name:": "LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LIMITED and another\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT)\nvs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 310 = 1998 SLD 310 = 1998 PTD 2458 = (1996) 222 ITR 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Firm—Deduction of Sales Tax and Valuation of Stock\n•\nIssue: Treatment of unpaid sales tax upon dissolution of a firm and valuation of closing stock.\n•\nConclusion: Both issues involved questions of law and were referred for examination.\n•\nCitations:\no\nA.L.A. Firm v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 14542 of 1995-S, decision dated: 28-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. Smt. T.D. Rajalakshmi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDIZA ELECTRICALS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 311 = 1998 SLD 311 = 1998 PTD 2465 = (1996) 222 ITR 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Borrowed Capital\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of interest on borrowed funds used for non-business purposes.\n•\nConclusion: Interest on capital diverted for non-business purposes was not deductible.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. H.H. Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi (1975) 100 ITR 67 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.210 to 273 (References Nos.62 to 65 of 1981), decision dated: 19-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. S. VENKATESWARAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 312 = 1998 SLD 312 = 1998 PTD 2470 = (1996) 222 ITR 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference—Inference from Tribunal’s Findings\n•\nIssue: Whether inferences drawn from Tribunal findings constitute questions of law.\n•\nConclusion: Inferences from factual findings are treated as questions of law.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.22 of 1996, decision dated: 28-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N. K. SODHI AND M.L. SINGHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goyal for Petitioner. B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKAKKAR COMPLEX STEELS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 313 = 1998 SLD 313 = 1998 PTD 2472 = (1996) 222 ITR 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Change in Constitution vs. Succession of Firm\n•\nIssue: Whether reconstitution of a firm due to a partner’s retirement constitutes succession.\n•\nConclusion: Reconstitution does not amount to succession; a single assessment applies.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Jagjiwan Patel Co. (1991) 188 ITR 563 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.226 of 1980, decision dated: 4-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajesh Kumar Agarwal for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDr. PREM SINGH X-RAY CLINIC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 314 = 1998 SLD 314 = 1998 PTD 2474 = (1996) 222 ITR 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Depreciation in Firms\n•\nIssue: Whether unabsorbed depreciation allocated to partners can revert to the firm for set-off.\n•\nConclusion: Unabsorbed depreciation can revert to the firm for set-off in subsequent years.\n•\nCitations:\no\nGarden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 512 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 147 of 1990, decision dated: 16-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Puntambekar for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AZAD BUS SERVICE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 315 = 1998 SLD 315 = 1998 PTD 2477 = (1996) 222 ITR 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax—Attachment of Property Held Benami\n•\nIssue (a): Whether sale proceeds of property held benami could be attached by the Income Tax Department.\nConclusion: The property was held benami for the defaulter (J), and the sale proceeds were rightly attached by the Department for recovery of J's tax dues.\n•\nIssue (b): Whether the benamidar was entitled to a notice of demand under Section 156.\nConclusion: A benamidar is not entitled to notice under Section 156.\n•\nCitations:\no\nIqbal Begum v. TRO (1974) 97 ITR 310 (Mad.).\no\nManmohanlal v. ITO (1987) 168 ITR 616 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "E.A. No. 142 of 1989 and Ex. 90 of 197, decision dated: 16-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " N. G. NANDI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Bhaduri for Applicant/Judgment-debtor No. 1. R.C. Pandey and R.N. Verma for the Department", + "Party Name:": "Smt. HARJINDER KAUR and others\nVs\nMrs. USHA GUPTA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 316 = 1998 SLD 316 = 1998 PTD 2484 = (1996) 222 ITR 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure\n•\nIssue: Whether contributions to the Railway Department for construction of railway tracks were revenue expenditures.\nConclusion: The expenditure was revenue in nature but could only be allowed in the year incurred, not amortized over several years.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 12 of 1993, decision dated: 21st June, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N. BARUAH AND S.B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. D.K. Talukdar and A.K. Sarnia for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBONGAIGAON REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 317 = 1998 SLD 317 = 1998 PTD 2487 = (1996) 222 ITR 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Diversion of Income by Overriding Title and Capital Gains\n•\nIssue (a): Whether tax dues of the deceased diverted income by overriding title.\nConclusion: Payment to settle tax dues was a diversion of income by overriding title.\n•\nIssue (b): Whether tax dues formed part of the cost of acquisition for capital gains computation.\nConclusion: Tax dues did not constitute part of the cost of acquisition.\n•\nIssue (c): Timeliness of deposit under Section 54-E for capital gains exemption.\nConclusion: Exemption was denied as the deposit was not made within six months.\n•\nCitations:\no\nRaja Bejoy Singh Dudhura v. CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45,48 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.519 of 1985, decision dated: 29-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K. K. USHA AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Smt. K. SARALA DEVI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 318 = 1998 SLD 318 = 1998 PTD 2498 = (1996) 222 ITR 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Development Grant—Capital or Revenue Receipt\n•\nIssue: Whether development grants for acquiring machinery were capital or revenue receipts.\nConclusion: The grant was a capital receipt, not taxable as revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Cases Nos. 160 and 161 of 1993, decision dated: 10-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R. V. RAVEENDRAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. S.S. Naganand for the Assessee\nS. F. Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. S. Hoda, Advocate-on-Record.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOGTE MINERALS\nNAKULESWAR SIKDAR\nvs\nBARUN CHANDRA CHAKRAVORTY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 319 = 1998 SLD 319 = 1998 PTD 2500 = (1996) 222 ITR 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tribunal’s Power to Entertain Second Rectification Application\n•\nIssue: Whether a second rectification application on the same facts was maintainable.\nConclusion: The Tribunal's decision to entertain a second application raised questions of law warranting reference.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.41 of 1980, decision dated: 2-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney with Sanjay Goyal for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent\nM. R. Khan, Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPEARL WOOLLEN MILLS\nC. P. S. L. A. No. 6D of 1970.\nBHOMAR ALI MIA AND others\nvs\nMOINUDDIN MIA AND OTHERS\nC. P. S. L. A. No. 7D of 1970\nMD. NURUL HAQUE AND others\nvs\nMOYEZUDDIN MIA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 320 = 1998 SLD 320 = 1998 PTD 2505 = (1996) 222 ITR 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable Trust—Public Benefit\n•\nIssue: Whether monetary help for marriage and thread ceremonies constituted public charitable expenditure.\nConclusion: Expenditure was for a public charitable object and allowable.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Surji Devi Kunji Lal Jaipuria Charitable Trust (No. 1) (1990) 186 ITR 728 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.224 of 1980, decision dated: 4-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shekhar Srivastava for the Commissioner\nIsmail-ud-Din Sarkar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court.\nNemo for the State.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPT. RAM SHANKER MISRA TRUST\nJABANUDDIN CHOWDHURY\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 321 = 1998 SLD 321 = 1998 PTD 2506 = (1996) 222 ITR 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Special Deductions for Exporters under Section 80-HHC\n•\nIssue: Whether a delayed application for extension of time to bring export proceeds could be entertained.\nConclusion: The application was maintainable even if filed after the statutory period.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Ajanta Electricals (1995) 215 ITR 114 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 1689 of 1993, decision dated: 17-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ANIL DEV SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "O.P. Dua and Sanjeev Sabharwal for Petitioner. B. Gupta and R.K. Chaufla for Respondents\nDr. AlimalRazee, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by D. K. Khadim, Attorney.\nKhondkar Mahb-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate-on-Record.", + "Party Name:": "VIKRAM OVERSEAS (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nA. M. MAHIUL HUQ \nvs\nMD. SHAMSUL ALAM AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 322 = 1998 SLD 322 = 1998 PTD 2508 = (1996) 222 ITR 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Continuation of Registration of Firm\n•\nIssue: Whether a firm could continue registration without executing a fresh deed upon a minor attaining majority.\nConclusion: The earlier circular (1962) applied, allowing continuation of registration.\n•\nCitations: Circular No.F.26/35/61 I.T.A.-1, dated January 3, 1962.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.51 of 1987, decision dated: 27-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, C.J. AND AFTAB ALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. A.K. Rastogi and Shailendra Kumar for the Assessee\nAbul Fazal Mohammad Mukarrim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Advocate-on-Record.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHANDMAL MOHAL LAL\nMUSHTAQ MIRZA AND others\nvs\nHaji RASHIDUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 323 = 1998 SLD 323 = 1998 PTD 2510 = (1996) 222 ITR 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Validity of Reassessment Notice\n•\nIssue: Whether a reassessment notice was valid when based on incorrect facts and unrelated expenditure claims.\nConclusion: The notice was invalid as it was based on a misinterpretation of facts and law.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 1366 of 1996, decision dated: 11-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.C. PATEL AND R. R, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner. Shelat for M.R. Bhatt & Co. for Respondent\nNemo for the State.", + "Party Name:": "ARVIND POLYCOT LTD\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nRAFAT ALI\nvs\nTHE STATE\nSajid Ali, Attorney ." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 324 = 1998 SLD 324 = 1998 PTD 2519 = (1996) 222 ITR 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest under Section 139(8) in Reassessment Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Applicability of interest under Section 139(8) in reassessment proceedings before April 1, 1985.\nConclusion: Interest could not be levied for reassessment before April 1, 1985.\n•\nCitations:\no\nMetallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 499 (Pat.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.53 of 1986, decision dated: 25-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, C.J. AND AFTAB ALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. L.N. Rastogi, A. Bose Kaushal Kumar and Mukesh Kumar-II for the Assessee\nPetitioner in person, instructed by Syed Anwer Ali, Advocate-on-Record.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOVIND RAM & CO\nSheikh MOHAMMAD IQBAL AND 3 others\nvs\n D ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 325 = 1998 SLD 325 = 1998 PTD 2522 = (1996) 222 ITR 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Disallowance of Advertisement Expenditure\n•\nIssue: Whether expenditure on a stall at a Congress Party exhibition was allowable as a business expense.\nConclusion: The Tribunal's disallowance raised a question of law due to lack of proper discussion of evidence and legal provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 15 of 1995, decision dated: 21st November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " DEVINDER GUPTA AND DR. M.K. SHARMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Aggarwal for Petitioner. B. Gupta for Respondent\nA. H. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Ibrahim Memon, Advocate-on-Record.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "MODI RUBBER LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nHaji MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM\nvs\nTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THARPARKAR\nAND EXOFFICIO CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, TOWN COMMITTEE, JAMSABAD AT MIRPURKHAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 326 = 1998 SLD 326 = 1998 PTD 2525 = (1996) 222 ITR 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Business Expenditure on Repairs—Guest House vs. Director’s Bungalow\n•\nIssue: Whether expenditure on repairing a bungalow used by directors could be disallowed as guest house expenditure.\nConclusion: Tribunal held that the bungalow was not a guest house; hence, the expenditure was deductible.\nTopic (b): Finality of Tribunal’s Findings\n•\nConclusion: Findings by the Tribunal are final unless shown to be perverse or based on extraneous considerations.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Parshva Properties Ltd. (1987) 164 ITR 673 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 17 of 1993, decision dated: 24-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND K. K. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. P. Borthakur and Ms. B. Acharya for the Assessee\nIqbal Naim Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 72K of 1985).\nNasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 68 to 72K of 1985). Nasim Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos. 217K of 1986, 221K, 359K and 582K of 1990).\nNasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 217K of 1986, 221K, 359K and 582K of 1990).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBAHADUR TEA CO. (P.) LTD\nCivil appeals Nos. 68 to 72K of 1985\nGENERAL BANK OF NETHERLAND LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL KARACHI\nCivil Appeal Nos 221-K, 359 and 582-K of 1990\nMessrs AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nMessrs CITIBANK NA.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 327 = 1998 SLD 327 = 1998 PTD 2528 = (1996) 222 ITR 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment Allowance and Deduction under Section 80-I\n•\nIssue: Whether the assessee engaged in rubber mastication qualified as an industrial company for investment allowance and deduction under Section 80-I.\nConclusion: Questions regarding the nature of manufacturing activity and eligibility for deductions are legal issues to be referred.\n•\nCitations:\no\nChowgule & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1981) 47 STC 124 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 11216 of 1995-S, decision dated: 1st March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. Joseph Markose for Respondent\nFakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghauri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.\nKhalilur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMIDAS RUBBER (P.) LTD\nSupreme Curt\nMessrs ASAD BROTHER\nvs\nIBADAT YAR KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 328 = 1998 SLD 328 = 1998 PTD 2530 = (1996) 222 ITR 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Acquisition of Immovable Property—Valuation and Fair Market Value\n•\nIssue: Whether acquisition proceedings could be based solely on the Valuation Officer’s vague report.\nConclusion: Acquisition was invalid as the Valuation Officer’s report lacked clarity and substantive reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos.4 and 5 of 1979, decision dated: 22-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND NK. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aaradhana Sawhney and Atul Thubral for Appellant. B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Barisal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSURAT SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 329 = 1998 SLD 329 = 1998 PTD 2534 = (1996) 222 ITR 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment Proceedings—Writ Petition to Stay\n•\nIssue: Whether the High Court could stay reassessment proceedings when the assessee was obstructing the process.\nConclusion: Writ dismissed; reassessment proceedings must continue as both sides could adduce evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.290 of 1996, decision dated: 8-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. C. AGARWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rakesh Kumar Agarwal for Petitioner. Ashok Kumar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "TIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF INDIA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD\nvs\nTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SAVINGS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN\nCivil Appeal No. 695 of 1988, heard on 19th August, 1991." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 330 = 1998 SLD 330 = 1998 PTD 2538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision of Assessment Orders\n•\nIssue: Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could revise an order without legal or factual errors.\nConclusion: Revision based on mere assumptions was invalid.\n•\nCitations:\no\n1990 PTD (Trib.) 914.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.259/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 10-12-1997, hearing DATE : 20-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. S. Jafri, I.T.P. for Appellant. Sikandar Aslam, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 331 = 1998 SLD 331 = 1998 PTD 2544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme—Qualification of Returns\n•\nIssue: Whether returns filed under the Self-Assessment Scheme by a new taxpayer (association of persons) were valid despite existing individual assessments.\nConclusion: Returns qualified under the scheme; Tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s directive to accept them.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2131/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 26-02-1998 .hearing DATE : 25-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amjad Jamshaid, D. R. for Appellant. A. S. Jafri, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 332 = 1998 SLD 332 = 1998 PTD 2547", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Assessment—Undisclosed Bonus and Cash Incentives\n•\nIssue: Whether undisclosed incentives could justify reopening assessment.\nConclusion: Bonus and incentives not routine transactions; additions upheld by the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 899/KB to 901/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 17th February; 1998, hearing DATE : 18-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amjad Malik, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Tahir, A. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 333 = 1998 SLD 333 = 1998 PTD 2551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Tribunal’s Order\n•\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal could recall an order based on factual misconceptions.\nConclusion: Recall justified; order set for rehearing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M. A. (Rect.) Nos. 371/KB to 373/KB of 1997-98 in I.T.As. Nos.899/KB to 901/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 20-05-1998, hearing DATE : 16-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. Amjad Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 334 = 1998 SLD 334 = 1998 PTCL 21 = 1998 PTD 2552", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification for Procedural Lapses\n•\nIssue: Whether technical lapses in the appeal could justify rectification.\nConclusion: Rectification allowed to ensure justice; Tribunal restored the appeal for hearing.\n•\nCitations:\no\nNoor Hussain Natha v. Controller of Estate Duty Karachi (1967) 15 Tax 117.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=R.15 ", + "Case #": "M. A. No. 121/LB of 1996, decision dated: 18-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HAZEER AHMED SALEEMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Mushir Ali Qadri, F.C.A. for Appellant. Mrs. Fiza Muzaffer, D. R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 335 = 1998 SLD 335 = 1998 PTD 2555 = (1998) 78 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme—Selection for Total Audit\n•\nIssue: Whether repeated selection of the same case for audit under a Self-Assessment Scheme was valid.\nConclusion: Second selection without authority was invalid and annulled.\n•\nCitations:\no\nMessrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (1992 SCMR 1652).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2907 of 1995, I. T. Cs. Nos. 9 of 1993, 9 of 1994 and 5 of 1995, decision dated: 25-04-1997.", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Shahbaz Butt for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MILLAT BOTTLE STORE, FAISALABAD\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 336 = 1998 SLD 336 = 1998 PTD 2557 = (1998) 78 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction at Source—Enhanced Rate of Tax\n•\nIssue: Whether increased tax rates could apply retroactively under the Finance Act, 1995.\nConclusion: Enhanced rates applied only prospectively; promissory estoppel not applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C & FirstSched,50(4) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1997, heard on 11-03-1998.hearing DATE : 11-03-1998.", + "Judge Name:": " SHEIKH AMJAD ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Qamar Afzal Khan for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Aslam and Mansoor Ahmad, Legal Advisor, Income-tax for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MOIN SONS (PVT.) LTD., RAWALPINDI through Sardar Alam, Director\nVs\nCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA), ISLAMABAD through Chairman and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 337 = 1998 SLD 337 = 1998 PTD 2567 = (1998) 78 TAX 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitutionality of Minimum Tax under Section 80-D\n•\nIssue: Whether turnover-based tax violated constitutional provisions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.\nConclusion: Tax was invalid as it relied on automatic adaptation of future laws, violating legislative principles.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 81 to 106 of 1997, decision dated: 20-05-1998. dates of hearing: 19th and 20-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C, J., BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH AND MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate for all Appellants except Spintex Limited. Syed Zahid Hussain, Advocate for Spintex Limited.\nAbdul Majid Mallick and Raja Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocates for all Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SPINTEX LIMITED and others\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MIRPUR CIRCLE, MIRPUR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 338 = 1998 SLD 338 = 1998 PTD 2588 = (1998) 230 ITR 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Waiver of Interest—Quasi-Judicial Nature of CBDT Orders\n•\nIssue: Whether CBDT must provide reasons when rejecting interest waiver applications.\nConclusion: Orders must be reasoned and comply with principles of natural justice.\n•\nCitations:\no\nSiemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 981.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1386 (NT) of 1987, decision dated: 22nd,January, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Vineet Kumar, Bhaiyaji Gupta, Ms. Kiran Bhardhwaj, Ms. Nina Gupta and Ms. Arpita Roy Choudhury, Advocates with him) for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (G. Venkatesh Rao, C. Radha Krishna, B.K. Prasad and A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "KISHAN LAL\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 339 = 1998 SLD 339 = 1998 PTD 2601 = (1998) 230 ITR 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation on Guest House Assets\n•\nIssue: Whether depreciation on guest house buildings and other assets was allowable.\nConclusion: A question of law warranting High Court reference.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.7606 of 1997 arising out of SLP Civil No. 12397 of 1997, decision dated: 7-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, B.K. Prasad and Ms. Renu George, Advocates with him) for Petitioner\nNemo for the Assessee\nSardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record.\nNemo for the State.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nATUL PRODUCTS LTD\nMUHAMMAD IQBAL \nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 624 = 1999 SLD 624 = 1999 PTD 2603 = (1998) 230 ITR 422 = (1999) 80 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deemed Dividend and Accumulated Profits\n•\nIssue: Whether balancing charges under Section 41(2) could form part of accumulated profits for deemed dividend taxation.\nConclusion: Balancing charges are not part of accumulated profits.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. T.S. Rajam (1980) 125 ITR 207.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2141-2143 of 1982 with C.A. Nos. 2144-46, 2147 to 2149, 2150 to 2152, 2153 to 2155, 4204 to 4209 of 1982, 3274 of 1984, 5915 of 1983, 2337 of 1984 and 1239 to 1245 of 1986, decision dated: 23rd January, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL, B.N. KIRPAL AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, S.Rajappa, Ms. Renu George and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates for Appellants. T.A. Ramachandran and J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocates (A.T.M. Sampath, Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran and V. Balaji, Advocates with them) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nURMILA RAMESH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 340 = 1998 SLD 340 = 1998 PTD 2618 = (1998) 230 ITR 442", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Power to Rectify Defects in Property Sale Agreements\n•\nIssue: Whether legal defects in property sale agreements could be rectified under Section 269-UC(4).\nConclusion: Only rectifiable defects were covered; legal or void agreements were excluded.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1649 of 1997, decision dated: 27-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND B.N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "JAGDISH A. SADARANGANI\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 341 = 1998 SLD 341 = 1998 PTD 2625 = (1998) 230 ITR 485 = (1999) 80 TAX 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ceiling on Directors’ Remuneration—Exclusion of Overseas Employment\n•\nIssue: Whether overseas remuneration should be excluded when calculating expenditure ceilings under Sections 40(c) and 40-A(5).\nConclusion: Overseas remuneration excluded; earlier case overruled.\n•\nCitations:\no\nTravancore Rayons Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 732 (Ker.) overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.3311 to 3313 of 1993, decision dated: 3rd February, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND SYED S.M. QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "(Appeals by certificate from the judgment and order dated May 24, 1990 of the Delhi High Court in Income-tax References Nos. 110 to 112 of 1987)\nRanbir Chandra, Anil Srivastava, R.N. Verma, Advocates for B.K. Prasad, Advocate for Appellant. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and M.N. Shroff, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 342 = 1998 SLD 342 = 1998 PTD 2635 = (1998) 230 ITR 520", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Carry Forward of Loss—Applicability of Law Across Assessment Years\n•\nIssue: Whether loss returns for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 could be carried forward, given differences in applicable provisions.\nConclusion: The matter involved questions of law requiring reference to the High Court.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Pigments India Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 797 and (1998) 230 ITR 518 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.7607 and 7608 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12747 and 12748 of 1997, decision dated: 7-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPIGMENTS INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 343 = 1998 SLD 343 = 1998 PTD 2637 = (1998) 230 ITR 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Remission of Liability—Taxability of Refunded Sales Tax\n•\nIssue: Whether refunded sales tax collected earlier and deposited with the government is taxable under Section 41(1).\nConclusion: Refunded sales tax is taxable as income, but deductions can be claimed when refunded to purchasers.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Thirumlaiswamy Naidu and Sons (1984) 147 ITR 657 reversed.\no\nChowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 87 ITR 542.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1783 of 1984, decision dated: 27-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "(Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order, dated November 22, 1982, of the Madras High Court in T.C. No. 1324 of 1977).\nK.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (T.C. Sharma, B.K. Prasad and C. Radhakrishnan, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nMrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTHIRUMALAISWAMY NAIDU & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 344 = 1998 SLD 344 = 1998 PTD 2639 = (1998) 230 ITR 580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Income—Loan or Commission\n•\nIssue: Whether an amount received as a loan was assessable as business income.\nConclusion: High Court upheld that the amount was a loan, not commission or business income.\n•\nCitations:\no\nBedi & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 352 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4122 of 1983, decision dated: 18-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Hemant Sharma, Advocate for B.K. Prasad with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBEDI & COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 345 = 1998 SLD 345 = 1998 PTD 2644 = (1998) 230 ITR 636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Charitable Trust—Exemption for Accumulated Income\n•\nIssue: Whether accumulation and application of income for purchasing a hospital building qualifies for exemption.\nConclusion: The trust was entitled to exemption for both the accumulated amount and additional income.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. S.RM. CT. M. Thiruppani Trust (1982) 134 ITR 555 reversed.\no\nCIT (Addl.) v. A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust (1995) 216 ITR 697 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1699 of 1984, decision dated: 4-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aman Hingorani, Advocate for Hingorani and Associates, Advocates for Appellant. Harish Chandra and C.V.S. Rao, Advocates for B.K. Prasad, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "S. RM. M. CT. M. TIRUPPANI TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 346 = 1998 SLD 346 = 1998 PTD 2650 = (1998) 230 ITR 643 = (1999) 80 TAX 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure—Gratuity Paid to Holding Company\n•\nIssue: Whether gratuity paid to a holding company on behalf of employees is deductible as business expenditure.\nConclusion: Gratuity paid to fulfill an existing obligation was deductible.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. W.T. Suren & Co. Ltd. (1982) 138 ITR 91 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.479 of 1985, decision dated: 23rd February, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "(Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order, dated April 29, 30, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 146 of 1971).\nJoseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Dinesh Mathur, Advocate for JBD & Co., Advocates with him) for Appellant\nT.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Ms. Shashi Kiran (Harish Chandra) Advocate.for B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "W.T. SUREN & CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 347 = 1998 SLD 347 = 1998 PTD 2668 = (1998) 230 ITR 733 = (1999) 80 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Interest on Delayed Tax Payments—Deductibility\n•\nIssue: Whether interest on failure to pay advance tax and late filing of returns is deductible.\nConclusion: Such interest is not deductible as business expenditure.\nTopic (b): Voluntary Disclosure Scheme—Interest on Tax Paid\n•\nIssue: Whether interest on delayed tax under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme is deductible.\nConclusion: Interest paid was not deductible under Sections 36(1)(iii), 37, or 80-V.\n•\nCitations:\no\nJindal Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 232 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=37,139,215 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.5509 of 1985, 3355 and 3356 of 1993, decision dated: 5-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S. Syal, Satyen Sethi and Ms. Geetanjali Mohan. Advocates f6r Appellant (in C.A. No. 5509 of 1985). Wazir Singh and Mukul Gupta, Advocates for Appellant (in C.As Nos.3355 and 3356 of 1993). Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and B.K. Prasad, Advocates (Mukul Mudgal) Advocate (NP) with him) for Respondent (in all the Civil Appeals).", + "Party Name:": "BHARAT COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES LTD. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nJINDAL INDUS. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 348 = 1998 SLD 348 = 1998 PTD 2678 = (1998) 230 ITR 744 = (1999) 80 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Supreme Court Jurisdiction—Unraised Pleas\n•\nIssue: Whether the Supreme Court can consider a plea not raised in lower forums.\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed; unraised pleas could not be examined.\n•\nCitations:\no\nK.T. Doctor v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 501 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2361 and 2362 of 1980, decision dated: 18-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record. Nemo.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK.T. DOCTOR\nFARID KHAN and 3 others\nvs\nABDUL LATIF and 1 others\nSC 3531" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 349 = 1998 SLD 349 = 1998 PTD 2679 = (1998) 230 ITR 745", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Civil Court Jurisdiction—Search and Seizure\n•\nIssue: Whether a partition suit concerning seized articles could override tax proceedings.\nConclusion: Suit was barred under Section 293 as it would affect tax orders.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Parameswari Devi Sultania (1995) 213 ITR 386 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=132,293 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1997, decision dated: 6th March; 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra and C.V.S. Rao (Ms. Shashi Kiran), Advocates for B.K. Prasad, Advocate for Appellants. N.K. Bisht, Advocate for Respondent. Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (R.K. Kapoor, Advocate with him) Amicus curiae.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nVs\nPARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 350 = 1998 SLD 350 = 1998 PTD 2699 = (1998) 230 ITR 927", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Loss—Capital or Revenue Nature\n•\nIssue: Whether a loss of a deposit made under a leave and license agreement was revenue or capital loss.\nConclusion: The deposit loss was on capital account and not deductible.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCIT v. Hashimara Industries Ltd. (1989) 175 ITR 477 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4767 of 1989, decision dated: 10-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. P. BHARUCHA AND M, JAGANNADHA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Venkataraman, Senior Advocate (Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, Advocate with him) for Appellant. J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (T.C. Sharma and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "HASIMARA INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 351 = 1998 SLD 351 = 1998 PTD 2706 = (1998) 230 ITR 934", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Development rebate-Conditions for grant-Machinery must be used for purpose of assessees business for 8 years-Rebate granted to Hindu undivided family-Partial partition and allotment of machinery to coparcener-Sale by coparcener to third party within 8 years-Rebate liable to be withdrawn-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 Ss. 33, 34 & 155(5).\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \nHindu undivided family-Partial partition and allotment o assets to coparcener-No transfer from family to coparcener or extinguishment of right of HUF-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 2(47)-[CIT v. S. Balasubramanian (1982) 138 ITR 815 reversed].\n \nSections 33, 34 and 155(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be read together Although there is no express requirement under section 155(5)(i) or section 34(3)(b) that the plant or machinery should be used for a period of eight years by the assessee wholly for the purpose of his business, section 155(5) and section 34(3)(b) cannot be read in isolation ignoring section 33. Development rebate can be granted when the new machinery is wholly used by the `lessee for the purpose of his business. It should be so used by the assessee for a period of, eight years. It should be also not be sold or otherwise transferred by the assessee.\n \nThe respondent was a coparcener of a Hindu undivided family of which his father was the Karta. The joint family carried on business. For the assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66, development rebate was allowed to the joint Hindu family on new machinery and plant installed by the joint Hindu family for the purpose of its business. On August 1, 1967, there was a partial partition of the joint family and the plant and machinery which had been the subject-matter of development rebate was allotted to the two coparceners at the written down value. After the partition, the two members sold the machinery-and plant allotted to them respectively to a third party on October 1, 1967. The Income-tax Officer proposed to withdraw the development rebate granted to the assessee on the ground that the machinery had been sold within the statutory period. The High Court held that the Hindu undivided family had not merely not sold the machinery or plant itself, or transferred it, but it had also not ceased to utilise the amount credited to the reserve fund as contemplated by section 34(3). As a result, the withdrawal of the development rebate by the Income-tax Officer was held to be wrong. On appeal by the Department to the Supreme Court:\n \nHeld, allowing the appeal, that although there wits no transfer of assets by the Hindu undivided family to its coparcener on the partition, the coparceners had sold the machinery to a third party within a period of eight years. Therefore, section 155(5) had been rightly invoked by the Income-tax Officer.\n \nCIT v. S. Balasubramanian (1982) 138 ITR 815 reversed.\n \nIn view of the unity of ownership and community of interest of all coparceners in a joint Hindu family business, the position on partition of the joint Hindu family business, whether it be partial or complete, is very similar in law to the position on dissolution of a partnership firm. On partition the shares of the coparceners in the joint family business become defined and their community of interests is separated. Division of assets is a matter of mutual adjustment of accounts as in the case of a dissolved partnership firm. The property which so comes td the share of the coparcener, therefore, cannot be considered as transfer by the joint family to a coparcener or the extinguishment of the right of the joint family in that property, the joint family not having its own separate interest in that property which can be transferred.\n \nMalabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC) relied on this point.\n \nCIT v. Narang Dairy Products (1996) 219 ITR 478 (SC) and South India Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 654 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(47) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.4048 to 4053 of 1984, decision dated: 24-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Arun K. Sharma, C. Radha Krishna and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nS. Ganesh, T. Ravi Kumar, Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Manju Mishra and K.J. John, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS. BALASUBRAMANIAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 352 = 1998 SLD 352 = 1998 PTD 2714 = (1998) 230 ITR 943", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Compulsory Acquisition of Property—Appeal to Supreme Court\n•\nIssue: Whether the Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition against compulsory acquisition was justified.\nConclusion: Matter remained unresolved pending the Supreme Court's decision.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3624 of 1986, decision dated: 3rd April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mukul Madgal, Advocate for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "NANDLAL TEJMAL KOTHARI\nVs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 353 = 1998 SLD 353 = 1998 PTD 2716 = (1998) 230 ITR 945 = (1999) 80 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Exemption for Local Authority—Definition\n•\nIssue: Whether a State Forest Corporation qualifies as a local authority.\nConclusion: It was not a local authority and not eligible for exemption.\nTopic (b): Charitable Purposes—Exemption Claims\n•\nConclusion: High Court erred in granting exemption without proper investigation. Matter remanded.\nTopic (c): Writ Petitions and Alternative Remedies\n•\nConclusion: High Court should not have entertained the writ; however, litigation was considered due to protracted delays.\n•\nCitations:\no\nUnion of India v. R.C. Jain (1981) AIR 1981 SC 951.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 180 to 182 of 1989, decision dated: 2-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND A. P. MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, N.K. Aggarwal and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates, for Appellant.S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate (Sunil Gupta and H.K. Puri, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nU.P. FOREST CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 354 = 1998 SLD 354 = 1998 PTD 2767 = (1999) 80 TAX 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitutional Petition on Taxable Income Assessment\n•\nIssue: An assessee declared nil income in Part I of the tax return and exempt income as agricultural income in Part II but failed to provide documents or participate in proceedings. Assessment was made under Section 63, imposing penalties.\nConclusion: The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, holding that the Assessing Officer acted justifiably and that the discretion was neither arbitrary nor based on conjectures.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss. 61, 62, 63, 108, 109, 110, 111 & 138; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62,63,108,109,110,111,138 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-23 of 1994, decision dated: 18-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J. AND RAJA QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. H. Naqvi for Petitioner. Sh. Haider for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "KHALID ABBAS KHAN NIAZI\nVs\nMEMBER, Income Tax (JUDICIAL), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, CAMP OFFICE, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 355 = 1998 SLD 355 = 1998 PTD 2769 = (1999) 79 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Procedural and Substantive Aspects of Filing References\n•\nIssue (a): Reference filed by the Deputy Commissioner was invalid as only the Commissioner was authorized.\n•\nIssue (b): Communication of Tribunal orders to relevant parties is mandatory.\n•\nIssue (c): Limitation for filing references applies as per the law in effect at the time of filing.\n•\nIssue (h): Amendments to procedural laws are retrospective unless otherwise stated.\nConclusion: Procedural provisions, including limitation periods, do not confer substantive rights unless expressly provided.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss. 135(8), 136; Limitation Act (1908): Ss. 3, 4, 5, 9–18, 22.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),135(8),136(2) General Clauses Act, 1897=6 Limitation Act, 1908=5,3,4,9to18,22 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 1997, decision dated: 22-04-1998, hearing DATE : 11-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " AMIR-UL-MULK MENGAL, C.J. AND, JAVED IQBAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Ahmed for Appellant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, SUKKUR ZONE, SUKKUR through The Deputy Commissioner of IncomE tax, CirclEI, Quetta\nVs\nMessrs GATRON (INDUSTRIES) LTD, QUETTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 356 = 1998 SLD 356 = 1998 PTD 2776 = (1998) 78 TAX 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdiction and Circulars by C.B.R.\n•\nIssue (a): Circulars cannot curtail the powers of adjudicating authorities.\n•\nIssue (b): A circular has no legal effect and does not override judicial decisions.\n•\nIssue (c): Applications for tax refund under Section 80-D should be independently assessed per Supreme Court judgments.\nConclusion: Authorities must decide cases based on judicial principles, not administrative circulars.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss. 8, 80-D; Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D & SecondSched.,Cls.118C,112D & 118-E,8 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.6673 and 6667 of 1998, heard on 8-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Legal Advisor for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "QURESHI INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 357 = 1998 SLD 357 = 1998 PTD 2779 = (1996) 222 ITR 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Treatment of Late Returns Showing Losses\n•\nIssue: Whether a late return showing losses is valid under Section 139(10).\nConclusion: Returns showing losses submitted after the statutory deadline are invalid for assessment.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.139(10).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.8 of 1993, decision dated: 26-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N. BARUAH AND K.K. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Bhattacharjee and R.K. Joshi for the Assessee. Dr. A. K. Saraf and K. K. Gupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AMPEE INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 358 = 1998 SLD 358 = 1998 PTD 2784 = (1996) 222 ITR 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Firm Registration and Concealment of Income\n•\nIssue: Seized documents revealed profits allocated to non-partners, leading to the cancellation of firm registration.\nConclusion: The Tribunal's decision to cancel the firm's registration was upheld as the firm was deemed not genuine.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss. 132, 185, 186.\n•\nCitation: Pushkar Narain Saraf v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 388 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.93, 94 and 95 of 1991 and Original. Petitions Nos. 3558 and 12726 of 1992-S, decision dated: 4-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.G.K. Warrier for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KERALA LIQUOR CORPORATION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 359 = 1998 SLD 359 = 1998 PTD 2794 = (1996) 222 ITR 357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains and Cost of Acquisition\n•\nIssue: Whether Rs.30,000 paid under a will to siblings constituted part of the cost of acquisition.\nConclusion: The amount paid was not deductible as part of the acquisition cost under Section 55.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.55(2)(b)(ii).\n•\nCitation: Valliammai (S.) (Smt.) v. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 713 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 335 and Reference No. 152 of 1981, decision dated: 24-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Smt. RUGMANI VARMA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 360 = 1998 SLD 360 = 1998 PTD 2806 = (1996) 222 ITR 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Fees for Technical Services Rendered Abroad\n•\nIssue: Whether fees for technical services and reimbursements for personnel are taxable under Indian law.\nConclusion: Payments for technical services rendered abroad are taxable under Section 9(1)(vii).\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.9(1)(vii).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 37 of 1991, decision dated: 4-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.N. Ramachandran Nair and Antony Dominic for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COCHIN REFINERIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 361 = 1998 SLD 361 = 1998 PTD 2809 = (1996) 222 ITR 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Depreciation—Extra-Shift Allowance\n•\nIssue: Whether machinery excluded by NESA inscription qualifies for extra-shift depreciation allowance.\nConclusion: Extra-shift allowance cannot be granted for items specifically excluded by statute.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.32; Income Tax Rules, 1962: Rule 5.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.60 of 1992 and 128 of 1993, decision dated: 17-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. N. KHARE, C, J. AND V. K. GUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Prosad for the Commissioner M.L. Bhattacharyya for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nD.P.S (I.) (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 362 = 1998 SLD 362 = 1998 PTD 2813 = (1996) 222 ITR 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Constitutionality and Compensatory Nature of Interest Provisions\n•\nIssue (a): Validity of interest levied under Sections 234-A, 234-B, and 234-C.\nConclusion: The interest provisions were compensatory and valid.\n•\nIssue (b): Scope of C.B.D.T.’s powers under Section 119(2).\nConclusion: Relief can be granted in individual cases.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.119, 234-A, 234-B, 234-C.\n•\nCitation: Union Home Products Ltd. v. Union of India (1995) 215 ITR 758 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No.748 of 1994, decision dated: 27-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " G. S. SINGHVI AND S. S. SUDHALKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjeev Goyal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SANT LAL\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 363 = 1998 SLD 363 = 1998 PTD 2827 = (1996) 222 ITR 396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Assessment Post-Reconstitution of a Firm\n•\nIssue: On the death of a partner and the firm's reconstitution, the question arose whether separate assessments must be made before and after the reconstitution.\nConclusion: The matter was remanded to determine if the partnership deed contained a clause negating dissolution upon the death of a partner.\n•\nSections: Not specifically cited.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.352 of 1980, decision dated: 17-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBASANT CINEMA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 364 = 1998 SLD 364 = 1998 PTD 2829 = (1996) 222 ITR 886", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tribunal's Decision on Income Additions\n•\nIssue: Additions made by the Income-tax Officer were disallowed by the Tribunal.\nConclusion: The Tribunal’s decision was upheld as it was not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.460 of 1991, decision dated: 29-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. J.W. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRANGNATH & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 365 = 1998 SLD 365 = 1998 PTD 2831 = (1996) 222 ITR 818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Treatment of Forfeited Earnest Money\n•\nIssue: Whether forfeited earnest money on a land sale was taxable as revenue or capital.\nConclusion: The amount was referable to fixed capital and was not a revenue receipt.\n•\nSections: Not specifically cited.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. A.V.M. Ltd. (1984) 146 ITR 355 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1224 (Reference No.736 of 1982), decision dated: 7th February 1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Meenakshisundaram for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSESHASAYEE BROS. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 366 = 1998 SLD 366 = 1998 PTD 2838 = (1996) 222 ITR 768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBISFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tribunal Allowing Set-Off of Cash Credits\n•\nIssue: Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing a set-off of cash credits against increased gross profit additions.\nConclusion: The Tribunal rightly allowed the set-off as the gross profit addition arose during the appellate stage.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.254.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.C. No.29 of 1988, decision dated: 4th September 1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. N. RAO AND. T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. Srinivas for S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVENKATESWARA TIMBER DEPOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 367 = 1998 SLD 367 = 1998 PTD 2842 = (1996) 222 ITR 754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Concealment of Income as a Question of Law\n•\nIssue: Whether there was material evidence for the Tribunal to conclude concealment of income.\nConclusion: The issue was deemed a question of law and was referred for review.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.31 of 1991, decision dated: 26-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G, M. Chaphekar with S. S. Samvatsar for The Assessee\nD.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "LADDHA TRADERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 368 = 1998 SLD 368 = 1998 PTD 2845 = (1996) 222 ITR 751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ex Parte Tribunal Order and Natural Justice\n•\nIssue: Rejection of an application to set aside an ex parte order without hearing the assessee.\nConclusion: The Tribunal was directed to consider the application on its merits, ensuring natural justice.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.271(1)(a).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 14427 of 1994-P, decision dated: 13-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N. DHINAKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for Petitioner. P.K. Ravindranatha Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent\nMuhammad Nawaz Abbasi Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nMuhammad Yawar Ali Additional Advocate General, Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record No. 1.\nSaifur Rehman Kiani, Advocate General, NWFP and Abdul Ghafoor Mang;4 Advocate General, Sindh for the State.", + "Party Name:": "K. SREEDHARAN & CO\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nABDUL LATIF \nvs\nBAGGA KHAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 369 = 1998 SLD 369 = 1998 PTD 2847 = (1996) 222 ITR 744", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation on Bottles and Containers\n•\nIssue: Whether bottles and containers used in manufacturing constitute plant for depreciation purposes.\nConclusion: Bottles and containers were held to be plant, qualifying for 100% depreciation.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.32(1)(ii) & 43(3).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 35 of 1986, decision dated: 24-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, C, J. AND S, J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Chiranjiva Ranjan, Raj Kishore Prasad, Mrs. Amita Roy Choudhary and Tej Bahadur Roy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSTEEL CITY BEVERAGES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 370 = 1998 SLD 370 = 1998 PTD 2849 = (1996) 222 ITR 737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Ownership and Tax Liability During Interim Property Transfers\n•\nIssue: Whether an assessee is liable for property tax during the period between handing over possession and registration of sale deeds.\nConclusion: The assessee was not assessable as the owner during the interim period.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.22 & 27.\n•\nCitation: R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.C. No. 14 of 1988, decision dated: 2-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. N. RAO AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. C. Kodandaram for M. Ravindranath Reddy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNANDANAM CONSTRUCTIONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 371 = 1998 SLD 371 = 1998 PTD 2855 = (1996) 222 ITR 540", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Writ Jurisdiction on CIT Notices\n•\nIssue: Whether a writ could quash a show-cause notice under Section 263.\nConclusion: Writ jurisdiction was not applicable since the assessee had the opportunity to respond to the notice.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.263; Constitution of India: Art. 226.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "G.A. No.2447 of 1996, decision dated: 17th September 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V .N. KHARE, C.J. AND V.K. GUPTA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Debi Pal, Pronob Pal and Sint. Manisha Sill for Appellant. R. Mitra and Ramesh Chowdhury for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BROOKE BOND LIPTON INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 372 = 1998 SLD 372 = 1998 PTD 2860 = (1996) 222 ITR 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Withholding Tax Notices and Writ Jurisdiction\n•\nIssue: Whether a writ could quash a notice for non-deduction of tax at source.\nConclusion: The High Court declined to quash the notice as the assessee could present its case to the Income-tax Officer.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.201.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.M.A.T. No.2278 of 1996, decision dated: 17th September 1996", + "Judge Name:": " V .N. KHARE, C, J. AND V. K. GUPTA", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. D. Pal and Mrs. C. Bhattacharyya for Appellants. P.K. Mallick and J.C. Saha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "JINDO ASAHI GLASS COMPANY and another\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 373 = 1998 SLD 373 = 1998 PTD 2865 = (1998) 78 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision Orders by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner\n•\nIssue: Validity of revising an assessment order for loans not received via crossed cheques.\nConclusion: The revision order was upheld as valid under Section 66-A.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss.12(18), 13(1)(aa), 66-A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,12(18) & 13(1)(aa),80C(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.265(PB) of 1995-96, decision dated: 16-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, FAZALUR REHMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Ahmed and Fazal-e-Rabi for Appellant. Muhammad Umar Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 374 = 1998 SLD 374 = 1998 PTD 2884 = (1998) 78 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maintainability of Civil Suits Against Tax Assessments\n•\nIssue: Whether a civil suit challenging an assessment order is maintainable.\nConclusion: Such suits are barred unless mala fides, illegality, or lack of jurisdiction is proven.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss.65 & 162.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=65,162 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VI,R.17 Specific Relief Act, 1877=42 ", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1118 of 1990, decision dated: 2-04-1998.", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMED RAZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Rauf\nRespondent(s) by: Raja Qasit Nawaz, Nasrullah Awan", + "Party Name:": "ABBASS SHROFF AND ANOTHER\nVS\nMISS FARZANA AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 375 = 1998 SLD 375 = 1998 PTCL 22 = 1998 PTD 2896", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Res Judicata in Tax Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Applicability of res judicata to tax assessments.\nConclusion: Res judicata does not apply, as each assessment year is independent.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: S.14.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,156 ", + "Case #": "M. As. Nos. 50/LB to 59/LB of 1995, decision dated: 23rd October, 1995.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MAMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj Khalid for Applicant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 376 = 1998 SLD 376 = 1998 PTD 2909 = (1998) 78 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption and Unexplained Investments\n•\nIssue: Denial of exemption claimed on foreign exchange bearer certificates.\nConclusion: The exemption was denied, but the assessee was required to explain the source of investments.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss.13(1)(aa), 66-A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(aa) & 66A,SecondSched,62,13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1633/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 20-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Appellant. Shaheen Aziz Niazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 377 = 1998 SLD 377 = 1998 PTD 2916 = (1996) 222 ITR 772", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Disallowance of Business Expenditures\n•\nIssue: Treatment of entertainment expenses, penalties, and weighted deductions.\nConclusion: Expenditures related to business necessity were allowed; those violating laws were disallowed.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.37(1), 37(2-A), 41.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 47 and 48 of 1983, decision dated: 30-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goyal for the Commissioner. B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDO ASIAN SWITCHGEARS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 378 = 1998 SLD 378 = 1998 PTD 2939 = (1996) 222 ITR 746", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains on Sale of Business\n•\nIssue: Tribunal upheld treating excess proceeds from business sale as short-term capital gain.\nConclusion: Tribunal’s failure to assess materials warranted reconsideration.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.45 & 254.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.64 of 1990, decision dated: 12-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. BARMAN ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. K. Saraf, K. K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwala for the Assessee. G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner\nK.M.A. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court, Hasnat Ahmad Khan, Asstt. A.G. Punjab, Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Government Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.\nA.G. Chaudhary, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record.", + "Party Name:": "PHEROS & CO. (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nHealth Department\nvs\nDr. S. MUHAMMAD ZAFAR BUKHARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 379 = 1998 SLD 379 = 1998 PTD 2944 = (1996) 222 ITR 528", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Foreign Exchange Gains on Investment\n•\nIssue: Taxability of gains due to rupee devaluation.\nConclusion: Gains were capital in nature as they were not related to trading activities.\n•\nCitation: Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.420 of 1982, decision dated: 30-03-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, C, J. AND DR. B.P. SARAF, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Soli Dastur with Aashish Ponda instructed by Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe for the Assessee\nDr. V. Balasubramaniam with J.P. Deodhar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HOMI MEHTA & SONS (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 380 = 1998 SLD 380 = 1998 PTD 2950 = (1996) 222 ITR 496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment in Revised Returns\n•\nIssue: Whether penalties apply for income disclosed in revised returns.\nConclusion: Penalties relate to the original return; revised returns do not create fresh liabilities.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.271(1)(c).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1066 (Reference No.558 of 1981), decision dated: 31st January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Ramgopal for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HENRY ISIDORE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 381 = 1998 SLD 381 = 1998 PTD 2961 = (1998) 78 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Average Tax Rate for Relief\n•\nIssue: Inclusion of surcharge in tax calculations for double-tax relief.\nConclusion: Surcharge is included when calculating average tax rates.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: S.164.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=164 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1545/KB to 1548/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 20-05-1998, hearing DATE : 9-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khaliqur Rehman, F.C.A. for Appellant. Misri Ladhani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 382 = 1998 SLD 382 = 1998 PTD 2966 = (1998) 77 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Procedural Errors in Appellate Grounds\n•\nIssue: Different appeal grounds were submitted to the Tribunal and assessee.\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed for procedural non-compliance.\n•\nRules: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1981.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 058/KB of 1988-89, decision dated: 26-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Nasir Bokhari, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Javed Zakarya for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 383 = 1998 SLD 383 = 1998 PTD 2969 = (1998) 78 TAX 299 = 1999 PTCL 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Admission of New Evidence at Appellate Stage\n•\nIssue: Validity of admitting evidence not presented to the Assessing Officer.\nConclusion: Admission was invalid as the evidence was not produced earlier.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss.56 & 61.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=131(4),56,61 ", + "Case #": "C.M.A. (Income-tax) No. 1 of 1997, decision dated: 11-03-1998, hearing DATE ; 4-03-1998.", + "Judge Name:": " AMIR-UL-MULK MENGAL, C, J. AND, JAVED IQBAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mehmood for Petitioner. H. Shakeel Ahmad for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MEMOONA AHMAD\nVs\nA.C.I.T., CIRCLE A, QUETTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 384 = 1998 SLD 384 = 1998 PTD 2975 = 1999 PTCL 274 = (1998) 78 TAX 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Duty-Free Shops and Withholding Tax\n•\nIssue: Whether withholding tax applied to duty-free shop operations.\nConclusion: Tax on income was valid, but exemption on goods was upheld.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss.8, 50(5), 80-C.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5),80C(1),80C,8,50(5)(b),50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1077/KB, 1078/KB of 1995-96 and. 2255/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 8-05-1998, hearing DATE : 5-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amjad Jamshed, D.R. for Appellant. A. Bilwani, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 385 = 1998 SLD 385 = 1998 PTD 2987 = (1998) 78 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Valuation and Workers' Welfare Fund\n•\nIssue: Inclusion of deemed income in total income for welfare levy.\nConclusion: Deemed income is subject to levy under the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: S.29(3); Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(44),2(f),29(3)(b) & ThirdSched.,R.8(5),29(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2761/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 1st February, 1997, hearing DATE : 26-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SIKANDAR KALIM FAZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Z. H. Jafri for Appellant. Farooq Tahir, D.R. for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 386 = 1998 SLD 386 = 1998 PTD 3008 = (1996) 222 ITR 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Liability Accrual\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of a liability arising after the accounting year.\nConclusion: Liability was not deductible as it accrued after the accounting period.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.37.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.84 of 1991, decision dated: 5-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. R. Raman Pillai for the Assessee. P.K.R. non and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 387 = 1998 SLD 387 = 1998 PTD 3011 = (1996) 222 ITR 489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Deduction at Source on Lottery Winnings\n•\nIssue: Whether winners are liable for tax when the prize giver deducts it at source.\nConclusion: Prize winners are not liable for tax already deducted.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.194-B & 205.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 1487 of 1991, decision dated: 2nd August 1996", + "Judge Name:": " S.L. SARAF, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.K. Misra and O.T. Jamir for Petitioner. G.K. Joshi for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "OM PRAKASH GATTANI\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 388 = 1998 SLD 388 = 1998 PTD 3014 = (1996) 222 ITR 482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Commission Paid to Partner’s Proprietary Concern\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of commission paid to a proprietary concern of a partner.\nConclusion: Deduction was allowed as provisions of Section 40(b) did not apply.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.40(b).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.63 of 1989, decision dated: 20-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. G.M. Chaphekar with Subhash Samvatsar for the Assessee\nJamil Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Coy din, Advocate with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, for Appellants.\nSaeedur Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nD.M. BHATIA INDUSTRY\nSARWAR AND others\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 389 = 1998 SLD 389 = 1998 PTD 3017 = (1996) 222 ITR 475", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment Allowance and Exchange Fluctuations\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for investment allowance on exchange fluctuation costs.\nConclusion: Additional costs due to exchange fluctuations were not eligible for allowance.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.32-A.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.53 of 1983, decision dated: 8-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " DR. BAUTHOR(S):P. SARAF AND S.M, JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.S. Pardiwala with P.F. Kaka instructed by Kanga & Co. for the Assessee. G.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate with P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KHATAU MAKANJI SPINNING & WEAVING CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 390 = 1998 SLD 390 = 1998 PTD 3019 = (1996) 222 ITR 450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reassessment Due to Suppression of Sales\n•\nIssue: Validity of reassessment notice for failure to disclose material facts.\nConclusion: The notice was valid as the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that income was suppressed based on findings in subsequent assessment years.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.147 & 148; Constitution of India: Art.226.\n•\nCitation: Kirpa Ram Ramji Dass v. ITO (1982) 135 ITR 68 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 1411 of 1981, decision dated: 12-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N.K. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goyal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BABU RAM NAGAR MAL\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 391 = 1998 SLD 391 = 1998 PTD 3024 = (1996) 222 ITR 799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Capital Gains from Shade Trees\n•\nIssue: Whether shade trees in a coffee estate constitute a capital asset and if capital gains arise on their sale.\nConclusion: Shade trees are capital assets; gains from their sale are taxable. However, deductions for cost improvements were disallowed as they were unsupported by evidence.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.2(14), 45, 48, & 54-E.\n•\nCitation: State of Kerala v. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 275 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Cases Nos.3 of 1995 and 117 of 1993, decision dated: 3rd November, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " S.A. HAKEEM AND TIRATH S. THAKUR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Parthasarthy for the Assessee (in I.T.R.C. No. 3 of 1995). K. S. Ramabhadran for the Assessee (in I. T. R. C. No. 117 of 1993). M.V. Seshachala and H.L. Duttu for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "EMERALD VALLEY ESTATES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 392 = 1998 SLD 392 = 1998 PTD 3042 = (1996) 222 ITR 455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction on Incentive Bonus\n•\nIssue: Whether a salaried employee of LIC can claim a 40% deduction on incentive bonus under Section 10(14).\nConclusion: It was a question of law requiring reference.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.10(14) & 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No.228 of 1995, decision dated: 8-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. SHASHI MAHAJAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 393 = 1998 SLD 393 = 1998 PTD 3043 = (1996) 222 ITR 455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Registration of Partnership with Disabled Partner\n•\nIssue: Admission of a deaf and dumb adult to benefits of a partnership.\nConclusion: The partnership was invalid as only minors can be admitted to the benefits of a partnership under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.184; Indian Partnership Act, 1932: S.30.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. B. Pandiaik & Co. (1983) 143 ITR 464 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1148 (Reference No. 592 of 1981), decision dated: 30-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHANKAR COTTONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 394 = 1998 SLD 394 = 1998 PTD 3048 = (1996) 222 ITR 626", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty Jurisdiction Post-Amendment\n•\nIssue: Whether the IAC retained jurisdiction to impose penalties post-amendment for earlier assessment years.\nConclusion: The IAC had jurisdiction to impose penalties for earlier years even after the 1975 amendment.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.271(1)(c) & 274.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.57 of 1980, decision dated: 11-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B. M. LAL AND R.N. RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharat Ji Agarwal for the Commissioner. V.B. Upadhya for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKASHI PRASAD & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 395 = 1998 SLD 395 = 1998 PTD 3050 = (1998) 78 TAX 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Octroi on Imported Goods Including Advance Tax\n•\nIssue: Whether advance income tax forms part of the ad valorem value for charging octroi.\nConclusion: Advance income tax cannot be included in the value for charging octroi as it is subject to final adjustment under income tax provisions.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss.2(24) & 50.\n•\nCitation: Al-Hamza Ship Breaking Co. v. Govt. of Pakistan, 1996 CLC 608.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(24) & 50,50(5)(a)(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 431 of 1997, decision dated: 31st March, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Saeed, Zahid Alvi anti H. Shakeel Ahmad for Petitioner. Malik Sikandar Khan, A.G. for Respondent No. 1\nAshraf Khan Tanoli for and Pervaiz Khan Tanoli for Respondents Nos.2 and 3", + "Party Name:": "AHMED STEEL (PVT.) LIMITED\nVs\nTHE GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Quetta and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 396 = 1998 SLD 396 = 1998 PTD 3076 = (1996) 222 ITR 620", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBIS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification and Set-Off Without Notice\n•\nIssue: Validity of rectification and set-off of refunds without notice to the assessee.\nConclusion: Such actions without notice were invalid, and the refund was to be issued immediately.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.154 & 245.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petition No. 1412 of 1993, decision dated: 5-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, ACTG. C, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.N. Gupta for Petitioner. R.D. Jain for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SHIV NARAIN SHIVHARE\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION) and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 397 = 1998 SLD 397 = 1998 PTD 3078 = (1996) 222 ITR 608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Recovery of Tax from Directors of a Company\n•\nIssue: Liability of a director for tax arrears of a company post-resignation.\nConclusion: The director was liable for arrears accrued during his tenure. Recovery proceedings were valid despite the company’s pending revision petition.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.179 & 222.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.P. No.3066 of 1996, decision dated: 24-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " G. S. SINGHVI AND S. S. SUDHALKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Mittal for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goyal for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3\nNemo for Respondents Nos.4 and 5", + "Party Name:": "DARSHAN KUMAR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 398 = 1998 SLD 398 = 1998 PTD 3082 = (1996) 222 ITR 578", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Trust Taxation Rate\n•\nIssue: Applicability of higher tax rates for trust income.\nConclusion: The trust did not qualify for exemptions under Section 164(1) provisos and was taxed at 65%.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.164.\n•\nCitation: Chintamani Ghosh Trust v. CWT (1971) 80 ITR 331 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 195 of 1979, decision dated: 3rd April, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " M. KATJU AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shambhu Chopra for the Assessee. Bharatji Agarwal for the Commissioner\nBarkat Ali Saleemi and Waheed-ud-Din, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by Zia-ud-Din Ahmad Qureshi, Attorney for Appellants.\nMufti Nazar Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.", + "Party Name:": "CHINTAMANI GHOSHI TRUST\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nCriminal Appeal No. 46 of 1966\n(1) MUHAMMAD SHAFI, \n(2) MUHAMMAD SHARIF alias JATTA, AND\n(3) KARAM BUKHSH, SONS of BASSA\n vs\nTHE STATE\nAND\nP. S. L. A. No. 157 of 1966\nMUHAMMAD SADIQ, alias BHOLA, SON of IMAM BUKHSH\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 399 = 1998 SLD 399 = 1998 PTD 3087 = (1996) 222 ITR 574", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation for Unregistered Ownership\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for depreciation without a registered ownership deed.\nConclusion: Depreciation was allowed as ownership for tax purposes does not require legal title.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.32.\n•\nCitation: R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=32 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 153 of 1993, decision dated: 12-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " K. C. AGARWAL, C, J. AND MRS. RUMA PAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Prasad and Miss Siphon Das for the Commissioner. R.N. Bajoria with J.P Khaitan and A.K. Dey for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGENERAL MARKETING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 400 = 1998 SLD 400 = 1998 PTD 3090 = (1996) 222 ITR 572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Interest on Sticky Loans\n•\nIssue: Whether interest on sticky loans credited to a suspense account is taxable.\nConclusion: Interest was taxable even if not realized, based on Supreme Court precedent.\n•\nCitation: State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 111 of 1983, decision dated: 17-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND M.L. DUDHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.U. Khatri with J.P. Deodhar for the Commissioner. Muralidhar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMERCANTILE BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 401 = 1998 SLD 401 = 1998 PTD 3092 = (1996) 222 ITR 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty on Misclassification of Interest Income\n•\nIssue: Whether penalty applies for treating compensation interest as business income.\nConclusion: Penalty was invalid as the classification as business income was justified.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.256 & 271(1)(c).\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.3686 of 1995-S, decision dated: 5-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. K.P. Dandapani for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nELOOR CONSTRUCTIONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 402 = 1998 SLD 402 = 1998 PTD 3097 = (1996) 222 ITR 736", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Refund Despite Procedural Error\n•\nIssue: Whether a procedural error invalidates entitlement to interest on a refund.\nConclusion: Relief could not be denied solely due to quoting a wrong provision of law.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.214 & 244.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.271 of 1986, decision dated: 14-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": " U.L. BHAT, CJ AND M.V. TAMASKAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUDHOJI SHRIKISHANDAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 403 = 1998 SLD 403 = 1998 PTD 3099 = (1996) 222 ITR 720", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Garnishee Proceedings Without Notice\n•\nIssue: Validity of garnishee proceedings initiated without notifying the concerned party.\nConclusion: Proceedings were invalid due to lack of required notice.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.226.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petitions Nos:4625 and 4626 of 1995, decision dated: 19-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.K. Garg for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney Senior Advocate and-Sanjay Loyal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ATMA TUBE PRODUCTS LTD\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 404 = 1998 SLD 404 = 1998 PTD 3105 = (1996) 222 ITR 693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Pension Received Abroad\n•\nIssue: Whether a resident but not ordinarily resident in India is taxed on foreign pension remitted to India.\nConclusion: Pension was not taxable in India as it accrued and was taxed in Malaysia under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.5; DTAA India-Malaysia: Art.18.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. A.P. Kalyanakrishnan (1992) 195 ITR 534 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 111 of 1991, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P.G.K. Warriyar and K.K. Ravindranath for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nV.K. VASUDEVAN PILLAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 405 = 1998 SLD 405 = 1998 PTD 3108 = (1996) 222 ITR 691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Failure to Maintain Books of Account\n•\nIssue: Differentiation between penalties under Sections 271-A and 271-B.\nConclusion: Penalty under Section 271-B applies for failure to get books audited, not for failure to maintain books. Failure to maintain books is penalized under Section 271-A.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.44-AA, 44-AB, 271-A & 271-B.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.27 of 1993, decision dated: 6-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N. BARUAH AND S. BARMAN ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.K. Joshi for the Assessee. Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SURAJMAL PARSURAM TODI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 406 = 1998 SLD 406 = 1998 PTD 3110 = (1996) 222 ITR 670", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBITFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification on Investment Allowance\n•\nIssue: Withdrawal of investment allowance under rectification proceedings.\nConclusion: Question of law arises whether investment allowance was wrongly allowed and could be rectified under Section 154.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.154 & 256.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.141 and IT.As. Nos.l47 and 148 of 1994, decision dated: 16-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.M. LAL AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharatji Agarwal for Appellant. R.K. Mishra for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHARVAN COLD STORAGE AND GENERAL MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 407 = 1998 SLD 407 = 1998 PTD 3111 = (1996) 222 ITR 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure—Reasonableness of Commission\n•\nIssue: Tribunal’s finding on reasonableness of expenditure as a factual determination.\nConclusion: The Tribunal’s decision was a finding of fact; no referable question of law arose.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 176, 175, 177 to 179 of 1993, 37, 38, 84, 96, 179, 181 and 182 of 1994, decision dated: 28-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N. K. SODHI AND M. L. SINGHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Goel for the Commissioner. N.K. Sood for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHANPAT RAI & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 408 = 1998 SLD 408 = 1998 PTD 3113 = (1996) 222 ITR 665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revision During Pending Objection\n•\nIssue: Validity of Commissioner’s action under Section 263 during an ongoing objection under Section 143(2).\nConclusion: The assessment was incomplete due to the pending objection, and the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under Section 263.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.143 & 263.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.293 of 1990, decision dated: 24th February 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND S.K KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner. B.L. Nema for the Assessee\nMuhammad Akram and Haider Ali Zaidi, Advocates Supreme Court, instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Attorney, on behalf of Yousuf Rafi, Attorney, on-Record for Appellant.\nIqbal Kazi Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by K. A. Ghani, Attorney.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. RANIRAJ KAUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 409 = 1998 SLD 409 = 1998 PTD 3116 = (1996) 222 ITR 653", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from House Property Before Sale\n•\nIssue: Taxability of property income post-possession transfer but before registration.\nConclusion: Income was not taxable in the seller’s hands after possession was transferred.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.22.\n•\nCitation: CIT (Addl.) v. Sahay Properties & Investments Co. (1983) 144 ITR 357 (Pat.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.97 of 1984, decision dated: 25-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND M. Y. EQBAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKRISHNA LAL AJMANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 410 = 1998 SLD 410 = 1998 PTD 3120 = (1996) 222 ITR 629", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation and Special Deduction\n•\nIssue: Higher depreciation rate and eligibility for deductions under Sections 80-J, 80-HH, and 80-HHA.\nConclusion: Higher depreciation was allowed, but the firm was not entitled to deductions as it was not producing goods.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.32, 80-J, 80-HH, 80-HHA.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Super Drillers (1988) 174 ITR 640 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.21 of 1987, decision dated: 23rd March, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MUHAMMAD QUADRI AND T. N. C. RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Habeeb Ansari for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUPER DRILLERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 411 = 1998 SLD 411 = 1998 PTD 3123 = (1996) 222 ITR 831", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Receipts Post Firm Dissolution\n•\nIssue: Assessment of income after firm dissolution.\nConclusion: Receipts post-dissolution were not taxable in the firm’s hands; only the partners could be taxed.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.28, 176(3), 189, 60 & 63.\n•\nCitation: McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 175 of 1993, decision dated: 21st December, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " C. K. THAKKAR AND RAJESH BALIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for the Assessee. M.J. Thakore with M.R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BANYAN AND BERRY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 412 = 1998 SLD 412 = 1998 PTD 3175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additions in Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nIssue: Validity of additions based on agreed assessment without substantial information.\nConclusion: Additions were unsustainable without adequate reasoning or evidence.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss.13(1)(e), 62, 65.\n•\nCitation: 1990 PTD 903.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(e),62,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.280/KB to 284/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 25-07-1997, hearing DATE : 22-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umer Farooq, D.R. for Appellant. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 413 = 1998 SLD 413 = 1998 PTD 3179 = (1998) 78 TAX 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Classification of Income\n•\nIssue: Classification of rent received by an association of persons.\nConclusion: Rent not classified as income from house property due to lack of ownership; taxable under “income from other sources.”\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss.30, 15.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=30,19,15,15(c),15(f),14 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.9558/LB, 9559/LB of 1992-93, 4136/LB of 1994, decision dated: 30-06-1998, hearing DATE : 17-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muhammad Azeem for Appellant. Shafqat Mahmood Chohan, L. A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 414 = 1998 SLD 414 = 1998 PTD 3191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Fixed Tax Agreements\n•\nIssue: Validity of tax agreements overriding statutory provisions.\nConclusion: Fixed tax agreements cannot override provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979: Ss.59-C, 66-A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59C(a)(b) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No.6078/LB of 1995, decision dated: 18-06-1998, hearing DATE : 21st May, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Mrs. Fiza Muzaffar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 415 = 1998 SLD 415 = 1998 PTD 3195 = (1998) 78 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Allowance for Directors\n•\nIssue: Eligibility of a whole-time director for allowances despite involvement with other companies.\nConclusion: Allowances claimed from one company were valid.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Rules, 1982: R.3(2)(c).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.3(2)(c),Rr.4to18,3(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.436/LB of 1998, decision dated: 16-05-1998, hearing DATE : 11-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Malik, F.C.A. for Appellant. Anwar-ul-Haq, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 416 = 1998 SLD 416 = 1998 PTD 3218 = (1997) 223 ITR 854", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Surrender of Leasehold Rights\n•\nIssue: Nature of receipts from lease surrender.\nConclusion: Not revenue receipts; not taxable as capital gains due to valuation issues.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.28 & 45.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Joy Ice Creams (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.22 of 1990, decision dated: 1st August, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, C.J. AND AFTAB ALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Sharati for the Commissioner. L.N. Rastogi, Senior Advocate for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNEBA RAM HANSRAJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 417 = 1998 SLD 417 = 1998 PTD 3224 = (1997) 223 ITR 791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revised Returns and Assessment Validity\n•\nIssue: Filing revised returns under Section 139(4).\nConclusion: Revised return under Section 139(4) was invalid; assessment was barred by limitation.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.139 & 153.\n•\nCitation: Eapen Joseph v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 26 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 13 of 1982, decision dated: 22-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA C, J. AND S.J MUKHOPADHAYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajiv Ranjan Prasad for the Assessee. L.N. Rastogi, Senior Advocate and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Dr. Mrs. SATYABHAMA THAKUR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nCommissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nCitibank N.A." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 418 = 1998 SLD 418 = 1998 PTD 3229 = (1997) 223 ITR 762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction on Inter-Corporate Dividends\n•\nIssue: Deduction computation on net or gross dividend.\nConclusion: Question of law arose regarding computation basis.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.80-M & 256.\n•\nCitation: Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 177 of 1992, decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K.JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.W. Mahajan for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner\nGhias Muhammad Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan, (M. B. Zaman Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad Attorney for Appellant. Manzoor Qadir Senior Advocate (Ghanzafar Ali Gondel Advocate with him) instructed by Wajid Hussain Attorney No. 1. S. Nasir-ud-Din Advocate General, West Pakistan (Ehsanul Haq Advocate with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for Respondent No. 2", + "Party Name:": "STATE BANK OF INDORE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN\nvs\n(1) Syed AKHLAQUE HUSSAIN\nAND\n(2) WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 419 = 1998 SLD 419 = 1998 PTD 3232 = (1997) 223 ITR 754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains on Land Acquisition\n•\nIssue: Timing of accrual of capital gains.\nConclusion: Gains accrue on the award date, not on possession date.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.45.\n•\nCitation: Appala Narasamma (S.) v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 17 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.22 of 1995, decision dated: 26-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. K.K. Dey for the Assessee\nKaram Elahi Chauhan Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Muhammad Anwar Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Salim Ahmad Attorney for Appellant. S. M. Bashir Assistant Advocate General West Pakistan (M. A. Bajwa Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCACHAR NATIVE JOINT STOCK CO. LTD\nSyed SARDA R SHAH BOKHARI\nvs\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 420 = 1998 SLD 420 = 1998 PTD 3234 = (1997) 223 ITR 569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Waiver or Reduction of Penalty\n•\nIssue: Conditions for waiver under Section 273-A.\nConclusion: Waiver denied as conditions, including tax payment, were not met.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.273-A.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No.809 of 1992, decision dated: 6-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.S. Virk for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney and Sanjay Goel for Respondents\nMaulvi Ahsan-ul-Haq Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Amjad Hussain Attorney for Appellant. Respondents . Ex parte", + "Party Name:": "NARESH KUMAR\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA and others\nZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD., HYDERABAD\nvs\n(1) THE CHAIRMAN, WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL COURT, LAHORE, \n(2) THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF WEST\nPAKISTAN, LAHORE, AND\n(3) TUFAIL MUHAMMAD, GENERAL SECRETARY, ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY EMPLOYEES UNION, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 421 = 1998 SLD 421 = 1998 PTD 3238 = (1997) 223 ITR 738", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deductibility of Interest on Tax\n•\nIssue: Disallowance of interest paid under Section 220(2).\nConclusion: Interest on tax was not deductible.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.40 & 220.\n•\nCitation: Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 275 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1475 (Reference No.910 of 1982), decision dated: 22-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nMaksumul Hakim Advocate General, East Pakistan (Siddique Ahmad Choudhury Advocate Supreme Court absent) instructed by Syed A. N. M. Nasir-ud-Din Senior Attorney. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "FENNER (INDIA) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nPROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS-s\nvs\nTOFAZZAL HOSSAIN PRINTER AND PUBLISHER OF THE DAILY, ITTEFAQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 422 = 1998 SLD 422 = 1998 PTD 3240 = (1997) 223 ITR 675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment Allowance for Hotels\n•\nIssue: Eligibility of machinery in hotels for investment allowance.\nConclusion: Machinery used in food preparation qualified; hotels were treated as industrial undertakings.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.32-A.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.21 of 1995, decision dated: 25-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwalla for the Assessee\nM. M. Mahmoodi Advocate Supreme Court instructed by K. A. Ghani Attorney for Appellants. S. M. Zafar Senior Advocate (S. M. S. Hassani Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Yusuf Rafi Attorney", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHOTEL BELLE VUE (P.) LTD\nMESSRS A. Z. COMPANY\nvs\nMESSRS S. MAULA BUKHSH MUHAMMAD BASHIR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 423 = 1998 SLD 423 = 1998 PTD 3248 = (1997) 223 ITR 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nIssue: Impact of reassessment returns on original returns.\nConclusion: Original returns were valid for penalty determination; concealment penalties were imposed only on additional income.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: S.271(1)(c).\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons (1992) 195 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.98 of 1981, decision dated: 20-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shambhu Chopra for the Assessee\nMazher Ali Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Sharif-ud-Din Ahmad Faridi Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmed Attorney on behalf of Ijaz Ali Attorney Supreme Court on-Record for the State", + "Party Name:": "SHREE ASHRAY LAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nNAWAB AND 3 others\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 424 = 1998 SLD 424 = 1998 PTD 3255 = (1997) 223 ITR 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Bad Debt Claims\n•\nIssue: Whether a bad debt claim could be rectified under Section 154.\nConclusion: Rectification denied as the issue was debatable and not apparent from the record.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.36 & 154.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B.I.T. Reference No.90 of 1983, decision dated: 15-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Maloo for the Assessee. G.S. Bapna-for the Commissioner\nManzur Qadir Senior Advocate (Miss R. S. Qari Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. A. Rahman Attorney for Appellant. Ghias Muhammad Senior Advocate (M. A. Zullah Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad Attorney", + "Party Name:": "CHAGAN MAL BASTIMAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nMESSRS EASTEND EXPORTS, KARACHI\nvs\n(1) THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, RAWALPINDI, AND\n(2) THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 425 = 1998 SLD 425 = 1998 PTD 3261 = (1997) 223 ITR 693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Deduction for Cooperative Societies\n•\nIssue: Deduction computation on gross income.\nConclusion: Question of law arose regarding computation method.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.80-P & 256.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 448 (Raj.).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.44 of 1991, decision dated: 9-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Mittal for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate (Mahavir Ahlawat, Advocate with him) for Respondent\nDr. Naseem Hassan Shah Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Khawaja Shaukat Ali Advocate with him) instructed by Ch. Khalil-ur-Rahman Attorney. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "SONEPAT COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH\nILAMUDDIN\nvs\nTHE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND FOUR OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 426 = 1998 SLD 426 = 1998 PTD 3265 = (1997) 223 ITR 691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Dividend Deduction in Surtax Computation\n•\nIssue: Deduction of declared dividends from reserves.\nConclusion: Dividend must be deducted from reserves for surtax computation.\n•\nSections: Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.\n•\nCitation: Indian Tube Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 102 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case NO-985 (Reference No-619 of 1982), decision dated: 22nd February. 1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee\nIhsanul Hag Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Hamid Hussain Advocate, Supreme Court on-RecordAbsent) instructed by S. M. Hanif Attorney. Nemo", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVARADALAKHSMI MILLS LTD\nSyed MASUMUL HASSAN AND ANOTHERs\nvs\nSheikh MUHAMMAD OMER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 427 = 1998 SLD 427 = 1998 PTD 3266 = (1997) 223 ITR 688", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Grounds in Appeals\n•\nIssue: Tribunal’s power to admit additional grounds.\nConclusion: Legal grounds could be raised if factual premises were already on record.\n•\nRules: Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963: R.11.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.203 of 1990, decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. L. Nema for the Assessee. V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NATIONAL NEWS PRINT AND PAPER MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 428 = 1998 SLD 428 = 1998 PTD 3269 = (1997) 223 ITR 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Capital Gains and Agricultural Land\n•\nIssue: Timing of capital gains accrual on land acquisition.\nConclusion: Gains accrue on the award date; agricultural status is a question of fact.\n•\nSections: Income Tax Act, 1961: Ss.45 & 47.\n•\nCitation: Appala Narasamma (S.) v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 17 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.26 of 1995, decision dated: 7-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for Appellant. Y. Ratnakar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPANDARI LAXMAIAH\nMUHAMMAD IMRAN-Applicant\nvs \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 429 = 1998 SLD 429 = 1998 PTD 3283 = (1997) 223 ITR 554", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Status in Tax Filing, Inclusion of Minor’s Income.\nConclusions:\n(a) Assessments made in the individual capacity without proper notice, where returns were filed as H.U.F., are invalid.\n(b) Minor’s income included in the mother’s income cannot later be attributed to the father.\nCitations:\nCIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy; CIT v. Associated Cement and Steel Agencies; WCT v. J.K. Srivastava & Sons.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 306 of 1991, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K, JOIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner\nNazir Singh for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSOBHAGMAL MISHRILAL SEMLAVADA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 430 = 1998 SLD 430 = 1998 PTD 3286 = (1997) 223 ITR 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Cash Credits, Burden of Proof.\nConclusions:\nThe existence of the assessee’s books of account is a prerequisite for Section 68 applicability. A partnership firm’s books cannot be treated as those of an individual partner.\nCitations:\nShanta Devi (Smt.) v. CIT; CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. l of 1991, decision dated: 20-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N BARUAH AND S.B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Bhattacharjee, M.L. Jain and R.K. Joshi for the Assessee\nU. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ANAND RAM RAITANI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 431 = 1998 SLD 431 = 1998 PTD 3291 = (1997) 223 ITR 535", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Business Expenditure, Commercial Expediency.\nConclusions:\nIncentive payments not backed by commercial expediency or prior practice are non-deductible under Section 37.\nCitations:\nGordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Co. v. CIT; CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B.I.T. Reference No.44 of 1986, decision dated: 8-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL AND M.A.A. KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Mehta, Senior Advocate and Ms. Sonal Mehta for the Assessee\nK. S. Gupta on behalf of G. S. Bapna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JAIPUR ELECTRO (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 432 = 1998 SLD 432 = 1998 PTD 3299 = (1997) 223 ITR 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Deduction for Industrial Company.\nConclusions:\nConstruction of roads/buildings does not qualify as industrial manufacturing for Sections 80-HH & 80-I deductions.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Oricon (Pvt.) Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 350 of 1991, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Dagaonkar for the Assessee\nD.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BADSHAH CONSTRUCTION CO., (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 433 = 1998 SLD 433 = 1998 PTD 3303 = (1997) 223 ITR 498", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Fresh Assessments Post-Tribunal Directions.\nConclusions:\nFresh assessments can include previously unassessed income if legally permissible.\nCitations:\nAssam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. v. CIT; Pathikonda Balasubba Setty v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.3 of 1995, decision dated: 23rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND N. S. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner\nDr. A. K. Saraf, K. K. Gupta and R. K. Agarwalla for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CO. (P.) LTD. (No.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 434 = 1998 SLD 434 = 1998 PTD 3308 = (1997) 223 ITR 504", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Right Person for Taxation.\nConclusions:\nUnder the 1961 Act, the correct legal entity must be taxed, precluding incorrect assessments.\nCitations:\nITO v. Ch. Atchaiah.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 165 of 1991, decision dated: 20-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.R. Raman for the Assessee\nP.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K, Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NEELA PRODUCTIONS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 435 = 1998 SLD 435 = 1998 PTD 3315 = (1997) 223 ITR 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #3528\nTopics: Undistributed Income.\nConclusions:\nTax under Section 104 is not levied if current profits are insufficient to meet prior tax liabilities.\nCitations:\nNone specifically noted.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.45 of 1983, decision dated: 3rd October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.S. Aggarwal and Rajesh Bindal for the Assessee\nR.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Mahavir Ahlawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AMRITSAR TRANSPORT CO. (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 436 = 1998 SLD 436 = 1998 PTD 3319 = (1998) 78 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Revision Powers of Tax Authorities.\nConclusions:\nAuthorities can revise to tax interest income if initial orders do not comply with Section 30.\nCitations:\nPLD 1962 SC 128.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,135(9),66A,66(1)(c),30,CI.118D(1),SecondSched,6 & 66A,65,15,31,31(l)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3696/LB to 3698/LB of 1997, decision dated: 5-05-1998.hearing DATE : 21st November, 1997.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt and Naveed Andrabi for Appellant\nRana Munir Hussain, L.A. and Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "AMRITSAR TRANSPORT CO. (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 437 = 1998 SLD 437 = 1998 PTD 3345 = (1997) 223 ITR 488", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Partnership Firm Separation.\nConclusions:\nPartnership firms with similar partners and business cannot automatically be treated as one entity.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Sivakasi Match Exporting Co.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.90 of 1984, decision dated: 13-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND M. Y. EQBAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner\nPawan Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBRIJNANDAN PRASAD & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 438 = 1998 SLD 438 = 1998 PTD 3350 = (1997) 223 ITR 482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Business Expenditure on Dissolution.\nConclusions:\nExpenses for firm dissolution are deductible as they are incurred for business purposes.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1118 and Reference No. 679 of 1982, decision dated: 19-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uthama Reddy for the Assessee\nC.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nNasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court, for the Appellant. Nemo, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VIJAYA PRODUCTION (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nVs\nNOOR BAI IBRAHIM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 439 = 1998 SLD 439 = 1998 PTD 3355 = (1997) 223 ITR 455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Expenditure on Scientific Research.\nConclusions:\nMachinery transferred for scientific research qualifies for deductions under Section 35.\nCitations:\nEscorts Ltd. v. Union of India.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.1334 and Reference No.825 of 1982, decision dated: 19-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 440 = 1998 SLD 440 = 1998 PTD 3362 = (1997) 223 ITR 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Benami Property.\nConclusions:\nProperty in the wife’s name requires clear proof to be deemed as the husband’s benami property.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.219 to 221 of 1991, decision dated: 8-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. G.M. Chaphekar and S.S. Samvarsar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJ.P. DUBEY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 441 = 1998 SLD 441 = 1998 PTD 3365 = (1998) 233 ITR 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Employee Welfare Expenditure.\nConclusions:\nExpenditures solely for staff welfare, with no enduring business benefit, are deductible.\nCitations:\nAssam-Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.73 of 1990-X, decision dated: 19-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " V. V. KAMAT AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. George Mathan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPREMIER COTTON SPINNING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 442 = 1998 SLD 442 = 1998 PTD 3375 = (1997) 223 ITR 432", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Interest Income.\nConclusions:\nReduction in interest rates for financial prudence is legitimate and not taxable as notional income.\nCitations:\nNone specifically noted.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.2 of 1995, decision dated: 3rd July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND B. N. SINGH NEELAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.R. Banerjee and Ms. B. Choudhury for the Assessee. U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DEVELOPMENT INVESTORS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 443 = 1998 SLD 443 = 1998 PTD 3379 = (1997) 223 ITR 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Registration and Best Judgment Assessment.\nConclusions:\nRegistration cancellations require justifiable reasoning and adherence to natural justice.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Krishnamma & Co.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Referred Case No.42 of 1988, decision dated: 18-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. RAO AND T.N. C RANGARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.V. Prasad for the Commissioner. Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPANDURANGA ENGINEERING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 444 = 1998 SLD 444 = 1998 PTD 3383 = (1997) 223 ITR 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Reassessments and Interest.\nConclusions:\nInterest cannot be levied for reassessments before Explanation 2 to Section 139(8) was effective.\nCitations:\nCharles D'Souza v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.53 of 1991, decision dated: 4-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND NK. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Mahavir Ahlawat for Petitioner. Sanjeev Pandit for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSint. SUSHMA SAXENA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 445 = 1998 SLD 445 = 1998 PTD 3387 = (1997) 223 ITR 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Investment Allowance.\nConclusions:\nBusinesses using specialized equipment for production processes qualify for investment allowance.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Super Drillers.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 131 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. H.C. Sarda for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKAMDHENU AGENCIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 446 = 1998 SLD 446 = 1998 PTD 3391 = (1997) 223 ITR 347 = (1998) 77 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBEQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics: Penalty and Concealment.\nConclusions:\nPenalty for income concealment requires substantive evidence beyond mere rejection of returns.\nCitations:\nAkshay Bhandar v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.5 of 1995, decision dated: 27-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta and R.K. Agarwalla for the Assessee. U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SAURAV DIESEL SALES AND SERVICES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 447 = 1998 SLD 447 = 1998 PTD 3395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.13(1 )(d)-Income Tax Rules, 1982, R.207-A-Addition-Validity-A,ssessee purchased shop and declared its value as per Registered Deed which was based upon District Collectors rates- -Assessing Officer adopted higher value-Appellate Authority reduced the addition giving partial relief to assessee-Validity-Held, sanctity of registered deed should not be disturbed, unless department was in a position to find something contrary to or had some evidence otherwise-No such evidence was found by Appellate Authority, addition was deleted accordingly.\n \n1966 PTD (Trib.) 1096 and 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1182 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4790/LB of 1997, decision dated: 8-01-1998, hearing DATE : 7-01-1998", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMED SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azhar Iqbal, F.C.A. for Appellant. Farooq Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 448 = 1998 SLD 448 = 1998 PTD 3397 = (1997) 223 ITR 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Penalty-Firm-Delay in filing returns-Delay in filing returns by registered firm-Advance tax paid by firm in excess of assessed tax-Penalty cannot be imposed treating firm as an unregistered one-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271.\n \nIn the case of Ganesh Dass Sreeram v. ITO (1988) 169 ITR 221 (SC), the Supreme Court was considering the question of levy of interest for delay by a registered firm in filing returns. It held that where the advance tax duly paid covers the entire amount of tax assessed, there is no question of charging the registered firm with interest even though the return is filed by it beyond the time allowed, regard being had to the fact that the payment of interest is only compensatory in nature. As the entire amount of tax is paid by way of advance tax, the question of payment of any compensation does not arise. These observations have been interpreted unanimously by different High Courts as laying down the proposition that where the amount of tax paid by way of advance tax or deducted at source covers the amount of tax assessed, no penalty can be imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It would make no difference whether the assessee is a registered or unregistered firm. It had been held that the provisions of subsection (2) of section 271 are attracted for quantification of the penalty only when it is impossible under subsection (1). In that event, the registered firm loses the benefit of registration, and the penalty for which it has become liable has to be calculated depriving it of the benefit of registration and treating it as an unregistered firm. While deciding the liability for penalty under subsection (1) effect has to be given to subsection (2) which comes into operation only to make the formula for calculating the penalty under subsection (1) workable. When the assessed tax is nil, it would be impracticable to impose penalty under subsection (2) of section 271. There is no other decision of any High Court taking a contrary view, subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Dass Sreerams case (1988) 1969 ITR 221. Hence, penalty cannot be levied on a registered firm by treating it as an unregistered firm in terms of section 271(2) of the Act when no tax is payable by the registered firm after giving credit to advance tax paid and/or tax deducted at source.\n \nGanesh Dass Sreeram v. ITO (1988) 169 ITR 221 (SC) applied.\n \nCIT v. Braham Prakash & Co. (1989) 179 ITR 422 (P & H): CIT v. Builders Engineers Co. (1989) 175 ITR 317 (Raj.); CIT v. Deepak Trading Co. (1994) 208 ITR 304 (Cal.) and CIT v. Permilla Singh & Co. (1994) 207 ITR 887 (Orissa) fol.\n \nJamunadas Mannalal v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 261 (Pat.) held no longer good law.\n \nCIT v. Fomra Bros. (1980) 122 ITR 312 (Mad.); CIT v. India Automobiles (1983) 143 ITR 774 (Bom.); CIT v. Maskara Tea Estate (1981) 130 ITR 955 (Gauhati); CIT (Addl.) v. Murugan Tmber Depot (1978) 113 ITR 99 (Mad.); CIT v Priya Gopal Bishoyee (1981) 127 ITR 778 (Cal.); Delux Publishing Co. v. (Addl.) CIT (1981) 127 ITR 782 (MP) and Venkata Krishnayya Naidu & Son v. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 545 (AP) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271 ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 111 to 114 of 1984, decision dated: 25-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND M. Y. EQBAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner. K.N. Prasad and Chiranjib Ranjan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJINDAL BROTHERS\nAshwini Kumar Vadilal Patel (Dalai)\nv.\nP.T. Mehta, Income Tax Officer" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 449 = 1998 SLD 449 = 1998 PTD 3404 = (1997) 223 ITR 264 = (1998) 77 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Penalty-Concealment of income-Search operations showing undisclosed loans -Assessee agreeing for addition to income on condition that penalty was not levied-Tribunal finding that income was computed on basis of estimate-Tribunal justified in cancelling penalty-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271(1)(c).\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Reference-Penalty-Concealment of income-Finding regarding concealment is a finding of fact-Quantum of proof to arrive at such a finding cannot be considered by High Court-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.256 & 271(1)(c).\n \nWhen once the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful negligence on the part of the assessee, the quantum of proof necessary to come to that conclusion cannot be considered by the High Court on a reference.\n \nThe assessee was an individual doing money-lending business. One A had given him a general power of attorney. There was a search in the premises of the assessee on July 27, 1970. Various premises standing in the name of the assessee as well as .A were seized. On August 3, 1970. the assessee filed a return admitting an income of Rs.10,000. The Income-tax Officer examined some of the debtors. The Income-tax Officer considering all these seized materials and other evidence came to the conclusion that the assessee was charging exorbitant interest on the moneys advanced by him. He also found that most of the bonds were executed by the debtors for double the amount of the loan actually advanced. He arrived at a peak credit of the loan at Rs.1,27,385 and estimated the interest income at 50 per cent. of the peak credit at Rs.63,693. The assessment was, thus, made on a total income of Rs.63,693 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as a best assessment since the assessee did not comply with various notices issued by the Income-tax Officer. Penalty was imposed but it was cancelled by the Tribunal because it found that: (a) the assessee was not served with the assessment order; (b) the assessment order did not separately estimate the interest income earned by the assessee and interest income earned on the premises standing in the name of A; (c) the assessee had agreed for inclusion of the interest; income from the premises taken in the name of A on condition that no penalty proceedings were initiated against him; (d) it was not clear how the peak credit of Rs.1,27,385 was calculated; (e) the conditional admission was not sufficient to establish concealment of income; (t) the interest income computed was based on estimate; and (g) the addition to the assessment was not adequate to prove concealment. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that since the Court could not go into the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the materials on which the Tribunal based its conclusion, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the initial burden placed upon the assessee was discharged. The Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271(1)(c),256 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1301 (Reference No.792 of 1982), decision dated: 14th February. 1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nADAM KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 450 = 1998 SLD 450 = 1998 PTD 3411 = (1997) 223 ITR 250 = (1998) 77 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Cash credit-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal -CIT (Appeals) accepting explanation with regard to some of cash credits-Tribunal reversing decision of CIT (Appeals) without a reasoned order-Order of Tribunal was not justified-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.68 & 254.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Tribunal is final fact finding authority-¬Duty of Tribunal to consider evidence on record-Tribunal reversing decision of first appellate authority-Duty of Tribunal to pass reasoned order-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.254.\n \nThe decision of the Assam High Court in Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632, makes it clear that if a deposit is made by a third party, the Income-tax Officer is not powerless to consider whether such deposit is genuine or not. While considering that aspect of the matter the principles laid down in the said case are relevant inasmuch as section 34 of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the purpose of determining the genuineness of the entries made in the books of account. No doubt, the Evidence Act as such is not applicable in income-tax matters. But the spirit of the Act has to be followed. If such books of account are not challenged, those books of account should be considered as genuine. It will not be necessary on the part of the assessee to further prove the capability of the depositor.\n \nThe Tribunal is the last authority so far as facts are concerned. The Tribunal is required to consider each and every fact and discuss the evidence available on record. It may not always be necessary to discuss each and every piece of evidence in detail while affirming the order. But in case of reversal, the Tribunal is duty bound to discuss each piece of evidence placed before it and come to an independent finding by giving reasons.\n \nThe assessee in order to meet its business requirement took loans from various persons during the assessment year 1982-83 and in the preceding assessment year which were reflected in the balance-sheet. Confirmation of loan statements by the creditors had been furnished to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had also furnished the income-tax file numbers of the creditors and some of the creditors were produced before the Assessing Officer for examination. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and the creditors and accordingly the Assessing Officer added the said loans given by the creditors invoking the power under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the interest paid to all the creditors including the interest paid on amounts obtained from them in the preceding assessment year. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after hearing the parties allowed the appeal in respect of the loan given by six out of seven creditors. The Tribunal after hearing the parties reversed the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that the explanations offered were not satisfactory and the reasons given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could not be sustained. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the Tribunal did not discuss any evidence whatsoever and after quoting the submissions made by both sides, the Tribunal disagreed with the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The order of the Tribunal was not valid.\n \nTolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) applied.\n \nJalan Timbers v. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati) and Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 462 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=254,68 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.8 of 1995, decision dated: 22-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D.N. BARUAH AND S.B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.B. Bhattacharjee and R.K. Joshi for the Assessee. U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "RAICHAND KOTHARI (HUF)\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 451 = 1998 SLD 451 = 1998 PTD 3417 = (1997) 223 ITR 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income tax-Reference-Supplementary statement of case-Inconsistency between statement of case and order of Tribunal-Supplementary statement of case required-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 S.258.\n \nHeld, that as the statement of the case made by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was inconsistent with the order passed in that appeal, section 258 of the Act had to be invoked and the cases referred back to the Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of making appropriate additions thereto or alterations therein so as to bring the statement of the case in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=258 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.85 of 1990 and 304 of 1991, decision dated: 8-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Bagdiya for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BINODIRAM BALCHAND\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 452 = 1998 SLD 452 = 1998 PTD 3420 = (1998) 231 ITR 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Deduction of tax at source-Circular-Payments to contractors-Scope of S.194-C-Circular No.681, dated 8-3-1994, withdrawing earlier circulars and stating that S.194-C applies to payments to professionals like lawyers etc. -Circulars not valid-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, 5.194-C-Circular No.681 dated 8-3-1994-Constitution of India, Art.226.\n \nSection 194-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was inserted in the Act by the Finance Act of 1972, with effect from April 1; 1972. The marginal heading of section 194-C is payments to contractors and sub-contractors\"\". The person crediting any sum to the account of the contractor or making any payment in cash or by cheque or draft or by any other mode is required to deduct an amount equal to one per cent. in case of advertising and, in any other case, two per cent. of the amount as income-tax. The Board issued Circular No.86, @ dated May 29, 1972, containing certain directions regarding deduction of income-tax at source under section 194-C of the Act. Paragraph (iii) of the circular explicitly excluded payments made for rendering professional services. The Board issued further clarifications vide Circular No.93, dated September 26, 1972, on the deduction of income-tax at source under section 194-C of the Act. The Board had taken a clear view that section 194-C of the Act did not apply to the payments made to the professionals for their services. It is only after the decision was given by the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. s case (.1993) 201 ITR 435 that the Board revised its opinion and issued a new circular, with¬drawing the earlier ones. Under the Circular No.681, dated March 8, 1994, section 194-C was stated to be applicable to payments made to persons rendering services as lawyers chartered accountants, physicians, surgeons, engineers, architects, etc.\n \nThe Government had earlier proposed insertion of a new section 194-E by the Finance Bill, 1987, clause 49 of the Bill sought the insertion of a new section so as to provide for the deduction of tax at source from payments made to a resident by way of fees for professional services, royalty fees for technical services, rent, commission or brokerage. The amendment was proposed to take effect from June 1, 1987. However, the proposed new provision was dropped and did not come on the statute book. It is, therefore, evident that section 194-C did not cover payments made to professionals for their professional and technical services and that was the reason why a new section was sought to be enacted by the Finance Bill, 1987. A new section 194-J has now been enacted. This new provision inserted by the Finance Act, 1995, with effect from July 1, 1995, requires a person responsible for paying any sum by way of fees for professional services or fees for technical services to deduct au amount equal to five per cent. of such sum as income-tax on income comprised therein. It is, thus, again apparent that the new provisions under section 194-J were brought on the statute book for the reason that deduction of tax at source was not possible to be made from the fees for professional or technical services under the existing provisions of section 194-C. The intention of the Legislature, while enacting section 194-C, is clear and unambiguous and it shall have to be seen in the background of subsequent legislative acts.. The Board had earlier taken a different view about the applicability of section 194-C while issuing directions in its two circulars, dated May 29, 1972, and September 26, 1972, but, later on, giving an erroneous and misconceived interpretation to the observations of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd s case (1993) 210 ITR 435, the Board issued unsustainable and illegal directions (Circular No-681, dated March 8, 1994). The circular was not valid and was liable to be quashed.\n \nAll Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants v. CBDT (1995) 214 ITR 276 (Guj.); Chamber of Income-tax Consultants v. CBDT (1994) 209 ITR 660 (Bom.);.S.R.F. Finance Ltd. v. CBDT (1995) 211 ITR 861 (Delhi) and Madras Bar Association v. CBDT (1995) 216 ITR 240 (Mad.) fol.\n \nAssociated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 435 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=119 ", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petitions Nos.6375 and 6731 of 1994, decision dated: 23rd September, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjay Bansal,for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Goyal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "RAKESH RAJ AND ASSOCIATES\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 453 = 1998 SLD 453 = 1998 PTD 3427 = (1997) 223 ITR 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Repair of machinery and plant-Scope of S.31-Difference between \"\"repair\"\" and \"\"maintenance\"\"-Motor vehicle is a plant-Amount spent on repair of motor vehicle is deductible under S.31-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.31 & 43.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Business expenditure-Motor vehicle used for business-Motor vehicle tax is deductible under S.37(3-A) & (3-B)-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37.\n \n(c) Words and phrases-\n \n \n-\"\"Repair\"\"-\"\"Maintenance\"\"-Connotation.\n \nIn section 43 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the expression \"\"motor vehicle\"\" has not been specifically mentioned, but the expression \"\"plant\"\" includes motor vehicle. Section 31 speaks about amounts spent on repairs, whereas section 37(3-A) speaks about running and maintenance. The expressions \"\"repair\"\" and \"\"maintenance\"\" are two different expressions. The expression \"\"repair\"\" presupposes certain injury or partial destruction. But the expression \"\"maintenance\"\" does not do so. It means to keep a particular thing in its similar state. The Legislature being fully aware of the difference of expressions, dealt with \"\"the expenses on repairs\"\" in section 31 and \"\"expenses for running and maintenance\"\" in section 37(3-A) and (3-B).\n \nThe assessee which owned tea gardens claimed deduction of Rs.1,67,876 bring cost of repair of motor vehicles and Rs.1,12,646 being the amount paid towards tax under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the assessment year 1984-85. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim. On a reference:\n \nHeld, (i) that- the expenditure on repair was deductible;\n \n(ii) that tax was required to be paid not merely because of the owning of the vehicle, but because of its user. Hence, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of Rs.1,12,646 the amount paid towards motor vehicle tax under section 37(3-A).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=31,43 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.9 of 1994, decision dated: 21st August, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Gogoi and H. Roy for the Assessee. G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 454 = 1998 SLD 454 = 1998 PTD 3431 = (1997) 223 ITR 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Investment allowance-Condition precedent-User of machinery by assessee himself for purposes of his business-Machinery purchased for purposes of business leased out -Assessee not doing business of lease of machinery-Investment allowance not allowable-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32-A.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Business-Business income-Machinery purchased for purposes of business leased out-Income from lease assessable as business income-¬Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.28.\n \nIn the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee purchased certain machinery for its business. But the machinery was, in fact, let out to another firm under a deed, dated February 24, 1977, on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000 for a mutually agreed period with an option for either party to terminate it with six months notice. The assessee claimed investment allowance in respect of the machinery but the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granted the allowance. The Tribunal found that the assessee was only exploiting the machinery as commercial assets and the income derived from the lease did not cease to be part of the income from business. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granting investment allowance under section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. was confirmed. On a reference:\n \nHeld, (i) that the Tribunal was correct in assessing the lease income under the head \"\"Income from business\"\";\n \nCEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC) fol.\n \n(ii) that as the assessee was not doing business in hiring and leasing of machinery and inasmuch as the assessee had not wholly used the machinery for the purpose of the business carried on by it and since the business done by the lessee could not be considered to be that of the assessee, even though the lease income was assessable under the head \"\"Business income\"\", the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under section 32-A of the Act.\n \nAjodhya Prasad Tara Chand Khekra v. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 576 (All.); CIT v. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 455 (Mad.) and CIT v. Shan Finance (P.) Ltd. (1993) 199 ITR 409 (Kar.) distinguished.\n \n Watkins Mayor (Agrico) (P Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 17 ITR 202 (P&H) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=28 ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1279 and Reference No.779 of 1982, decision dated: 8-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " THANIKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSIVANANDA COLOUR WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 455 = 1998 SLD 455 = 1998 PTD 3437 = (1997) 223 ITR 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Voluntary disclosure of income-Scope of scheme -Assessees choice about quantum, date and year of assessment should normally be accepted-¬ Indian Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975.\n \nUnder the voluntary disclosure scheme., as the disclosure is voluntary in nature and intended to confer benefit on the person making the disclosure, the disclosure should be applied according to the wishes of the person disclosing the same. The Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, does not confer any discretion on the Department. The Ordinance begins with the expression \"\"Voluntary disclosure\"\". The choice of the person concerned should, therefore, reign supreme. This choice about the quantum, date and year of assessment should normally be accepted.\n \nThe assessee was a registered firm. For the assessment year 1974-75, it filed its return on June 30, 1974, disclosing a total income of Rs.55,702. While proceedings for assessment were pending before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee made a disclosure of income of Rs.31,600 on December 31, 1975, under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. During the course of assessment, the Income-tax Officer discovered that the assessee had inflated his purchases to the extent of Rs.33,566. He added the above amount in the income of the assessee. On appeal, the assessee demanded set-off of Rs.31,600 disclosed by it under the aforesaid scheme. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the assessment and remanded the case. The Income-tax Officer refrained the assessment and allowed benefit of Rs.7,900, i.e., one-fourth of the declared amount of Rs.31,600. The declared amount was, thus, treated as applicable to four assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76, as the assessee had not given any bifurcation of the amount year wise. At a later stage, the assessee came forward with a specification and contended that a sum of Rs.31,597 out of the disclosed amount of Rs.31,600 be taken as relating to the assessment year 1974-75. This was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer or the Tribunal. On a reference:\n \nHeld accordingly, that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee could not claim set off at his option and in dividing the amount into four equal parts and considering each part as the income disclosed in respect of the particular assessment year. The date of disclosure logically made the disclosure applicable to the assessment year 1974-75.\n \nCabell v. Markhan (1945) 148 F 2d 737 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.69 of 1989, decision dated: 7-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.M. Chaphekar with Smt. Meena Chaphekar for the Assessee. D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KHANDELWAL OIL INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 456 = 1998 SLD 456 = 1998 PTD 3448 = (1997) 223 ITR 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBER1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Powers of Tribunal-Power to allow additional grounds of appeal-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.254.\n \nSection 254 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Tribunal to pass an order after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard as it thinks fit. The Tribunal has ample power to allow additional grounds of appeal.\n \nFor the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee-company did not make any claim for deduction under section 35(1)(ii)/35(2-A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and, therefore, the Assessing Officer did not pass any order on this point. The assessee wanted to raise this ground as an additional ground before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal along with other grounds. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to entertain the additional ground raised by the assessee. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to admit the assessees ground relating\"\" to deduction under section 35(1)(ii)/35(2-A) taken before him and dispose of the matter on the merits though the same was not raised before the Assessing Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=254 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 10 of 1995, decision dated: 22-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. R. Gogoi and H. Roy for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD. (No.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 457 = 1998 SLD 457 = 1998 PTD 3451 = (1997) 226 ITR 220 = (1998) 78 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Business expenditure-Firm-Expenses on higher studies in U.S.A. of -partner of firm-Partner returning to India and engaging , in business of firm-Expense was incurred for better education and greater experience of partner-Expense incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business of firm-Deductible-Indian Income Tax Act. 1961, Ss.28 & 37(1).\n \nThe assessee-firm was constituted on June 11, 1979, with three partners. One of the three partners, at the time of constitution of the firm, was a student of the B.Sc. course. After obtaining an M.Sc. degree in 1982, he proceeded to the U.S.A. for higher studies. For the assessment years 1983-84,. 1984-85 and 1985-86, the firm claimed deduction of expenses incurred on his education as business expenditure. The Tribunal held that the foreign tour expenses of the partner in question for higher studies were exclusively for the purposes of the business and allowed the deduction for the three years in question. On an application to direct a reference: ;.\n \nHeld, dismissing the application, that the Tribunal had concluded that after completion of studies, the partner in question had kept himself engaged in the business of the firm and his higher education. in the U.S.A. and the experience gained by him, proved beneficial to the firm. The Tribunal found that subsequent events also established the intention and purpose of sending the partner to question abroad to return with better education and greater experience. The Tribunal committed no error in reaching the conclusion which was not shown to be perverse in any manse The expenditure so incurred was not in the nature of capital expenditure or for personal expenses. It was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. That being so, such amount was properly allowed in computing the income chargeable under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n \nHindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 673 (Cal.) rel.\n \nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC); CIT v Kotrika Venkataswamy & Sons (1971) 79 ITR 499 (SC) and CIT (Addl.) v. Southern Leather Industries (1987) 164 ITR 194 (Mad.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=28,37(1) ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.546 to 548 of 1994, decision dated: 27th August,1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND SHAMBHUSINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vivek Saran for the Commissioner. J.W. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKOHINOOR PAPER PRODUCTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 458 = 1998 SLD 458 = 1998 PTD 3455 = (1997) 226 ITR 81 = (1998) 78 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Business expenditure-Disallowance-Entertainment expenditure-Tips paid in hotels by employees of assessee while on tour -Deductible-¬ Expenses on photographs of manufactured goods for advertisement and during visit of foreign dignitaries-Deductible-Guest house, mess expenses and expenses on cigarettes-Expenditure on customers-Is entertainment expenditure-Subject to disallowance-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37(2-A). \n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \nExport markets development allowance-Weighted deduction-Company in which public are substantially merited-Private company deemed public company under S.43-A of Companies Act-Not a company in which public are substantially interested-Not entitled to weighted deduction at higher rate-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.2(18)(b) & 35-B-Indian Companies Act, 1956, S.43-A.\n \nFor the assessment years 1975-76 and 1979-80, the Tribunal confirmed orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following the Tribunals orders in the assessees case for earlier years, holding that by virtue of section 43-A of the Companies Act, 1956, the assessee-company was not a private company, that the articles of association of the assessee-company provided for free transferability of shares and that only 43.39 percent. of the voting power was held by three companies of the group, that, therefore, the assessee-company was a company in which the public were substantially interested, and directing the grant of weighted deduction at the higher rate of 1-1/2 times the expenditure under section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the assessee could not be treated as a company in which the public were substantially interested within the meaning of section 2(18)(b) of the Act, and was, therefore. not entitled to weighted deduction of 1-1/2 times the expenditure, but only at 1-1/3rd times the expenditure.\n \nCIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 700 (Mad.) fol.\n \nFor the assessment year 1979-80, the Tribunal allowed deduction of a sum of Rs.2,09,269 which had been disallowed under section 37(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer. The expenditure was incurred on guest house and mess account, cigarettes for customers incidental expenses (tips, etc.) and photographs, and the assessees claim was that it was incurred in connection with the visit of dignitaries, business customers and delegates. On a reference:\n \nHeld, (i) that when the assessees sales executives toured various stations and stayed in hotels, tips were paid to the waiters in the hotels. Therefore, it was not an expenditure incurred on any foreign customers, but in relation to the assessees own employees. The photographs were taken when the foreign dignitaries visited the assessee-company. Photographs were also taken of the manufactured goods of the company for the purpose of advertisement in various media. Therefore, this item of expenditure would also not fall under the category of entertainment expenditure. These two items of expenditure were allowable as deduction; .\n \n(ii) that, however, the two items, guest house and mess account and cigarettes for customers. definitely fell under the category of entertainment expenditure. If the expenditure was incurred not on the staff of the assessee ¬company, but on the customers, it had to be treated as entertainment expenditure and could be allowed only in accordance with section 37(2-A) of the Act.\n \nCIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC) rel.\n \nCIT v. Khem Chand Bahadur Chand (1981) 131 ITR 336 (P&H); CIT v. Simpson & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 283 (Mad.) and CIT v. Karuppuswamy Nadar & Sons (1979) 120 ITR 140 (Mad.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37(2A) ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 1091 and 1092 of 1984 (References Nos.948 and 949. of 1984). decided on 22-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANTKKACHALAM AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nP.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nVs\nPRAKASHI TALKIES (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 459 = 1998 SLD 459 = 1998 PTD 3461 = (1997) 226 ITR 184 = (1998) 78 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reference-Penalty-Concealment of income-Revised return filed under Amnesty Scheme covered by Circular No-451, dated 17-2-1986-Amposition of penalty without getting instruction from CIT and levy of minimum penalty without considering scope of circular, whether valid-¬Questions of law-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 256 & 271-Circular No.451, dated 17-2-1986.\n \nHeld, (i) that the question whether the Tribunal was correct in law to holding that the Income-tax Officer was right in imposing penalty when he had not sought instructions from the Commissioner about the revised return filed under the Amnesty Scheme admitting the addition and whether in such circumstances, the order imposing penalty by the Income-tax Officer was in accordance with law was a question of law; ,\n \n(ii) that the question whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the minimum penalty on addition of Rs.74,044 even when the return was under the scheme and was protected by Circular No.451, dated February 17, 1986, was correct in law, when the merits of the said addition had not been gone into either by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or by the Tribunal to find out the scope of the circular, was a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,271 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 1 of 1995, decision dated: 12-07-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND S. B. SAKRIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Goyal for the Assessee. A.M. Mathur and A.K. Shrivastava for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUNDARAM FASTENERS LTD\nSHYAM OIL MILLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 460 = 1998 SLD 460 = 1998 PTD 3465 = (1997) 226 ITR 152 = (1998) 78 TAX 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reference-Investment allowance-Manufacture-Civil contractor engaged in construction of roads whether entitled to investment allowance-¬Question of law-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32-A & 256.\n \nWhere the assessee was a civil contractor engaged in the construction of roads and the Tribunal had held that the activity of the assessee was not construction of roads simpliciter but involved manufacturing process also:\n \nHeld, that the question whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, involved an interpretation of that provision and was a question of law.\n \nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (1992) 85 STC 220 (SC) and State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967) 19 STC 1 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256,32 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.342 of 1992, decision dated: 25-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N.K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D Vyas for the Commissioner. A.S. Garg for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMEWARA CONSTRUCTIONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 461 = 1998 SLD 461 = 1998 PTD 3468 = (1999) 79 TAX 93 = 1999 PTCL 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.2(24), 15, 500)(5) & 53-Government of Balochistan Notification No.5-182/81 (PLGB) ACIV, dated 8th April, 1982-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-Constitutional petition-Income-Demand of octroi after computing and adding 5 % advance income-tax, in value of goods-Validity-Petitioners imported unserviceable ships. from abroad for purpose of dismantling/scrapping-After dismantling ships when scrap thereof was presented at octroi post, respondent/octroi contractor intended to add 5 % advance income-tax in value for purpose of charging octroi on scrap of ships considering same to be one of components for determining the value to collect octroi-Income-tax was not to be recovered on the goods, but it was to be charged on the personal income of the importer at the time of submitting the income-tax returns according to S.53 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-Not necessary that amount of advance income-tax temporarily recovered by Customs Collector should be finally deducted because if on filing of income-tax return, importer could make out a case that income-tax could not be recovered from him, for any lawful reason, then already temporarily deducted amount was to be returned by the Department-¬Such tax the fate of which was yet to be determined in subsequent proceedings by Income-tax Department, could not be considered to be the payment of final tax-Advance income-tax paid by importer on the value of goods calculated by Customs Collector, subject to final adjustment of income-tax by concerned Department, could not be considered, one of the components of value or ad valour cost for the purpose of recovery of octroi-Respondent /Octroi Contractor, in circumstances, had no lawful authority to treat advance income-tax to be one of components of value of imported goods-Directions were issued to respondent/Octroi Contractor to refund proportionate amount of octroi charged from petitioner.\n \nPLD 1995 SC 423 and 1997 MLD 3142 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(24),15,50(1)(5) & 53 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 132, 133, 134, 135, 147, 149 and 150 of 1998, decision dated: 18-06-1998, hearing DATE : 11-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Alvi, Akhtar Ali Mehmood, H. Shakil Ahmed and Ayaz Sawati for Petitioners (in all Petitions).\nAdvocate-General, Balochistan, Ashraf Khan Tanoli and Pervaiz Khan Tanoli for Respondents (in all Petitions).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMEWARA CONSTRUCTIONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 462 = 1998 SLD 462 = 1998 PTD 3475 = 1999 PTCL 229 = (1998) 78 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 164-Unilateral relief-Double taxation-Unilateral relief -Assessee had branches in Azad Kashmir -Assessee filed income-tax Return in Azad Kashmir- Income was assessed on the higher side than the declared income by the Assessing Authority of Azad Kashmir -Assessee also filed return in Pakistan including the income declared in Azad Kashmir-Double tax relief was allowed on the basis of returned income in Azad Kashmir and not on the basis of assessed in Azad Kashmir by the Assessing Authority of Pakistan as the difference of declared income and assessed income in Azad Kashmir was not doubly taxed-First Appellate Authority confirmed the assessment order on the ground that relief would be allowed under S.164 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on the basis of doubly taxed income and such doubly taxed income referred only to such income as had been suffered tax both in Pakistan and the country in which it had accrued and arisen-Any income suffered incidence of tax in the other country but that had not suffered incidence of tax in Pakistan would not be deemed to be doubly taxed and no relief would be allowed in respect of such income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=164 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1572/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 30-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Qadeer, C.A. for Appellant. Misri Ladhani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 463 = 1998 SLD 463 = 1998 PTD 3478 = 1999 PTCL 213 = (1998) 78 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.25(c)-Addition-Amount subsequent recovered in respect of deduction-Trading liability-Exemption period-Addition was made by the Assessing Officer under S.25(c), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979-¬Rectification was sought by the assessee on the ground that trading liabilities remained unpaid for the period relating to exemption period which could not be taxed under the provision of S.25(c) of the Ordinance-Rectification application was rejected by the Assessing Officer-Validity-First Appellate Authority deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer but the same was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.156-Rectification of mistake-Mistake of law and fact-Mistake of law and fact could be rectified under 5.156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n \n1983 PTD 240 ref.\n \n(c) Income tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.156-Rectification application -Disposal of -Assessee brought facts to the notice of Commissioner of Income tax paving that the assessing Officer directed to dispose of rectification application -C.I.T. disposed of said application by himself-Held, C.I.T. usurped jurisdiction vested in Assessing officer by deciding rectification application and, thus, made a void order -C.I.T. ought to have issued instructions to Assessing Officer for disposal of application pending before him in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=25(c),156 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1459/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 15-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Misri Ladhani, D. R. for Appellant. M. Tanauli for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 464 = 1998 SLD 464 = 1998 PTD 3488 = 1999 PTCL 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Act (1922), S.35 – Rectification of Mistake\n•\nFacts: The share income of an assessee from a registered firm was included by the Assessing Officer subject to rectification. The assessee's application for rectification was rejected due to expiry of the four-year period. The First Appellate Authority directed rectification.\n•\nDecision: The share income was part of a protective assessment. The assessee’s application was within the statutory four-year limit. The Appellate Authority’s order was upheld.\nReference: 1971 PTD 411.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 481/KB of 1976-77, decision dated: 22-01-1978.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Ghayyour, D.R. for Appellant. Z. H. Jafri for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 465 = 1998 SLD 465 = 1998 PTD 3497 = (1998) 78 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979), S.8 – Constitutional Petition\n•\nIssue: Circular No. 15 (1997) limited adjudication authorities’ powers in taxation of payments under the Golden Handshake Scheme.\n•\nRuling: The circular was declared unlawful, and adjudicating authorities were directed to independently resolve the matter without considering the circular.\nReference: 1993 PTD 766.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.282 of 1998, heard on 16-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali and Imtiaz R. Siddiqui for Petitioner, Kh. Saeed uz Zafar, D.A.G. with Muhammad Ilyas Khan, M Amir Sohail, Muzamil Akhtar, Shafqat Mahmood Chohan and Abdul Rashid for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "NASIR MAHMOOD DAR and others\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 466 = 1998 SLD 466 = 1998 PTD 3499 = 1999 PTCL 344 = (1998) 78 TAX 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBESFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979), S.14(2) & Second Schedule\n•\nFacts: A cooperative society claimed tax exemption on transfer fees.\n•\nRuling: Exemptions under S.R.O. 1081(1)/93 continued only until the stipulated period. Income from non-members invalidated the doctrine of mutuality.\nReferences: Multiple legal distinctions cited (1948 ITR 270, 1953 ITR 551, etc.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,14(2),Second SchedulePartI,Cl(103) Cooperative Societies Act, 1925=33 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 186/KB and 187/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 26-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Appellant. Misri Ladhani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 467 = 1998 SLD 467 = 1998 PTD 3507 = 1999 PTCL 32 = (1998) 78 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979), S.108 – Penalty Provisions\n•\nFacts: Penalty for non-compliance with Rule 53 was imposed.\n•\nRuling: The penalty was invalid under S.108(b) since it contravened S.139, making it inapplicable. Penalty should align strictly with statutory provisions.\nReference: 1994 PTD (Trib.) 1423.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,108(b),139 Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.53,51 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 184/KB of 1997, decision dated: 12-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND NAZEER AHMED SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Bashir, D.R for Appellant. Zahid Jamil, C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 468 = 1998 SLD 468 = 1998 PTD 3528 = (1998) 231 ITR 745 = (1999) 79 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax – Penalty Reduction (Indian Income Tax Act, 1961)\n•\nFacts: The Central Board refused a penalty reduction despite the assessee’s voluntary income disclosure.\n•\nRuling: The Board's decision was not a speaking order. The matter was remanded for reconsideration based on statutory criteria.\nReference: Jaswant Rai v. CBDT, 133 ITR 19.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.435 to 441 of 1982, decision dated: 4-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dipankar Gupta, Senior Advocate (Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocate for M/s. J.B.D. & Co.. Advocates with him) for Appellants\nB.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S.Rajappa, Advocate for B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "JASWANT RAI and another\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 469 = 1998 SLD 469 = 1998 PTD 3535 = (1998) 231 ITR 528", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trusts – Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nIssue: Whether trustees’ resolution to pay income to one beneficiary altered the trust's nature and justified a flat tax rate.\n•\nRuling: High Court was directed to examine the issue under prevailing case law.\nReference: CIT v. Kamalini Khatau, 209 ITR 101.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5194 of 1996, decision dated: 21st March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " N. P. SINGH AND S. C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate-(B.S. Ahuja and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates with him) for Appellant. P.H. Parekh and Ms. Bind Gupta, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAMBALAL SARABHAI D. TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 470 = 1998 SLD 470 = 1998 PTD 3536 = (1998) 231 ITR 741 = (1999) 79 TAX 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Actual Cost – Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nFacts: Assessee paid commercialization charges for additional construction.\n•\nRuling: Such charges formed part of the building’s cost, making the assessee eligible for depreciation.\nReference: CIT v. Hindustan Times Ltd., 169 ITR 1.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1225 to. 1230 of 1990, decision dated: 6-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M, JAGANNADHA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Santosh K. Aggarwal and B.V. Desai, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHINDUSTAN TIMES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 471 = 1998 SLD 471 = 1998 PTD 3540 = (1998) 231 ITR 524 = (1999) 79 TAX 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Trusts and Special Deductions – Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nIssues: Assessment of discretionary trust and dividend exemptions.\n•\nRuling: Trust income can be assessed either in the trust’s or the beneficiary’s hands. Dividend-related exemptions require High Court review.\nReference: CIT v. Kamalini Khatau, 209 ITR 101.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2154 and 2157 of 1978, decision dated: 7-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi and R.R. Mishra, Senior Advocates (S.N. Terdol. Ranbir Chandra and R. Satish, Advocates with them) for Appellants. Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocate for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDr. ANAND SARABHAI TRUST and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 472 = 1998 SLD 472 = 1998 PTD 3541 = (1998) 231 ITR 504 = (1999) 79 TAX 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Rectification – Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nFacts: The assessee filed a nil return and faced penal interest for not estimating advance tax.\n•\nRuling: Penal interest was invalid, and rectification was permissible.\nReference: CIT v. N.D. Georgopoules, 125 ITR 630.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 10158 and 10159 of 1983, decision dated: 13-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. S. PARIPOORNAN AND S. P. KURDUKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Prasad, C. Radhakrishnan and B.S. Ahuja, Advocates for Appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nN.D. GEORGE POLOUS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 473 = 1998 SLD 473 = 1998 PTD 3544 = (1998) 231 ITR 304 = (1999) 79 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Development Rebate on Plant – Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nIssue: Whether a freezing plant let to a sister concern qualified for higher development rebate.\n•\nRuling: Eligibility for development rebate was confined to plant use as per statutory conditions.\nReference: CIT v. Castlerock Fisheries, 126 ITR 382.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2913(NT) of 1981, decision dated: 23rd April, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL, K. T. THOMAS AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Tara Chandra Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad and C. Radha Krishna, Advocates with him) for Appellant. G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh and Deepa Mala. Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCASTLE ROCK FISHERIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 474 = 1998 SLD 474 = 1998 PTD 3550 = (1998) 231 ITR 148 = (1999) 79 TAX 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Deduction for Royalty – Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nFacts: Management services rendered for a foreign hotel.\n•\nRuling: Services qualified for deductions under S.80-O. The Board’s contrary interpretation was set aside.\nReference: Oberoi Hotels P. Ltd. v. CBDT, 135 ITR 257.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5750 of 1985, decision dated: 30-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Appellants. D.A. Dave, Senior Advocate (Ms. Kiian, Ms. Arpita Roy Chaudhary, Sanjay Katyal and Vineet Kumar, Advocates with, him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and others\nVs\nOBEROI HOTELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 475 = 1998 SLD 475 = 1998 PTD 3585 = (1998) 231 ITR 50 = (1999) 79 TAX 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Doctrine of Merger – Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nFacts: Whether an appellate order excluded subsequent revision under S.263.\n•\nRuling: Matters not considered in the appeal remained open for revision.\nReference: CIT v. Arbuda Mills Ltd., 231 ITR 50.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 11 of 1983, decision dated: 23rd January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA, S. P. BARUCHA AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHRI ARBUDA MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 476 = 1998 SLD 476 = 1998 PTD 3588 = (1998) 231 ITR 53 = (1999) 79 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Revision - Powers of CIT\n•\nIssue: The meaning of Record under Section 263 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nHeld: The Commissioner can consider records available at the time of examination, not just those initially considered by the Income-tax Officer (ITO). The scope of record was broadened through amendments in 1988 and 1989. It includes any material relevant to the proceedings, even if it surfaced after the ITO's decision. This broad interpretation aligns with the object and scope of the CIT's revisional powers.\n(b) Appeal to Supreme Court - Dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP):\n•\nHeld: Dismissal of an SLP does not imply the approval of the High Court's view.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. S.M. Oil Extraction (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 404 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC); South India Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 654 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Unneerikutty (M.A.) (1992) 194 ITR 546 (Ker.); CWT v. Raj Narain Pratap Narain (HUF) (1989) 177 ITR 34 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 8467 of 1997, decision dated: 2-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " G. T. NANAVATI AND M, JAGANNADHA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Ms. Indu Malhotra for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHREE MANJUNATHESWARE PACKING PRODUCTS AND CAMPHOR WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 477 = 1998 SLD 477 = 1998 PTD 3600 = (1998) 231 ITR 175 = (1999) 79 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Reassessment - Limitation and Scope of any person :\n•\nIssue: Assessment on a non-resident holding company for dividends received from its wholly-owned Indian subsidiary.\n•\nHeld: The term any person in Section 34(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, includes entities intimately connected with the original assessee. Directions given in appellate orders justify reassessment even if the original notice was issued to a subsidiary acting as an agent. The reassessment was not barred by limitation.\nReferences:\n•\nHungerford Investment Trust Ltd. v. ITO (1984) 146 ITR 73 affirmed.\n•\nITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.474 to 476 of 1984, decision dated: 17-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate (Prashant Bhushan, Advocate with him) for Appellant. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "HUNGERFORD INVESTMENT TRUST LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICERS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 478 = 1998 SLD 478 = 1998 PTD 3612 = (1998) 231 ITR 200 = (1999) 79 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Reassessment Jurisdiction and Foreign Exchange:\n•\nIssue: Reassessment initiated based on limitations on dollar remittances under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA).\n•\nHeld: FERA operates independently of the Income Tax Act. Restrictions on remittances cannot serve as information under Section 147 to justify reassessment. Notices under Section 148 based on FERA restrictions lacked jurisdiction.\nReferences:\n•\nCoca-Cola Export Corporation v. S.C. Tewari, ITO (1986) 158 ITR 439 partly reversed.\n•\nCalcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4074 to 4076 and 1089 to 1091 of 1985, decision dated: 30-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve, Senior, Advocate (S. Ganesh and Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocates for M/s. JBD & Co., Advocates with him) for Appellant. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (T.C. Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma and B.K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 479 = 1998 SLD 479 = 1998 PTD 3625 = (1998) 231 ITR 272 = (1999) 79 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Gratuity:\n•\nIssue: Deduction of gratuity under Kerala Industrial Employees Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970.\n•\nHeld: Gratuity liability for completed years of service before the accounting year must be included for assessment purposes.\nReferences:\n•\nShree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1529, 1531 and 1533 of 1977, decision dated: 25-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. A Subhashini, Advocate for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUMA TRADING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 480 = 1998 SLD 480 = 1998 PTD 3627 = (1998) 231 ITR 285 = (1999) 79 TAX 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Depreciation - Cost of Assets:\n•\nIssue: Impact of foreign exchange fluctuations on the cost of an asset.\n•\nHeld: Actual cost depends on the amount paid for the asset, unaffected by loan repayment methods or foreign exchange fluctuations during repayment.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 28 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.7643 to 7645 of 1994, decision dated: 17-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS C. SEN AD S.S.M. QUADRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Murthy, Advocate for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOM&TAX\nVs\nTATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 481 = 1998 SLD 481 = 1998 PTD 3630 = (1998) 231 ITR 507 = (1999) 79 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Appellate Tribunal Powers:\n•\nIssue: Tribunal remanding a matter for fresh assessment based on a new point raised during appeal.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's decision to remand was upheld. The assessee retains the right to challenge the reassessment under legal remedies available.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service (1993) 199 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.706 and 707 of 1977, decision dated: 4-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. H. Parekh, E. R. Kumar and S. Fazl, Advocates for the Assessee. J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (R. Sathish and Ms. A Subbashini, Advocates with him) for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "BHAVANA CHEMICALS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 482 = 1998 SLD 482 = 1998 PTD 3633 = (1998) 231 ITR 526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Representative Assessee - Discretionary Trust\n•\nIssue: Whether the income of a discretionary trust can be assessed in the hands of the trust or its beneficiaries.\n•\nHeld: Distributions received by a beneficiary from a discretionary trust can be assessed either in the hands of the trust or the beneficiary, based on Sections 164 and 166 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n(b) Special Deduction - New Industrial Undertaking\n•\nIssue: Whether a beneficiary is entitled to exemptions under Section 80-K for dividends received from a trust.\n•\nHeld: Matter remanded to the High Court for decision on whether such distributions qualify for exemptions under Section 80-K.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2150 of 1978, decision dated: 8-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol, Advocate with him) for Appellant. Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHARTI DEVI SARABHAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 483 = 1998 SLD 483 = 1998 PTD 3635 = (1998) 231 ITR 793 = (1999) 79 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Capital Gains - Heirloom Jewellery\n•\nIssue: Whether heirloom jewellery qualifies as a capital asset for capital gains taxation.\n•\nHeld: Heirloom jewellery, used for ceremonial purposes, constitutes personal effects and does not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14) (before amendment w.e.f. April 1, 1973). Hence, profits from its sale are not liable for capital gains tax.\nReferences:\n•\nH.H. Maharani Usha Devi v. CIT (1982) 133 ITR 43 affirmed.\n•\nCIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Wedding Gifts Trusts (1985) 154 ITR 573 (AP) disapproved.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 10004 of 1983, decision dated: 14-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Tara Chand Sharma, B.K. Prasad, C. Radhakrishnan and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Manoj Wad, Tarun Gulati and Ms. J.S. Wad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nH.H. MAHARANI USHA DEVI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 484 = 1998 SLD 484 = 1998 PTD 3649 = (1998) 231 ITR 814 = (1999) 79 TAX 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Cooperative Society - Special Deduction\n•\nIssue: Whether a cooperative society marketing agricultural produce of its members qualifies for exemption under Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii).\n•\nHeld: The exemption applies if the agricultural produce belongs to the members, regardless of whether they are agriculturists or cooperative societies. Marketing is broadly defined to include various commercial functions.\n(b) Words and Phrases - Of \n•\nInterpretation: The term of in the context of Section 80-P(2)(a)(iii) is interpreted to mean belonging to. \nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 319 (Ker.) reversed.\n•\nAssam Cooperative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 338 (SC) impliedly overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.506 of 1994, 15430, 2354 and 2355 of 1996, decision dated: 13-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL, S. P. KURDUKAR AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Parasaran Joseph Vellapally, Dushyant Dave, D.A. Dave, T.L. Viswanatha Iyer. Senior Advocates (A.T. Patra, O.P. Khaitan & Co., Advocates Ms. Priya Hingorani, Aman Hingorani, Mrs. A.K. Verma, T.C. Sharma, B.K. Prasad, C. Radha Krishan, Harish Chandra, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. Sushma Suri, D.N. Sawhney, G. Umapathy and A. Raghunath, Advocates with them) for the Appearing Parties.", + "Party Name:": "KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 485 = 1998 SLD 485 = 1998 PTD 3659 = (1998) 231 ITR 842 = (1999) 79 TAX 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Business Loss - Capital or Revenue Loss\n•\nIssue: Whether an irrecoverable loan given for modernizing a cotton mill constitutes a business or capital loss.\n•\nHeld: The loan was for acquiring a capital advantage, not for regular business purposes. Hence, the loss was capital in nature and not deductible as business loss.\nReferences:\n•\nHasimara Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1990) 184 ITR 174 affirmed.\n•\nAlembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Appeal No:4766 of 1989, decision dated: 13-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Radha Rangaswamy and Ms. Renuka Sharma, Advocates for Appellants. J. Ramamurti, Senior Advocate (T. C. Sharma, C.V.S. Rao, and C. Radhakrishan, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "HASIMARA INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 486 = 1998 SLD 486 = 1998 PTD 3669 = (1998) 231 ITR 308 = (1999) 79 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBERlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Investment Allowance - Leasing of Machinery\n•\nIssue: Whether leasing companies qualify for investment allowance under Section 32-A.\n•\nHeld: Machinery leased to manufacturers qualifies for investment allowance as it is considered used for the business of the leasing company.\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes - Beneficial Provisions\n•\nHeld: Tax statutes with beneficial provisions should be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. (1993) 199 ITR 409 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.7077 and 7078 of 1993, 1646 of 1994, 1692 and 1693 of 1998, decision dated: 20-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (T.C. Sharma, Advocate for B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent (in C.As. Nos.7077 and 7078 of 1993). Arvind P. Datar, U.A. Rana and S. Tripati, Advocates for Gagrat & Co., Advocates for Respondent (in C. As. Nos. 1692 and 1693 of 1998).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHAAN FINANCE (PVT) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 487 = 1998 SLD 487 = 1998 PTD 3678 = (1998) 231 ITR 871", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Revenue Recovery - Special Court Act\n•\nIssue: Priority of tax recovery from attached assets under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992.\n•\nHeld: Taxes due are prioritized but limited to liabilities during the statutory period (April 1, 1991, to June 6, 1992). Interest and penalties are excluded from the term tax. \nReferences:\n•\nB.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. Custodian (1997) 89 Comp. Cas. 74 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.5326 of 1995 with Civil Appeals Nos.5147, 5225, 5325, 6080 of 1995, 12574 of 1996 and Tax Case (Civil) No.5 of 1998 decided on 13-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, S. P. KURDUKAR CUED D. P. WADHWA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ram Jethmalani, Atul Setalwad, Harish N. Salve, F.S. Nariman, Arun Jaitely, Dipankar Gupta, Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, S.D. Parekh, Bhimrao Naik, Senior Advocates (S.B. Jaisinghani, Mahesh Jethmalani, Ms. Lata Krishnamurti, A Subba Rao, A.T. Rao, Rajiv Kapur, Sanjay Kapur, Ms Shubhra Kapur, Subhash Sharma, Ms. Nina Gupta, Neeraj Sharma, Ms. Vaishali Deshpande, Ms. Arpita Roy Choudhary, Sanjay Katyal, Vineet Kumar, Tushar K. Cooper, S. Rajappa, C. Radhakrishna, B.K. Prasad, S. N. Terdol, S.K Dwivedi, A.K. Sharma, Ms. Vijay Lakslimi Menon, Ms. Anuradha Dutt, 13.V. Desai, N.K. Niraj, P.J. Mehta and Janakalyan Das, Advocates with them) for the Appearing Parties.", + "Party Name:": "HARSHAD SHANTILAL MEHTA\nVs\nCUSTODIAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 488 = 1998 SLD 488 = 1998 PTD 3697 = (1999) 79 TAX 156 = 1999 PTCL 432", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Stay of Recovery\n•\nIssue: Whether automatic stay applies to appeals filed under Section 85(2).\n•\nHeld: The unamended Section 85(2) provided for automatic stay during the pendency of appeals. Amendments requiring partial payment were not retroactive.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.7742 of 1998, heard on 28-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NAJAMUL HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Mehmood Sheikh vice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent No. 1.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALI & WORKS\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 489 = 1998 SLD 489 = 1998 PTD 3699 = 1999 PTCL 321 = (1998) 78 TAX 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Presumptive Tax Regime\n•\nIssue: Whether filing a return without opting out explicitly means acceptance of the presumptive tax regime.\n•\nHeld: Assessees must file an irrevocable option to opt out; mere filing of a regular return does not suffice.\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nHeld: Laws should be applied based on their substance rather than form.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,SecondSched.,PartIV,cl.(9) & Ss.55 & 143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 832/LB/DB of 1992-93, decision dated: 21st April, 1998, hearing DATE : 1st November, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD TAQUIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Nauman Sheikh, I.T.P for Appellant. Abdul Rauf, D. R. and Rana Munir Hussain, L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 490 = 1998 SLD 490 = 1998 PTD 3702 = 1999 PTCL 315 = (1998) 78 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Exemption - Export Award\n•\nIssue: Whether export awards are taxable income under Section 22(c).\n•\nHeld: Non-recurring awards are exempt under Clause 65 of the Second Schedule.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22(c) & Second ScheduleCl.(65) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 10198/LB/DB of 1991-92, decision dated: 20-04-1998, hearing DATE : 1st November, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD TAQUIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Nauman Sheikh, I.T.P. for Appellant. Abdul Rauf, D.R. and Rana Munir Hussain, L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 491 = 1998 SLD 491 = 1998 PTD 3706 = (1998) 78 TAX 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nIssue: Whether penalty can be imposed after an agreed assessment.\n•\nHeld: Penalty was valid for the concealed income despite the agreed assessment.\nReferences:\n•\n1994 PTD (Trib.) 1266 and 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1183 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.7553/LB of 1996, decision dated: 3rd June, 1997, hearing DATE : 30-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ali Imran Rizvi for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 492 = 1998 SLD 492 = 1998 PTD 3710 = (1997) 226 ITR 88 = (1998) 78 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Reassessment - Validity of Notice under Section 148\n•\nIssue: Whether a fresh notice under Section 148 was valid when an earlier notice was dropped due to lack of basis.\n•\nHeld: The first notice was issued without recording reasons and was rightly dropped. The subsequent notice had valid reasons, including the introduction of capital and credits by partners during the relevant period. The notice was not without jurisdiction, and the matter required examination.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M. P. No.66 of 1994, decision dated: 25-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. ARID S.K. KULSHRESHTHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. S. Shrivastava for Petitioner. V. K. Tankha for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "KOHINOOR ENTERPRISES\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 493 = 1998 SLD 493 = 1998 PTD 3713 = (1997) 226 ITR 137 = (1998) 78 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Business Loss - Loss on Repossessed Vehicles\n•\nIssue: Whether loss on repossessed vehicles was deductible as trading loss.\n•\nHeld: The vehicles, registered in the names of hire-purchasers, did not form part of the assessee's stock-in-trade. Loss on revaluation of these vehicles was not deductible under Sections 28 or 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReference:\n•\nSrirangacharyulu (S.P.B.P.) v. CIT (1965) 58 ITR 95 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 18 of 1980, decision dated: 1st July, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " B. M. LAL AND B. DIKSHIT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Kumar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MOTOR AND GENERAL SALES (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 494 = 1998 SLD 494 = 1998 PTD 3718 = (1998) 78 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Self-Assessment\n(a) Declared Income and Additions: Adjustments made to declared income under Section 59(3) are valid. Both adjusted and unadjusted orders under Section 59(1) are considered written orders.\n(b) Assessment Process: For unadjusted returns, the process is a mechanical verification of tax computation. Adjusted assessments require detailed reasoning.\n(c) Appeal and Revision: Assessments under the self-assessment scheme can be revised under Section 66-A, even if no formal written order exists, as IT-30 forms meet the requirement.\nReferences:\n•\n1938 6 ITR 414.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) & (3),59(3),2(7),59,66A,19,20 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 61/KB to 64/KB of 1996-97, decision dated: 4-04-1998, hearing DATE : 24-12-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM AND S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Athar Saeed for Appellant. Inayatullah Kashani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 495 = 1998 SLD 495 = 1998 PTD 3731 = (1998) 78 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Exemption for Industrial Undertakings\n(a) Main Object and Exemption: Disputed objects in the Memorandum of Association do not bar exemption if the main object remains industrial.\n(b) Failure to Satisfy Conditions: Exemption was denied when the company failed to meet the condition of constructing factory structures and installing machinery.\n(c) Misuse of Exemption: Exemption certificates limited to raw material for in-house consumption were validly restricted when the raw material was sold in the open market.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,cl.118-E,subCl.(2)(c),50(5),50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4614/LB of 1997, decision dated: 13-01-1998, hearing DATE : 11-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar alongwith Mr. Tariq, General Manager, Accounts for Appellant. Shafqat Mahmood Chohan, L.A., Masood Ahmad, D.C.I.T. and Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 496 = 1998 SLD 496 = 1998 PTD 3742 = (1998) 78 TAX 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBES1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Exemption Period and Trial Production\n(a) Exemption Period: Commercial production does not qualify as trial production. The Tribunal granted a five-year exemption from the start of commercial production.\n(b) Turn-Over Tax: Exempt units are not liable for turn-over tax.\n(c) Trial vs. Commercial Production: Trial production is for testing and not for sale; commercial production is sale-oriented.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.(118D),80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.6082/LB of 1996, decision dated: 25-05-1998, hearing DATE : 18-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHARIQ MEHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant. Ch. Safdar Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 497 = 1998 SLD 497 = 1998 PTD 3746", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Rectification of Mistake\n•\nIssue: Whether failure to address an objection in an ex-parte appeal can be rectified.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the rectification where the First Appellate Authority had already set aside the addition under Section 13(1)(aa).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 & 13(l)(aa) ", + "Case #": "M. As. (RECT) NOS.172/KB to 175/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 23rd February, 1998, hearing DATE : 26-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. Misri Ladhani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 498 = 1998 SLD 498 = 1998 PTD 3747 = (1999) 80 TAX 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Constitutional Petition and Alternate Remedy\n(a) Alternate Remedy: A constitutional petition was not maintainable when a statutory remedy (reference under Section 136) existed.\n(b) Condonation of Delay: Petitioners diligently pursuing constitutional remedies could seek condonation under the Limitation Act for filing references.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Limitation Act, 1908=5 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1895 of 1996, heard on 28-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NAJAMUL HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 499 = 1998 SLD 499 = 1998 PTD 3749 = (1998) 78 TAX 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation Agreement (Romania-Pakistan) - Permanent Establishment\n(a) Permanent Establishment Definition: Non-resident assessee’s office and workshop in Pakistan met the criteria for a permanent establishment as per Article 5.1.\n(b) Fixed Place of Business: Business was carried out partially in Pakistan, making it a taxable permanent establishment.\n(c) Precedent: Commissioner’s decisions have no binding effect.\nReferences:\n•\n1983 144 ITR 146 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 759/KB to 761/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 6-04-1998, hearing DATE : 7-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Ahmed, Commissioner and Amjad Jamshed, D. R. for Appellant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 500 = 1998 SLD 500 = 1998 PTD 3766", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Act (1922) - Appeals and Assessments\n(a) Appeal Validity: When one appeal covered orders under Sections 23(3) and 26-A, the assessee was asked to select one for adjudication.\n(b) Improper Opportunity: Assessments made without giving proper opportunity to respond to queries were remanded.\n(c) Reassessment Powers: Assessing Officers could reopen assessments upon receiving definite information of under-assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(3) & 26A,28(c)(iii) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.665/KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 29-11-1984, hearing DATE : 20-11-1984", + "Judge Name:": " GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND FARHAT ALI KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER(K)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. Muhammad Fareed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 501 = 1998 SLD 501 = 1998 PTD 3771 = (1998) 78 TAX 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) - Turn-Key Contract and Exemptions\n(a) Turn-Key Contract Definition: Contracts not fulfilling all conditions of turn-key execution were excluded from its definition.\n(b) Pipeline Project Status: Pipeline projects were deemed energy-related but not power projects, affecting tax rates.\n(c) Government Notifications: Incentives for energy-related projects required specific government notifications or legislative acts.\n(d) Tax Filing: Returns filed under Section 143-B could be reassessed if the claimed category was found inapplicable.\nReferences:\n•\n33 TC 259, 287 (HL).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,FirstSched,14(2) & FirstSched.,PartI,143B,55,54 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.819/KB of 1997-98, decision dated: 4-04-1998, hearing DATE : 25-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Ahmed, Commissioner and Amjad Jamshed, D.R. for Appellant. I. N. Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 502 = 1998 SLD 502 = 1998 PTD 3788 = (1997) 223 ITR 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Reference - Deduction for LIC Development Officers\n•\nIssue: Whether LIC Development Officers are entitled to claim 40% deduction from incentive bonuses or commissions as expenses.\n•\nHeld: This is a question of law given the conflict of opinions among High Courts. A referable question of law arises.\nReferences:\n•\nCWT v. Gayatridevi (1996) 222 ITR 797 (MP).\n•\nK.A. Choudary v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 29 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos.203, 207 to 210 and 216 of 1992, decision dated: 1st March, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " A.R. TIWARI AND N. K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.D. Vyas for the Commissioner. S.C. Goyal and V.K. Jain for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANGILAL JAIN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 503 = 1998 SLD 503 = 1998 PTD 3791 = (1997) 223 ITR 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Offences and Prosecution - Liability of Partners in Firm\n•\nIssue: Whether a partner can be prosecuted for failure of a firm to pay tax deducted at source (TDS).\n•\nHeld: A partner in charge of the firm’s affairs is liable under Section 278-B. Notice to the firm suffices; individual notice to each partner is not necessary.\nReferences:\n•\nShital N. Shah v. ITO (1991) 188 ITR 376 (overruled).\n•\nG. Anantharamiah v. ITO (1992) LW (Crl.) 173 (overruled).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "DINESH K. SHAH and others Criminal R.C. Nos.415 to 417 of 1987, decision dated: 12-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. SWAMI, C, J. AND A.R. LAKSHMANAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramaswamy K., Special Public Prosecutor for Petitioner. Ms. Napinnai for V. Gopinath for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 504 = 1998 SLD 504 = 1998 PTD 3828 = (1997) 223 ITR 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Accrual of Income and Special Deductions\n•\nIssue 1: Time of accrual for compensation awarded by decree.\no\nHeld: Income accrues on the date of the decree under the mercantile system.\n•\nIssue 2: Deduction eligibility for construction companies under Section 80-J.\no\nHeld: Companies engaged in construction are not industrial companies and are not entitled to the deduction.\n•\nIssue 3: Compensation for contract termination.\no\nHeld: Compensation is a revenue receipt if the contract is entered in the ordinary course of business.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC).\n•\nMorvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 14 of 1992, decision dated: 6-08-1996", + "Judge Name:": " D. N. BARUAH AND S. B. ROY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Joshi for the Commissioner. Dr. A.K. Saraf and K.K. Gupta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CO. (P.) LTD. (No. 1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 505 = 1998 SLD 505 = 1998 PTD 3835", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Exemptions and Definitions\n(a) Interpretation of Appeal: Defined through various judicial references.\n(b) Tax Exemptions: Must be narrowly construed.\n(c) Exemption Conditions: Tax holidays require fulfillment of conditions in para. 118-E of the Second Schedule.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Gohar Ayub Khan 1995 PTD 1074.\n•\nElahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14(1) & SecondSched.,63 & 136,80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No of 1998, hard on 29-05-1998. dates of hearing: 25th, 26th, 28th and 29-05-1998.", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND MIAN TARIQ MAHMOOD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Ali Sabtain Fazli, Imran Aziz and Syed Ibrar Hussain Naqvi for Appellants. Shafqat Mahmood Chauhan for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Dy. Attorney-General for Pakistan, M. Ilyas Khan and Aftab Ahmad Khan. Amicus curiae.", + "Party Name:": "IRAM GHEE MILLS LTD\nVs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 506 = 1998 SLD 506 = 1998 PTD 3892 = (1998) 78 TAX 322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBETFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Partnership Dissolution and New Firms\n(a) Separate Returns for Dissolved Firms: Valid when a new partnership is constituted with continued business operations.\n(b) Self-Assessment Scheme Exemption: Dissolution by death disqualifies firms from benefits under self-assessment schemes.\n(c) Evidence of Coal Sale Rates: Tribunal ruled on merits instead of setting aside orders.\nReferences:\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No. 9 of 1994.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,68(4),59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1473(IB) and 1129(IB) of 1996-97, decision dated: 31st July, 1998, hearing DATE : 31st March, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANSOOR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Manzoor-ul-Haq for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1473(IB) of 1996-97). Waqar Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent (in T.A. No. 1473(IB) of 1996-97). Waqar Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1129(IB) of 1996-97). Raja Manzoor-ul-Haq for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1129(1B) of 1996-97)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 507 = 1998 SLD 507 = 1998 PTD 3903", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Assessment and Rejection of Accounts\n•\nIssue: Validity of income estimation based on inspectors’ reports.\n•\nHeld: Estimation must be supported by tangible evidence. Unsupported assessments were reduced.\nReferences:\n•\nDaud Corporation v. CIT 1988 PTD 177.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2105/LB of 1998, decision dated: 25-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan for Appellant. Mrs. Riffat Shaheen Qazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 508 = 1998 SLD 508 = 1998 PTD 3906", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Golden Handshake Scheme\n•\nIssue: CBR Circular defining amounts under the scheme as salary.\n•\nHeld: The circular was declared without lawful authority. Adjudicating authorities must decide independently.\nReferences:\n•\nMessrs Central Insurance Company v. Central Board of Revenue 1993 SCMR 1232.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.282 of 1998, heard on 16-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali and Imtiaz R. Siddiqui for Petitioners. Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Dy. Attorney-General for Pakistan assisted by M. Amir Sohail and Muzamil Akhtar for Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Shafqat Chohan for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. Mian Abdul Rashid for Respondent No. 4.\nPrakash Krishna for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "NASIR MAHMOOD DAR and 27 others\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND STATISTICS through its Secretary, Islamabad and 3 others\nCOMMISSIONER OF WRALTH TAX\nVs\nANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 509 = 1998 SLD 509 = 1998 PTD 3909 = 1999 PTCL 293 = (1998) 78 TAX 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Depreciation and Leasing Companies\n(a) CBR Circulars: Administrative interpretations lack judicial effect.\n(b) Depreciation for Leasing Companies: Computation is governed by Rule 8(8)(a).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched.,Rr.8(8)(a) & 1(1)(1A),7 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.867/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 24-07-1998, hearing DATE : 21st July, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND AFTAB IQBAL RATHORE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalil A. Waggan, C.A. for Appellant. Misri Ladhani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 510 = 1998 SLD 510 = 1998 PTD 3923 = (1999) 79 TAX 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Civil Court Jurisdiction and Mala Fides\n(a) Bar on Civil Suits: Civil Courts lack jurisdiction unless mala fides or illegality are alleged.\n(b) Search Powers under Section 146: Tax authorities cannot indiscriminately seize records without inquiry or justification.\nReferences:\n•\nJewan v. Federation of Pakistan 1994 SCMR 826.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=162,146,Rr.1,2,3,5 Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,56 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9,O.VII,R.11 ", + "Case #": "Suit No.957 of 1996, decision dated: 31st July, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED A. RAZVI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid S. Zuberi alongwith Muhammad Akhtar Saeed for Plaintiffs. Nasrullah Awan and Munirur Rehman for Defendants.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TRISTAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Director and 8 others\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 511 = 1998 SLD 511 = 1998 PTD 3947 = (1999) 79 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Interpretation of Provisions and Exemptions\n•\nIssue: CBR circular interpretation versus statutory provisions.\n•\nHeld: Judicial interpretation takes precedence over administrative clarifications.\nReferences:\n•\nMessrs Central Insurance Co. v. CBR 1993 SCMR 1232.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=3,80D & SecondSched Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=6 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2985 of 1998, heard on 24-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed A. Andrabi for Petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAVI SPINNING LIMITED\nVs\nTHE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/ WEALTH TAX (S.O. II), COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 354 = 2000 SLD 354 = 2000 PTD 3489 = (1999) 238 ITR 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Amalgamation and Undistributed Profits\n•\nIssue: Liability for additional tax under Section 104 after company amalgamation.\n•\nHeld: Amalgamated companies inherit liabilities, including undistributed profit obligations.\nReferences:\n•\nBirla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 354.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Decided on 20-07-1992T.C. No. 1975 of 1984 (Reference No.1440 of 1984), decision dated: 23rd February, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND N V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. S.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nT.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 2 = 1996 SLD 2 = 1996 PTCL 168 = 1996 PTD 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Stay of Demand and Ex Parte Appeals\n•\nIssue: Ex parte order due to unserved notices.\n•\nHeld: Tribunal stayed demand and criticized procedural lapses in ensuring proper service.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(6) ", + "Case #": "MA (Stay) No.104/LB of 1995, decision dated: 20-04-1995, hearing DATE : 19-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Applicant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 3 = 1996 SLD 3 = (1995) 72 TAX 27 = 1996 PTD 11 = 1995 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Income from Bank Interest\n(a) Income Head: Bank interest is taxable under Income from Other Sources. \n(b) Deductions: Interest expenses on borrowed funds are deductible under Section 23(1)(vii).\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (1989) 175 ITR 361.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,30 & 22,23(1)(vii),30(2)(b),30(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 683/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 2-05-1995, hearing DATE : 5-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ebrahim Dahoodwala, CA. for Appellant. Basharatullah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1972 1 = 1972 SLD 1 = (1995) 72 TAX 65 = 1995 TAX 65 = 1996 PTD 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Reassessment and Limitation\n•\nIssue: Whether appellate authorities can remand proceedings found to be void ab initio after the limitation period.\n•\nHeld:\no\nProceedings found void ab initio cannot be remanded for reassessment if the limitation period has lapsed.\no\nAppellate authorities cannot extend statutory time limits or confer jurisdiction beyond legal constraints.\no\nIn this case, no definite information existed on the initiation date of reassessment, and the appellate authority’s order for remand was invalid.\nReferences:\n•\nNarinder Singh Dhingra v. Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi (1966) 60 ITR 641.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=65,132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1791/LB to 1796/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 24-07-1995, hearing DATE : 28-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1972 2 = 1972 SLD 2 = (1995) 72 TAX 103 = 1995 TAX 103 = 1996 PTD 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Rectification of Mistakes\n•\nIssue: Scope of rectification under Section 156.\n•\nHeld:\no\nRectification applies to patent mistakes evident from the record without further investigation.\no\nErrors in assessing the company’s tax status can be rectified if facts contradict the original decision.\no\nIn this case, the ITO lawfully rectified the company’s status as a public company when the record showed otherwise.\nReferences:\n•\nC.B.R. v. SITE PLD 1985 SC 97.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=156,FirstSched.,PartIV,2(16) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.65(IB) to 68(IB) of 1992-93, decision dated: 16-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": " JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Khan D.R. for Appellant. Khalid Majeed, F.CA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 4 = 1996 SLD 4 = (1995) 71 TAX 205 = (1994) 206 ITR 328 = 1996 PTD 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Export Markets Development Allowance\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for weighted deductions under Section 35-B for expenses like interest on loans and professional charges.\n•\nHeld:\no\nInterest on post-shipment loans is not eligible for deduction as it does not relate to services performed outside India.\no\nProfessional charges for designing lacked evidence to qualify under Section 35-B.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 189 of 1992, decision dated: 7-10-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND D.R DHANUKA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arun Sathe for the Assessee. G. S. Jetly with P.S. Jetly instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIESLTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nABDUL HAFEEZ and 3 others-Applicants\nVs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 5 = 1996 SLD 5 = (1995) 71 TAX 172 = (1994) 206 ITR 385 = 1996 PTD 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Deduction for Expenditure on Scientific Research\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of expenses for constructing an approach road to research laboratories.\n•\nHeld:\no\nExpenditure is allowable as it was directly related to the business’s scientific research needs.\no\nAuxiliary benefits of the road do not negate its primary purpose.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.190 of 1982, decision dated: 1st October, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND D.R DHANUKA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetly with P.S. Jetly instructed by Mrs. S.-Bhattacharya, for the Commissioner. R. Murlidhar instructed by Vinay Dwarkadas of Messrs. Crawford Bayley and Co. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSANDOZ (INDIA) LTD\nSHAHID NAZIR\nVs\nTHE STATE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 857 = 1995 SLD 857 = (1995) 72 TAX 123 = (1994) 205 ITR 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Business Disallowance\n•\nIssue: Inclusion of directors' fees and committee meeting fees in remuneration under Section 40(c).\n•\nHeld:\no\nRemuneration includes all monetary payments for services, including meeting fees.\no\nSuch payments fall under Section 40(c) and must be included in calculating prescribed limits.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Avon Cycles (P.) Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 448 (Punj. & Har.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, 1956=309(2),198 ", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NOS. 162 AND 162A OF 1979. AUGUST 12 1991", + "Judge Name:": " R.C. MANKAD AND R.K. ABICHANDANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.H. Kaji fort the Applicant. B.J. Shelat for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Alembic Glass Industries Ltd\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax\nMst. ISHRAT ZAIDI\nVs\nSABIR HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 858 = 1995 SLD 858 = (1995) 72 TAX 137 = (1994) 205 ITR 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure\n•\nIssue: Nature of expenditure for labor welfare quarters constructed under statutory obligations.\n•\nHeld:\no\nExpenditure is revenue as it was incurred under compulsion and resulted in no asset for the assessee.\no\nThe primary purpose was welfare of laborers, qualifying it as revenue expenditure.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Amalgamated Development Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 395 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 168 OF 1982, SEPTEMBER 25, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND, J.N. HORE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nRungta Mines (P.) Ltd\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA\nVs\nMst. FAHMIDA AKHTAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 859 = 1995 SLD 859 = (1995) 72 TAX 140 = (1994) 205 ITR 360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nIssue: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for revised income disclosure after departmental raid.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAssessee failed to explain discrepancies or mistake in original filing.\no\nPenalty justified as concealment was deliberate and uncovered only after a raid.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T. REFERENCE NO. 271 OF 1980, MARCH 30, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " G.T. NANAVATI AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.A. Mehta, R.K. Patel and K.C. Patel for the Applicant. M.J. Thakore andM.R. Bhatt for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Nandial Kanaiyalal\nvs\nCommissioner of IncomE tax\nMUHAMMAD IHSAN QAZI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/ WEALTH TAX ZONEA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 860 = 1995 SLD 860 = (1995) 72 TAX 144 = (1994) 205 ITR 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Interest Waiver and Rectification\n•\nIssue: Applicability of rectification under Section 154 for interest levy under Section 215.\n•\nHeld:\no\nDiscretion for interest waiver lies with the ITO but must be exercised fairly.\no\nRectification applies only when errors are evident; mere omission is not sufficient for rectification.\nReferences:\n•\nCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 376 OF 1980, MARCH 10, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " G.T. NANAVATI AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thankore and M.R. Bhatt for the Applicant. J.P. Shah for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nGordhanbhai Jethabhai\nARIF MUKHTAR MALIK\nVs\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 799 = 1996 SLD 799 = (1995) 73 TAX 215 = 1996 PTD 743", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Tax Credits and Business Expenses\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for tax credits on plant installation and sales promotion expenses.\n•\nHeld:\no\nInstallation costs do not form part of purchase for tax credits.\no\nSales promotion expenses exceeding regulatory limits are deductible if incurred for business promotion.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102,107(2),107(1) Income Tax Rules, 1922=8(2) Income Tax Act, 1922=15GG,10(2)(vib),19(5) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 4573/KB of 1986-87 (Assessment Year 1985-86), ITA No. 2388/KB of 1987-88 (Assessment Year 1986-87), ITA No. 1225/HQB of 1988-89 (Assessment Year 1987-88), DATE of Order : 31-01-1996, hearing DATE : 11-10-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by . Mr. Abdul Mateen, F.C.A. Respondent by . Mr. Muhammad Saeed, D.R", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nVs\nMessrs MULTAN BEVERAGE (PVT.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 7 = 1996 SLD 7 = (1995) 72 TAX 141 = 1995 TAX 141 = 1996 PTD 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Additions and CBR Instructions\n•\nIssue: Validity of additions without confronting the assessee and reliance on CBR instructions.\n•\nHeld:\no\nAdditions without proper confrontation are unjustified.\no\nCBR instructions are binding, and beneficial interpretations favoring assessees must be upheld.\nReferences:\n•\nPTD (1992) 1.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,8,25(c),10(2A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 936/HQ of 1988-89, decision dated: 30-08-1993, hearing DATE : 25-08-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ABDUL MALIK AND S.M. SIBTAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Appellant. I.N. Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 8 = 1996 SLD 8 = (1995) 72 TAX 93 = 1995 TAX 93 = 1996 PTD 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – House Property Income and Annual Value\n•\nIssue: Determination of annual value for properties with reduced rental declarations or undeclared rental income.\n•\nHeld:\no\nSection 19 allows the Assessing Officer to estimate the annual value based on notional or actual rents received.\no\nAgreements between parties (tenants and landlords) or rent restriction laws do not limit the officer's discretion.\no\nAssessments based on reduced rent rates or omissions (e.g., lessee-occupied spaces) are erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests.\no\nDouble assessments arise due to artificial arrangements by property owners, which cannot override statutory obligations.\nReferences:\n•\nH.H. Maharaja, Raja Pawer Dewas v. C.I.T.; Duke of Westminster v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 992 to 995/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 13-08-1995, hearing DATE : 14-02-1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Khan with Ch. Akhtar Saeed, Bar-at-Law, L.A. for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, DR. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 9 = 1996 SLD 9 = (1995) 72 TAX 34 = 1996 PTD 143 = (1994) 205 ITR 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Development Rebate and Mining Machinery\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for higher development rebates on items like miners' safety cap lamps and batteries.\n•\nHeld:\no\nMining safety cap lamps and similar items do not qualify as mining machinery. \no\nThe rebate applies only to machinery with mechanical functions that generate or modify natural forces.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Standard Batteries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 977 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 469 of 1977 decided on 3rd December, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jahangir Mistry, instructed by Messrs. Champaklal Mehta, for the Assessee. G.S. Jetly with P.S. Jetly for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "STANDARD BATTERIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nMessrs KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATIONII), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 10 = 1996 SLD 10 = (1995) 71 TAX 177 = (1994) 206 ITR 402 = 1996 PTD 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Reassessment Based on CBDT Opinions\n•\nIssue: Validity of reassessment initiated under Section 147(b) based on CBDT Circulars.\n•\nHeld:\no\nCBDT's internal opinions on law are not considered information for reassessment under Section 147(b).\no\nReassessment requires new facts or formal sources of law, not opinions or reinterpretations.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 86 of 1979, decision dated: 6-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND, J.N. HORE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Mitra and R.C. Prasad for the Commissioner. Dr. D. Pal and Miss M. Seal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUNION CARBIDE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 11 = 1996 SLD 11 = (1995) 72 TAX 20 = 1996 PTD 166 = (1994) 205 ITR 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act, 1961 – Special Deduction for New Industrial Undertakings\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for Section 80-J benefits for leased or reconstructed industrial undertakings.\n•\nHeld:\no\nOnly newly established undertakings qualify for benefits; change of management does not make an existing unit new. \no\nLeasing is considered a transfer, and reconstructed units do not qualify for special deductions.\nReferences:\n•\nTextile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 195 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.22 of 1982 and Income-tax References Nos. 118 and 120 of 1981 and Income Tax Reference No.156 of 1982, decision dated: 6-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " T.L. VISVANATHA IYER AND L. MANOHARAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Sivarajan, C. Kochunni Nair and K. Sreedharan for the Assessee. P. K. Ravindranatha Menon, Senior Advocate and N. R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 12 = 1996 SLD 12 = 1996 PTD 178 = (1995) 72 TAX 119 = 1996 PTCL 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Appeals and Validity of Documents\n•\nIssue 1: Right to appeal without a valid notice of demand.\no\nHeld: Appeals are not contingent upon the issuance of a valid notice of demand.\n•\nIssue 2: Validity of computer-generated assessment orders.\no\nHeld: Computer-generated orders are valid as written orders if procedural integrity is maintained.\nReferences:\n•\nHalsbury's Laws of England (4th ed.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,59A,62,63 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=2(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 22 to 34/IB of 1993-94 and I.TAs. Nos. 913 to 953/IB of 1992-93, decision dated: 21st June, 1995. dates of hearing: 13th, 14th and 20-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir Hussain D.R. for Appellants. M. Zahid Yasin Mufti for Respondents. Assessee in person in ITA No. 935. Nemo in I.T.As. Nos. 22 to 33 and W5 to 953", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 13 = 1996 SLD 13 = 1996 PTD 186 = (1995) 73 TAX 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Reopening of Assessments\n•\nIssue: Validity of reopening assessments under Section 65 based on definite information. \n•\nHeld:\no\nReopening is invalid without new material facts.\no\nChanges in the officer's opinion do not constitute sufficient grounds for reassessment.\nReferences:\n•\nCentral Insurance Company v. CBR 1993 SCMR 1232.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=6534A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. D-199, 200, 201 and 202 of 1990, decision dated: 20-09-1995, hearing DATE : 17-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " SALAHUDDIN MIRZA AND AGHA RAFIQ AHMED KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN HERALD LIMITED\nVs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN, PANEL02, COMPANIES-III; KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 14 = 1996 SLD 14 = (1995) 72 TAX 133 = 1996 PTD 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Loss Carryforward and Tribunal Precedents\n•\nIssue 1: Loss carryforward for exempt income under Second Schedule.\no\nHeld: Losses from exempt income cannot be carried forward for future adjustments.\n•\nIssue 2: Binding nature of Tribunal decisions.\no\nHeld: Tribunal decisions are binding unless overturned by higher courts.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.cl.(199),Ss.14 & 35,14(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 320/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 24-12-1992, hearing DATE : 25-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASSAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, NASEEM SABIR SYED AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shakir, C.A. for Appellant. Afzal Nau Bahar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 15 = 1996 SLD 15 = (1995) 72 TAX 158 = 1996 PTD 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Appeals and Expense Deduction\n•\nIssue 1: Effect of appellate orders on pending appeals.\no\nHeld: Pending appeals remain open regardless of implementation of appellate orders.\n•\nIssue 2: Deductions for expenses incurred for earning income.\no\nHeld: Deductions require clear evidence of expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for earning specific income.\nReferences:\n•\nJ.K. Woollen Manufacturers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,31(1)(b)SecondSched.Cl.103(a),31(3),24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 189/LB to 198/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 23rd February, 1995, hearing DATE : 7-02-1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Appellant. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 16 = 1996 SLD 16 = (1995) 72 TAX 197 = 1996 PTD 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Appeals, Trade Ventures, and Evidentiary Value\n•\nIssue (a): C.I.T. (A) remanding without cause.\no\nHeld: Tribunal decided the issue on merits, vacating the remand.\n•\nIssue (b)-(d): Taxability of property sales as business ventures.\no\nHeld: Repeated transactions indicated a systematic business pattern, taxable as business income.\n•\nIssue (e): Affidavits as evidence.\no\nHeld: Tribunal rejected affidavits contradicting documented facts.\nReferences:\n•\nShaikh Industries Limited v. C.I.T.; Smt. Gunwatnibai Rabilal v. C.I.T.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,13 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.1542/LB and 2590/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 13-09-1995, hearing DATE : 25-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Pervaiz, LA. and Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Appellant. Sikandar Hayat Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 17 = 1996 SLD 17 = 1996 PTCL 160 = 1996 PTD 244 = (1995) 73 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Double Taxation Treaty and Penal Interest\n•\nIssue (a): Applicability of treaty vs. domestic law.\no\nHeld: Treaty provisions override Rule 20 for allocating expenses to permanent establishments.\n•\nIssue (b): Deduction of penal interest.\no\nHeld: Penal interest is allowable.\nReferences:\n•\n1994 PTD 1271.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=163 Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.20 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 1601/KB and 1602/KB of 1985-86, decision dated: 31st March, 1994, hearing DATE : 13-12-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Nasir Bokhari, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Mateen, C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 18 = 1996 SLD 18 = 1996 PTD 248 = (1995) 73 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Deduction for Business Expenses\n•\nIssue: Admissibility of expenses for director's treatment.\no\nHeld: Expenses lacked direct connection to business and were disallowed.\nPrinciple: Deductible expenses must be integral to business, not remotely connected.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24,23,2(44),24(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 208/IB of 1993-94, decision dated: 28-09-1995, hearing DATE : 17-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez, D.R. for Appellant. A. Rahman Mir, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 19 = 1996 SLD 19 = 1996 PTD 259 = (1995) 73 TAX 1 = 1996 PTCL 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Appeal Conditions\n•\nIssue (a)-(b): Prepayment of 50% assessed tax for Tribunal appeals.\no\nHeld: Tax liability determined by Commissioner’s order defines prepayment obligation.\nReferences:\n•\n1995 PTD (Trib.) 482.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(3) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 9/IB of 1995-96 In re: I.T.A. No. 170/IB of 1995-96, decision dated: 15-11-1995, hearing DATE : 4-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Oliver Peter Pervez, ACA for Applicant. Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 20 = 1996 SLD 20 = (1995) 72 TAX 261 = 1996 PTD 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Rejection of Accounts and Procedural Fairness\n•\nIssue (a): Notice requirement for rejecting accounts.\no\nHeld: Mandatory notice required post-1993 amendment; not before.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62 ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 68 and P.T.R. 7 of 1993, decision dated: 25-10-1995, hearing DATE 4-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN AND SHARIF HUSSAIN BOKHARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butt for the Income Tax Department.", + "Party Name:": "MUGHAL TECHNICAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nC.I.T., CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 21 = 1996 SLD 21 = (1995) 72 TAX 211 = 1995 PTCL 387 = 1996 PTD 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Rectification and Procedural Fairness\n•\nIssue: Non-speaking orders on rectification petitions.\no\nHeld: Regional Commissioner’s decision was void due to lack of due process.\nReferences:\n•\n1993 SCMR 39.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 & Second ScheduleCl.172 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3583 of 1991, decision dated: 11th April 1995", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butt for Respondents.\nMuhammad Akbar (Advisor) Dealing Officer. Mian Abdul Ghaffar for the Complainant", + "Party Name:": "ATTAULLAH\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others\nMessrs ADAM SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Chief Executive\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 22 = 1996 SLD 22 = (1995) 72 TAX 214 = 1996 PTD 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Concessional Tax Rates on Dividend Income\n•\nIssue: Tax on non-business dividend income.\no\nHeld: Dividends taxed at concessional rates.\nReferences:\n•\nPakistan Textile Mills Owners Association v. Administrator of Karachi.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.PartII,para.A(2)(a) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 39 of 1990, decision dated: 9-10-1995, hearing DATE : 25-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN AND SHARIF HUSSAIN BOKHARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Applicant. M. Naseem Kashmiri for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nVs\nNATIONAL FERTILIZER CORPORATION, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 23 = 1996 SLD 23 = 1996 PTD 282", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Additional Tax for Advance Tax Defaults\n•\nIssue: Non-speaking orders on additional tax.\no\nHeld: Detailed reasoning required; vague orders invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=87,53,156 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 84 and 85/LB of 1994, decision dated: 13-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant. M. Hayat Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 24 = 1996 SLD 24 = 1996 PTCL 107 = 1996 PTD 286 = (1995) 73 TAX 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Turnover Tax Scope and Appealability\n•\nIssue (a): Applicability of turnover tax.\no\nHeld: Strict interpretation of “turnover” applies; tax appealable before Commissioner.\nPrinciple: Definitions starting with means are narrowly construed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,62,129,63 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 411/IB and 412/IB of 1993-94, decision dated: 27-09-1995, hearing DATE : 26-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Shah, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 25 = 1996 SLD 25 = (1995) 71 TAX 221 = 1996 PTD 292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Set-off of Losses and Unabsorbed Depreciation\n•\nIssue: Allowing unabsorbed depreciation against property income.\no\nHeld: By legal fiction, unabsorbed depreciation can offset property income even if business is inactive.\nReferences:\n•\n1994 PTD (Trib.) 70.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=29,ThirdSchedRr.7,8(5)(a),19,23(1)(vii),38(6),19,32,41 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A., No. 1502/HQ of 1989-90, decision dated: 24-03-1994, hearing DATE : 28-07-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Appellant. Iqbal Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 26 = 1996 SLD 26 = 1996 PTD 305 = (1995) 73 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Fixed Tax Scheme\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for Fixed Tax Scheme.\no\nHeld: Declaring oneself as wholesaler debarred eligibility; burden of proof on taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59C(1)(a)55 ", + "Case #": "I.T.AS. Nos. 780/IB and 1050(IB)/1993-94, decision dated: 9-08-1995, hearing DATE : 19-02-1995", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TARIQ AZIZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Musharaf Akhund, D.R. for Appellant. Sikandar Hayat Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 27 = 1996 SLD 27 = 1996 PTD 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Deemed Income and Exclusion from Self-Assessment\n•\nIssue: Exclusion based on undervaluation allegations.\no\nHeld: Sale deeds must be respected unless contradicted by tangible evidence.\nReferences:\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No.7(13) DT-14/93.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=92,92(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 393/IB to 396/IB of 1994-95, decision dated: 27-04-1995, hearing DATE : 23rd April, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir Hussain, D.R. for Appellant. Sh. Jalal-ud-Din, FCA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 28 = 1996 SLD 28 = 1996 PTD 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Appeal Procedures\n•\nIssue: Procedural lapses in appeal filing.\no\nHeld: Appeals invalid if memorandum lacks proper authorization.\nReferences:\n•\n1988 PTD 324.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3509/LB of 1995, decision dated: 14-12-1995, hearing DATE : 7-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Babri, I.T.P. for Appellant. Sartaj Yousuf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 29 = 1996 SLD 29 = 1996 PTD 334 = (1995) 73 TAX 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Appeal Procedures\n•\nIssue: Procedural lapses in appeal filing.\no\nHeld: Appeals invalid if memorandum lacks proper authorization.\nReferences:\n•\n1988 PTD 324.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 209/IB of 1992-93, decision dated: 10-12-1995. dates of hearing: 10th January and 26-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMAD SHAIKH, CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND TARIQ AZIZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mubeen Gul Khan D. R. for Appellate. Sadiq Hussain ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 54 = 2008 SLD 54 = 2009 PTCL 1 = 2008 PTD 2019 = 2009 SCMR 19 = (2009) 99 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Exemptions for Imports\n•\nIssue: Assembling computers vs. manufacturing status.\no\nHeld: Importing parts for assembly does not qualify as manufacturing for exemptions.\nReferences:\n•\nRaunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.1339 and 1340 of 2004, decision dated: 2-04-2008.(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-4-2004 in Customs Appeals Nos.19 and 20 of 2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore)", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J., IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN AND CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both cases). M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mumtaz A. Sheikh, Member (Legal) (in both cases).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BEST BUY COMPUTERS, LAHORE and anothers\nVs\nDIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE & INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS & EXCISE), LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 30 = 1996 SLD 30 = 1996 PTD 347 = (1995) 73 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Import Tax Assessments\n•\nIssue: Procedural requirements for demanding import tax.\no\nHeld: Proper assessment by Customs mandatory before tax collection.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5),50,50(5)(b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 283 to 288, 296, 321 to 324, 326, 327 and 344 of 1995, decision dated: 11-12-1995, hearing DATE : 29-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, C.J. AND IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CH., J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ul-Haq Memon and Raja Qureshi for Petitioner (in C.P. Nos. 283 to 288, 327 and 296 of 1995). Zahid Alvi and Shakeel Ahmed for Petitioner (in C.P. Nos. 321 to 324, 326 and 344of 1995). Raja Rub Nawaz, D.A.G. and Shaikh Haider for Respondents (in all Appeals).", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALHAMZA SHIP BREAKING COMPANY and others\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance & Economic Affairs (Revenue Division), Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 31 = 1996 SLD 31 = 1996 PTD 360 = (1995) 73 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Exemption Based on Business Activity\n•\nIssue: Impact of memorandum clauses on exemption eligibility.\no\nHeld: Exemption determined by actual business activity, not stated objectives.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,PartI,66,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3579/LB, 3594/LB of 1994 and 3582-A/LB of 1995, decision dated: 17-08-1995, hearing DATE : 4-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Amjad Malik, D.R., Shahbaz Butt, L.A. and Zahid Pervaiz, L.A.\nRespondent(s) by: Javaid Iqbal Khan, FAC", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 32 = 1996 SLD 32 = 1996 PTD 388 = (1995) 73 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Binding Nature of Judicial Decisions\n•\nIssue: Tribunal decisions binding on tax authorities.\no\nHeld: Decisions by Tribunal/High Court are precedential and binding, irrespective of pending appeals.\nPrinciple: Ensures judicial discipline among tax authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8,23(1),130(1),136,134, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=201 ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos. 166/KB, 141/KB to 144/KB, 832/KB, 1088/KB to 1090/KB of 1995-96 and WTAs. Nos.221/KB to 225/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 23rd January, 1996, hearing DATE : 15-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munir Ansari for Appellant (in ITA No. 166/KB of 1995-96). Mrs. Zarina N. Zaidi, D.R. for Respondent (in ITA No. 166/KB of 1995-96). Munir-ud-Din Ansari for Appellant (in.ITAs.Nos.141/KB to 144/KB of 1995-96). Mrs. Zarina N. Zaidi, D.R. for Respondent (in ITAs.Nos.141/KB to 144/KB of 1995-96). Arif Muhammad Khan for Appellant (in WTAs.No. 221/KB to 225/KB of 1995-96). Mrs. Zarna N. Zaidi, D.R. for Respondent (in WTAs.No. 221/KB to 225/KB of 1995-96). Mazhar-ud-Din for Appellant (in ITA No. 832/KB of 1995-96). Mrs. Zarina N. Zaidi, D.R. for Respondent (in ITA No. 832/KB of 1995-96). Amin-ud-Din Ansari for Appellant (in ITA Nos. 1088/KB to 1090/KB of 1995-96). Mrs. Zarina N. Zaidi, D.R. for Respondent (in ITA Nos. 1088/KB to 1090/KB of 1995-96).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 33 = 1996 SLD 33 = 1996 PTD 407 = (1995) 73 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Profits and Gains from Petroleum Exploration\n•\nIssue (a): Application of Sections 23 and 24 to petroleum business profits.\no\nHeld: Sections 23 and 24 apply unless explicitly inconsistent with the Fifth Schedule.\n•\nPrinciple: Repugnancy between provisions must be avoided and provisions harmonized wherever possible.\nReferences:\n•\n1993 PTD (Trib.) 290.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FifthSched.,Part1,R.2(1),26,24,23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.999/IB to 1001/IB of 1991-92 and I.T.A. Nos. 804/IB and 805/IB of 1993-94, decision dated: 18-12-1995, hearing DATE : 10-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Hussain, F.C.A. for the Assessee. Pervez Akhtar, D.R. for the I.T.O", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 34 = 1996 SLD 34 = 1996 PTD 411 = (1995) 73 TAX 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Interest and Long-Standing Tax Interpretation\n•\nIssue (a): Deduction of interest paid to non-resident banks.\no\nHeld: Interest deductible when paid to non-resident banks liable to tax in Pakistan.\n•\nIssue (c): Deviation from long-standing interpretation of statutes.\no\nHeld: Courts should avoid reversing established interpretations due to potential adverse effects.\nReferences:\n•\n(1993) PTD 1100, (1981) ITR 759.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2551/KB and 2252/KB, 2672/KB, 2673/KB of 1987-88, 1627/KB of 1986-87, 2667/KB, 2663/KB and -2664/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 14-09-1995, hearing DATE : 9-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S.BSIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 2251/KB and 2552/KB of 1987-88).\nMuhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R.. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 2251 /KB and 2552/KB of 1987-88)\nMuhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R. for Appellant (in (I.T.As. Nos.2672/KB and 2673/KB of 1987-88)\nI.N. Pasha for Respondent (in (I.T.As. Nos.2672/KB and 2673/KB of 1987-88).\nMuhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1627/KB, 2667/KB of 1986-87, 2668/KB of 1987-88, 1282/HQ of 198889, 710/HQ of 1989-90 and 603/KB of 1991-92)\nI.N. Pasha for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nes.1627/KB of 1986-87, 2667/KB, 2668/KB of 1987-88, 1282/HQ of 1988-89, 710/HQ of 1989-90 and 603/KB of 1991-92)\nI.N. Pasha for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.2202/KB, 2203/KB of 1987-88, 1176/KB of 1988-89, 666/KB of 1991-92, 8148/KB and 1932/KB of 1992-93).\nMuhammad, Yousuf Butt, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.2202/KB, 2203/KB of 1987-88, 1176/KB of 1988-89, 666/KB of 1991-92, 4148/KB and 1932/KB of 1992-93)\nMuhammad Yousaf Butt, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 3373/KB of 1987-88).\nNemo for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 3373/KB of 1987-88)\nMuhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 3979/KB of 1987-88).\nNemo for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 3979/KB of 1987-88).\nMuhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R. for Appellant in (I.T.As. Nos.2663/KB and 2664/KB of 1987-88).\nPir Muhammad Diwan, A.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.2663/KB and 2664/KB of 1987-88).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 35 = 1996 SLD 35 = 1996 PTD 420 = (1995) 73 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Accounting for Capital Asset Conversion\n•\nIssue: Valuation of capital assets converted to stock-in-trade.\no\nHeld: Value taken as market value at conversion date, not the original cost.\n•\nPrinciple: Pre-conversion appreciation in value is not taxable as business profit.\nReferences:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka; C.I.T. v. A.V. Appu Chettiar.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No-. 6/KB of 1995-96, decision dated: 8-01-1996, hearing DATE : 7-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Appellant. Shaheen Niazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 36 = 1996 SLD 36 = 1996 PTD 462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance – Revenue vs. Capital Loss\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of exchange rate losses on loans for capital goods.\no\nHeld: Not deductible as revenue expenditure if loan pertains to capital goods acquisition.\nReferences:\n•\nSutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T.; C.I.T. v. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.389 of 1982, decision dated: 4-10-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND D. R. DHANUKA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian with J.P. Devdhar instructed by Mrs. S Bhattacharya for the Commissioner. R. Muralidhar instructed by Vinay Dwarkadas of Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSANDOZ (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 37 = 1996 SLD 37 = 1996 PTD 482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Reopening and Joint Assessment\n•\nIssue (a): Reopening of assessment based on doubts.\no\nHeld: Reopening requires definite information, not mere suspicion.\n•\nIssue (b): Joint assessment for entities with shared names.\no\nHeld: Sharing a name does not justify joint assessment.\nReferences:\n•\n1978 PTD (Trib.) 54.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,156 ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos.5333/LB to 5337/LB and 6040/LB to 6044/LB of 1995, decision dated: 10-01-1996, hearing DATE : 24th December,1995", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant (in ITAs.Nos.5333/LB to 5337/LB of 1995)\nJaved Rehman, D.R. and Shahbaz Butt, L.A. for Respondent (in ITAs.Nos.5333/LB to 5337/LB) of 1995).\nJaved Rehman, D.R. and Shahbaz Butt, L.A for Appellant (in ITAs.Nos.6040/LB to 6044/LB of 1995).\nMian Ashiq Hussain for Respondent (in ITAs.Nos.6040/LB to 6044/LB of 1995)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 38 = 1996 SLD 38 = 1996 PTD 492 = (1995) 73 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Presumptive Tax and Appellate Authority\n•\nIssue: Scope of I.A.C.'s revision powers under Section 66-A.\no\nHeld: I.A.C. cannot revise issues already adjudicated by appellate authorities.\nPrinciple: Revisions must preserve appellate determinations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C14,66A(1A) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 762/IB, 763/IB of 1992-93, 795/IB to 797/IB of 1994-95, decision dated: 15-01-1996, hearing DATE : 16-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez, D.R. for Appellant (in ITAs. Nos. 762/IB and 763/IB of 1992-93).\nJaved A. Qureshi for Respondent (in ITAs. Nos.762/IB and 763/IB of 1992-93).\nM. Javed A. Qureshi for Appellant (in ITAs. Nos. 795/I3 to 797/IB of 1994-95)\nAbdul Hafeez, D.R. for Respondent (in ITAs. Nos. 795AB to 797/IB of 1994-95)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 355 = 2000 SLD 355 = 2000 PTD 2967 = (1999) 235 ITR 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance – CBDT's Power of Clarification\n•\nIssue: Scope of CBDT powers.\no\nHeld: CBDT cannot issue clarifications to private individuals on circulars; clarifications must address general ambiguities.\nPrinciple: CBDT's authority is confined to general instructions, not specific clarifications.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Letters Patent Appeal No. 283 of 1995(R), decision dated: 25-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA AND LOKNATH PRASAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.M. Bhattacharya, D.K. Sinha and M.M. Banerjee for Appellant. L.N. Rastogi and K.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "TATA TIMKEN LTD\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 39 = 1996 SLD 39 = 1996 PTD 502 = (1995) 73 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Rent Collection Expense Deduction\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of rent collection expenses.\no\nHeld: Expenses, even if incurred personally, are deductible but not for time or inconvenience.\nReferences:\n•\nPLD 1992 SC 562.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=20(1)(g) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 536(IB) of 1992-93, decision dated: 19-11-1995, hearing DATE : 10-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Nasir Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs GELCAPS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 40 = 1996 SLD 40 = 1996 PTD 509 = (1995) 212 ITR 404 = (1995) 73 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance – Interest on Refunds Post-Appellate Orders\n•\nIssue: Interest accrual on tax refunds after appellate orders.\no\nHeld: Interest accrues only from the date of fresh assessment, not the appellate order.\nReferences:\n•\nNew Woodlands Hotel v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1413 of 1977, decision dated: 13-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, N. P. SINGH AND SUHAS C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Manoj Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini with him) for Appellant. S.S. Javali, Senior Advocate (K. Ram Kumar and Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHITTOOR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 41 = 1996 SLD 41 = 1996 PTD 521 = (1995) 212 ITR 692 = (1995) 73 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance – Legal Nature of Partnerships and Arbitrator Awards\n•\nIssue: Requirement of registration for dissolution awards.\no\nHeld: Awards dissolving firms and distributing assets do not require registration as they do not involve transfers.\nPrinciple: Firm assets are distributed as movable property (cash) upon dissolution.\nReferences:\n•\nAddanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa; C.I.T. v. Dewas Cine Corporation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1749 to 1752 of 1992, decision dated: 11-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Sen, Senior Advocate (A.T.M. Sampath and Sitharanjandas with him) for the Appellants. T.S.K. Iyer and S. Sivasubramaniam; Senior Advocates (R. Thamodharan and Dr. A.F. Julian (for Arputham, Aruna & Co.) A. Mariarputham with them) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "S.V. CHANDRA PANDIAN and others\nVs\nS.V. SIVALINGA NADAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 42 = 1996 SLD 42 = 1996 PTD 538 = (1995) 212 ITR 1 = (1995) 73 TAX 29 = 1996 PTCL 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Relief for New Industrial Undertakings\n•\nIssue: Entitlement to relief under Sections 80-J and 80-HH for an amalgamated company.\no\nHeld: The amalgamated company, which existed prior to amalgamation, was not formed by the splitting or reconstruction of an existing business. Hence, it was entitled to relief under Sections 80-J and 80-HH.\nPrinciple: Transfer in this context refers to plant or machinery essential for forming a new undertaking, not subsequent acquisitions.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 95 of 1984, decision dated: 30-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. M, JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate with P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S Battacharya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nDANDELI FERRO ALLOYS PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 43 = 1996 SLD 43 = 1996 PTD 542 = (1995) 212 ITR 24 = (1995) 73 TAX 33 = 1996 PTCL 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Donations and Business Expenditure\n•\nIssue: Donations claimed as business expenditure under Section 37(1).\no\nHeld: Donations not proven to be wholly and exclusively for business cannot be deducted under Section 37(1). However, 50% of the donation was deductible under Section 80-G.\nPrinciple: Section 80-G is specific, overriding the general provisions of Section 37.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income Tax References Nos. 34 and 35 of 1985, decision dated: 21st July, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND V. G. PALSHIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vineet Kothari for the Assessee. D.S. Shishodia, Senior Advocate with S. Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JASWANT TRADING COMPANY and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 44 = 1996 SLD 44 = 1996 PTD 546 = (1995) 212 ITR 6 = (1995) 73 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Rectification of Mistakes\n•\nIssue: Withdrawal of extra shift allowance on electrical machinery under rectification.\no\nHeld: Extra shift allowance was not permitted on electrical machinery as per the Income Tax Rules, and rectification under Section 154 to withdraw the allowance was valid.\nReferences: Item III(iv)(1) of Appendix I, Income Tax Rules.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 176 of 1982, decision dated: 4-03-1994", + "Judge Name:": " M. B. SHAH AND R. K. ABICHANDANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore instructed by M.R. Bhatt of R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BHARAT SURYODAYA MILLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 45 = 1996 SLD 45 = 1996 PTD 549 = (1995) 212 ITR 29 = (1995) 73 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Balancing Allowance\n•\nIssue: Entitlement to balancing allowance for property on leased premises.\no\nHeld: The assessee was entitled to balancing allowance as the Revenue treated the property as owned by the assessee for depreciation purposes.\nReferences: Section 32(1)(iii).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 291 of 1993, decision dated: 23rd November, 1994.", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S.M, JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramaniam with J.P. Devadhar instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner.\nNemo for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nFANCY CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 46 = 1996 SLD 46 = 1996 PTD 551 = (1995) 212 ITR 39 = (1995) 73 TAX 41 = 1996 PTCL 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Reference and Limitation\n•\nIssue: Limitation for consolidated reference applications.\no\nHeld: Revised consolidated reference applications filed upon Tribunal’s direction were within limitation.\n•\nAdditional Issue: Income from undisclosed sources.\no\nHeld: Findings based on evidence indicating no undisclosed income are factual and not subject to reference.\nPrinciple: Findings of fact are not questions of law unless unsupported by evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition5 No. 15260 of 1992-S and Original Petitions Nos. 14365, 14488 and 14494 of 1992, decision dated: 26-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " T.L. VISWANATHA IYER AND K. K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for Petitioners. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K Nair for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "GEO SEA FOODS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 47 = 1996 SLD 47 = 1996 PTD 556 = (1995) 212 ITR 68 = (1995) 73 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Withdrawal of Development Rebate\n•\nIssue: Withdrawal of development rebate for machinery destroyed by fire.\no\nHeld: Destruction of machinery by fire is not a transfer, and thus, the rebate could not be withdrawn.\nReferences: Sections 33 and 34; Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 123 of 1984, decision dated: 25-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S.M, JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nHARDELIA CHEMICAL LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 48 = 1996 SLD 48 = 1996 PTD 559 = (1995) 212 ITR 85 = (1995) 73 TAX 50 = 1996 PTCL 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Income from Undisclosed Sources\n•\nIssue: Addition of loan as undisclosed income.\no\nHeld: The appellate authority rightly deleted the addition based on satisfactory evidence of the loan transaction.\nPrinciple: Evidence re-evaluated by appellate bodies can override Assessing Officer’s findings.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.J.C. No. 122 of 1990, decision dated: 7-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " G.B. PATNAIK AND P. C. NAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSARDAR GURUDEV SINGH GILL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 49 = 1996 SLD 49 = 1996 PTD 562 = (1995) 212 ITR 639 = (1995) 73 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Rectification and Limitation\n•\nIssue: Rectification application within four years of a rectified order.\no\nHeld: Applications within four years of a rectified order (not original) are valid under Section 154(7).\nReferences: Hind Wire Industries Ltd. reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1323 to 1327 of 1995, decision dated: 20-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " P.B. SAWANT AND G.N RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Shanker Ghosh, Senior Advocate (R. Mukherjee with him) for Appellant. G. Viswanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol and R. Satish, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "HIND WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 256 = 2000 SLD 256 = 2000 PTD 3510 = (1999) 238 ITR 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – High Court’s Reference Powers\n•\nIssue: High Court's authority to reframe reference questions.\no\nHeld: High Court can reframe questions but cannot widen their scope beyond the original issue.\nPrinciple: Doctrine of merger limits revisions of appellate orders.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 97 of 1992, decision dated: 19-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " Y. R. MEENA AND BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khaitan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUBARNA PLANTATION AND TRADING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 357 = 2000 SLD 357 = 2000 PTD 3503 = (1999) 237 ITR 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Attachment and Sale of Mortgaged Property\n•\nIssue: Tax Recovery Officer rejecting mortgagee bank's objections.\no\nHeld: Mortgagee’s claims must be considered on merits. Summarily rejecting claims is a legal error.\nPrinciple: Rule 11(6) ensures objections are adjudicated substantively.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 1367 and 1371 of 1998 (R), decision dated: 16-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kameshwar Prasad; Rajesh Kumar and Mrs. N. Thakur for Petitioners. Debi Prasad and K.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "STATE BANK OF INDIA\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 50 = 1996 SLD 50 = 1996 PTD 574 = (1996) 221 ITR 650 = (1995) 73 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Reassessment Notices\n•\nIssue: Validity of reassessment notice issued within limitation but served afterward.\no\nHeld: Issuance within limitation is sufficient for jurisdiction; service delays do not invalidate jurisdiction.\nReferences: R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai Patel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 1977, decided on-24-01-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA, S. P. BHARUCHA AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Viswanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar and S.N. Terdol with him) for Appellants. K.B. Rohatgi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nVs\nMajor TIKKA KHUSHWANT SINGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 51 = 1996 SLD 51 = 1996 PTD 579 = (1995) 212 ITR 105 = (1995) 73 TAX 110 = 1996 PTCL 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Deduction of Fines and Penalties\n•\nIssue: Deduction for fines paid under Customs Act and legal expenses.\no\nHeld: Fines compensatory in nature are deductible. Legal expenses in penalty proceedings are also deductible.\nReferences: Prakash Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1325 of 1981 (Reference No. 671 of 1981), decision dated: 29-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. GUPTA AND, JANARTHANAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.V. Balasubramanian for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Iyer and Padmanabhan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nN. M. PARTHASARATHY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 52 = 1996 SLD 52 = 1996 PTD 591 = (1995) 212 ITR 133 = (1995) 73 TAX 125 = 1996 PTCL 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Business vs. Professional Income\n•\nIssue: Classification of brokerage income as professional or business income.\no\nHeld: Income from brokerage, absent proof of specialized qualifications, is business income.\nPrinciple: Profession implies specialized qualifications beyond mere skill.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 125 of 1981, decision dated: 11-05-1993", + "Judge Name:": " K.C. AGRAWAL C.J. AND V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Bafna for the Commissioner. Raj Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nBHAGWAN BROKER AGENCY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 53 = 1996 SLD 53 = 1996 PTD 600 = (1995) 212 ITR 119 = (1995) 73 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Deduction for National Savings Certificate\n•\nIssue: Investment source for claiming deduction under Section 80-C.\no\nHeld: Investments must be made from taxable income of the same year to qualify for deduction.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.J.C. No. 72 of 1991, decision dated: 13-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " G. B. PATNAIK AND K.L. ISSRANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Roy for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nDr. USHARANI PANDA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 54 = 1996 SLD 54 = 1996 PTD 602 = (1995) 212 ITR 124 = (1995) 73 TAX 140 = 1996 PTCL 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Cooperative Societies and Godown Letting\n•\nIssue: Deduction for income from godowns used for storage.\no\nHeld: Letting includes use of godowns for storage. Income attributable to letting qualifies for deduction.\nPrinciple: Legislative intent favors broad interpretation of letting. ", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 237 of 1981, decision dated: 27-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " V.A. MOHTA AND G.D. PATIL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.N. Chandurkar and Smt. S. Wandile for the Commissioner. C.J., N. J. and P.C. Thakkar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nBHANDARA ZILLA SAHAKARI KHAREDI VIKRI SANGH LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 55 = 1996 SLD 55 = 1996 PTD 627 = (1995) 73 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Depreciation and Statutory Interpretation\n•\nIssue: Depreciation allowance for income from hiring machinery.\no\nHeld: Income from hiring qualifies under Section 30(2)(d), with depreciation allowance.\n•\nPrinciple: Inconsistent statutory provisions must be reconciled to preserve legislative coherence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched.,Rr.2to7S.30(2)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 648(IB) of 1992-93, decision dated: 12-02-1996, hearing DATE : 11-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir Hussain, D.R. for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sahi, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 56 = 1996 SLD 56 = 1996 PTD 634 = (1995) 74 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Reopening of Assessment\n•\nIssue: Validity of reopening an assessment for the year 1991-1992 under Section 65.\no\nHeld: An assessment order framed without detailed scrutiny can be reopened under Section 65 if new information is available, material facts were concealed, or the order was maneuvered. The Income Tax Officer’s notice was upheld, giving the assessee the opportunity to provide evidence to contest the valuation issue.\nReference: Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi v. Jennings Private School (1993 SCMR 96).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,61,.65(1)(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.419 of 1996, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. Shahbaz Butt for the Department.", + "Party Name:": "QADUS AHMAD\nVs\nTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE 16, ZONEA, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 57 = 1996 SLD 57 = 1996 PTD 639 = (1995) 212 ITR 185 = (1995) 73 TAX 153 = 1996 PTCL 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Reassessment\n•\nIssue: Validity of reassessment based on incomplete investigations or later findings.\no\nHeld: Reassessment without proper investigation due to time constraints or based on conjectural additions from subsequent years is invalid. Notices under Section 147(b) were quashed as they lacked substantive basis.\nPrinciple: Proper investigation at the time of original assessment is essential to avoid reopening.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.3008 of 1983, decision dated: 14-07-1994", + "Judge Name:": " M. B. SHAH AND N. N. MATHUR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner. B.J. Shelat instructed by M.R. Bhatt of R.P. Bhatt & Co. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ADARSH CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD\nVs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT)\nMUHAMMAD KHAN\nvs\nSETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 58 = 1996 SLD 58 = 1996 PTD 646 = (1995) 212 ITR 154 = (1995) 73 TAX 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Interest on Compensation\n•\nIssue: Classification of interest on enhanced compensation for requisitioned premises.\no\nHeld: Since the principal compensation was revenue in nature, the interest on the enhanced amount was also taxable as income from other sources. \nPrinciple: Interest from requisitioned properties follows the nature of the principal amount.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 163 of 1984, decision dated: 16-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Mitra for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nJAYANTILAL SARKARLAL GANDHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 59 = 1996 SLD 59 = 1996 PTD 648 = (1995) 212 ITR 303 = (1995) 73 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Diversion of Income by Overriding Title\n•\nIssue: Payments to lessees for vacating property and their taxability.\no\nHeld: Payments diverted by overriding title before reaching the assessee are deductible. The Tribunal was correct in excluding such sums from the assessee's income.\nReferences: A. Gaper v. C.I.T. (1979) and C.I.T. v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.74 of 1988, decision dated: 26-11-1993", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHAMPA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 60 = 1996 SLD 60 = 1996 PTD 654 = (1995) 212 ITR 150 = (1995) 73 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Transfer of Case and Penalty\n•\nIssue: Validity of penalty imposed without notice by a succeeding officer.\no\nHeld: Penalty orders issued without intimation under Section 129 were invalid. The assessee's right to rehearing was breached.\nReferences: Anantha Naganna Chetty v. C.I.T. (1970) and C.I.T. v. Chitra Mukherjee (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.393 of 1980, decision dated: 15-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " V. A. MOHTA AND G. D. PATIL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.N. Chandurkar for the Commissioner. Mr. Thakkar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHANKAR D. DHANWATEY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 61 = 1996 SLD 61 = 1996 PTD 658 = (1995) 212 ITR 169 = (1995) 73 TAX 150 = 1996 PTCL 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Income in Hospitals\n•\nIssue: Income from specialist doctors and omission of theatre charges.\no\nHeld: Payments to specialist doctors were not assessable as the hospital’s income. However, omission of theatre charges raised a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 13493 of 1991-S, decision dated: 5-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " T. L. VISWANATHA IYER AND MRS. K. K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for Petitioner. G. Sivarajan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK. BHASKARAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 62 = 1996 SLD 62 = 1996 PTD 661 = (1995) 212 ITR 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Open Remand and Fresh Material\n•\nIssue: Authority of assessing officers in remanded cases to use new evidence.\no\nHeld: Open remand allows full reevaluation. No question of law arose.\nPrinciple: Broad remand orders empower fresh inquiries.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 11950 of 1991-S, decision dated: 6-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " T. L. VISWANATHA IYER AND MRS. K. K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for Petitioner. G. Sivarajan and Kochunni Nair for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA. M. ZAINALABDEEN MUSALIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 63 = 1996 SLD 63 = 1996 PTD 666 = (1995) 212 ITR 225 = (1995) 73 TAX 186 = 1996 PTCL 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Perquisites in Oil Exploration\n•\nIssue: Tax liability borne by an Indian company for a non-resident firm.\no\nHeld: The liability constituted a business perquisite taxable under Section 44BB, with only 10% deemed profits.\nReferences: C.I.T. v. American Consulting Corporation (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S. J. C. Nos. 111 and 113 to 119 of 1991, decision dated: 14-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " G. B. PATNAIK AND P. C. NAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Devi Pal and S. K. Gajendra for the Assessee. Standing Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "OIL INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 358 = 2000 SLD 358 = 2000 PTD 2609 = (1999) 236 ITR 595", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Refund and Interest\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 244A and constitutional validity.\no\nHeld: Section 244A is valid and substantive, applying from the 1989-90 assessment year. It is not retrospective.\nPrinciple: Fiscal statutes are interpreted strictly, avoiding purposive construction.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.472 of 1994 (in Matter No.3145 of 1993), decision dated: 10-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE AND DIBYENDU BHUSAN DUTTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee and Dibyendu Bhusan Dutta, JJ\nP. K. Mallick and R. C. Prasad for Appellants. N. K. Poddar, Pranab Pal and Subrata Das for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nVs\nCENTRAL CONCRETE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LIMITED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 64 = 1996 SLD 64 = 1996 PTD 676 = (1995) 212 ITR 207 = (1995) 73 TAX 177 = 1996 PTCL 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Penalty for Concealment\n•\nIssue: Penalty for low household expense withdrawals.\no\nHeld: Penalty upheld as the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding additional income.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 10 of 1987, decision dated: 21st July, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND V. G. PALSIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Rajwanshi for the Assessee. D. S. Shisodia, Senior Advocate and S. Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "YASHWANT SINGH\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 65 = 1996 SLD 65 = 1996 PTD 680 = (1995) 212 ITR 211 = (1995) 73 TAX 180 = 1996 PTCL 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Deferred Annuity Policy\n•\nIssue: Timing of income accrual from commission converted to annuity.\no\nHeld: No income accrued during the relevant year as the policy was executed after the year-end.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.241 of 1984, decision dated: 8-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. M, JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dilip Dwarkadas instructed by S. N. Paralkar for the Assessee.\nG. S. Jetley, Senior Advocate with P. S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. Bhattacharya, for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "J. H. DOSHI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 66 = 1996 SLD 66 = 1996 PTD 686 = (1995) 212 ITR 177 = (1995) 73 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Weighted Deduction for Export Agencies\n•\nIssue: Deduction eligibility for commissions paid to foreign agents.\no\nHeld: Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) does not require direct maintenance of foreign agencies. Deduction allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.271 of 1991, decision dated: 2-08-1993", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. C. Moitra for the Commissioner. R. N. Dutta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUSHA TELEHOIST LTD\nC.I.R., (LEGAL), R.T.O., RAWALPINDI\nVs\nWASEEM IQBAL ANSARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 67 = 1996 SLD 67 = 1996 PTD 696 = (1995) 212 ITR 81 = 1996 PTCL 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Penalty-Interest-Concealment of income-Failure to submit return in time-Waiver of penalty and interest-Return not submitted before issue of notice under S.139(2)-Letter disclosing investments-No complete disclosure of income -Assessee not entitled to waiver of interest and penalty-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 273A-Constitution of India, Art. 226.\n \nIncome Tax Act (1961) – Waiver of Interest and Penalty\n•\nIssue: Non-disclosure of income before notice issuance.\no\nHeld: Relief denied as the disclosure was incomplete and not voluntary.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No-4809 of 1982, decision dated: 22-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " SOMASUNDARAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Janakiraman for Petitioner. N. V. Balasubramanian for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "A. RAMAN\nVs\nFOURTH Income Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 68 = 1996 SLD 68 = 1996 PTD 699 = (1995) 212 ITR 75 = 1996 PTCL 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Interest under Abkari Act\n•\nIssue: Deductibility of interest on delayed kist payments.\no\nHeld: Interest was compensatory and deductible as business expenditure.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.334 and 335 of 1985, decision dated: 7-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " T. L. VISWANATHA IYER AND MRS. K. K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. G. Sivarajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPACHI PHILIP & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 69 = 1996 SLD 69 = 1996 PTD 705 = (1995) 73 TAX 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Depreciation on Letting Machinery\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for depreciation when machinery and buildings are let together.\no\nHeld: Depreciation allowed as the income is from inseparable letting.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30(2)(d)31(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.292/LBI/DB of 1988-89, 193, 194, 195 of 1990-91 and No.9960/LB/DB of 1991-92, decision dated: 12-03-1996, hearing DATE : 11-08-1993", + "Judge Name:": " PER MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AGREEING WITH MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER-", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Akhtar, C.A. for Appellant. Muhammad Asif Hashmi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 359 = 2000 SLD 359 = 2000 PTD 3177 = (1999) 236 ITR 883", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Interest Waiver\n•\nIssue: Financial hardship as a basis for waiver.\no\nHeld: Waiver denied without proof of hardship but allowed where delay was not attributable to the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No.6990 of 1994-F, decision dated: 12-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " P. SHANMUGAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. G. K. Wariyar for Petitioner. N.R.K. Nair, P.K. Ravindranatha Menon and George K. George for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "EMINENT ENTERPRISES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 360 = 2000 SLD 360 = 2000 PTD 2691 = (1999) 237 ITR 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Revenue Expenditure\n•\nIssue: Deduction for acquisition-related interest and expenses.\no\nHeld: Expenses integral to business operations were deductible as revenue expenditure.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=37 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 175 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd November, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with B. M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner. S. E. Dastur with S. J. Mehta, R. H. Toprani and P. R. Toprani, instructed by 1. M. Munim and S. J. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING (WEAVING) CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 70 = 1996 SLD 70 = 1996 PTD 771 = (1995) 73 TAX 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Adventure in Nature of Trade\n•\nIssue: Classification of land transactions.\no\nHeld: Transactions driven by profit motives were deemed business activities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(ii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3080/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 8-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MEHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Pasha for Appellant. Muhammad Saeed, DR. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 71 = 1996 SLD 71 = 1996 PTD 777 = (1995) 73 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Revisional Powers\n•\nIssue: Validity of revisions under Section 66-A.\no\nHeld: Revisions require proof of error prejudicial to revenue, with procedural fairness ensured.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,138 ", + "Case #": "ITA Nos.42/LB and 43/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 4-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S. Babar and M. M. Akram for Appellant. D.R. and Shahbaz Butt, Legal Advisor for 15th March, 1995", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 72 = 1996 SLD 72 = 1996 PTD 799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Unexplained Income\n•\nIssue: Addition based on unexplained income without statutory notice.\no\nHeld: Additions invalid as adequate explanations were provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "ITA s. Nos. 3789 and 3790 of 1994, decision dated: 26-04-1995.hearing DATE : 26-03-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fayyaz Ahmed Choudhry and Amar Umar Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Asif Hashmi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 73 = 1996 SLD 73 = 1996 PTD 803", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Levy of Surcharge\n•\nIssue: Imposition of surcharge in reassessments.\no\nHeld: Surcharge not permissible if omitted in the original assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1033/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 18-07-1989.hearing DATE 18-07-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Z.H. Jaffery for Appellant\nHumayun Aqeel, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 74 = 1996 SLD 74 = 1996 PTD 804 = (1995) 74 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Tax on Contractors\n•\nIssue: Increased tax deduction from contractors' payments (5% instead of 3%).\no\nHeld: Tax collection is essential for government operations. Contractors have no constitutional right to contest the enhanced rate. The applicable rate is determined by the year of taxable income collection, not the year of agreement.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2172 of 1996, decision dated: 21st April, 1996", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD NASIM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Ahmad Nawaz Qaisrani for Petitioner.\nNemo.", + "Party Name:": "ALTAF CONSTRUCTION COMPANY\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others\nFAZALUR-REHMAN\nVS\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, PESHAWAR AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 75 = 1996 SLD 75 = 1996 PTD 821", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Best Assessment\n•\nIssue: Justification for estimating sales without pointing out defects in accounts.\no\nHeld: Past assessment history should guide judgment, but current factors affecting business conditions must also be considered. Additions upheld only if the assessee failed to substantiate expenses.\nReference: ITA No. 6217/LB of 1986-87.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A s. Nos. 84/LB and 85/LB of 1988-89, 2918/LB to 2921/LB of 1991-92 and 1654/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 1st September, 1994.hearing DATE : 1st September, 1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHAD QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fayyaz Ahmad Ch. and Azhar Iqbal, FCA for Appellant. Shahid Zafar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 76 = 1996 SLD 76 = 1996 PTD 827 = (1995) 212 ITR 299 = (1995) 73 TAX 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Development Charges\n•\nIssue: Capital vs. revenue expenditure on land development.\no\nHeld: Development charges paid for industrial land are capital expenditure as they create enduring benefits.\nReference: Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 6 of 1987, decision dated: 14-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K. C. AGRAWAL, C, J. AND V. K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vineet Kumar for the Assessee\nD. S. Shishodia for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MANOJ DYEING CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 77 = 1996 SLD 77 = 1996 PTD 831 = (1995) 212 ITR 238 = (1995) 73 TAX 231 = 1996 PTCL 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Refund and Interest\n•\nIssue: Entitlement to interest under Sections 214 and 244(1-A) in rectification.\no\nHeld: Taxpayers are entitled to interest on excess tax payment even in rectification proceedings, with High Court decisions binding in respective jurisdictions.\nReference: CIT v. M.L. Sanghi (1988).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 11 of 1987, decision dated: 21st July, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND V. G. PALSHIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.S. Shishodia and S. Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUNIL KUMAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 78 = 1996 SLD 78 = 1996 PTD 840 = (1995) 216 ITR 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1922) – Loss Carry Forward\n•\nIssue: Impact of untimely filing of loss returns.\no\nHeld: Losses cannot be carried forward if returns are not assessed due to late filing. Determination of loss requires formal assessment.\nReferences: CIT v. Khushal Chand Daga (1961); CIT v. Dalmia Cement (1976).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 745 and 746 of 1976, decision dated: 16-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (B.S. Ahuja, R. Sathish and S.N. Terdol, Advocate with him) for Appellants\nHari Har Lal, R.K. Maheshwari and Vineet Maheshwari, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nVs\nDALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 79 = 1996 SLD 79 = 1996 PTD 865 = (1995) 214 ITR 801 = (1995) 80 TAXMAN 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Cash Credits\n•\nIssue: Claim of winnings from horse racing.\no\nHeld: Assessee's explanation deemed unsatisfactory. Additions were valid based on improbabilities and lack of evidence for the claim.\nReferences: CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971); CIT v. Orissa Corporation (1986).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1344 and 1345 of 1977, decision dated: 28-03-1995", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL, B.L. HANSARIA AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Mehta, Advocate (H.S. Parihar and K.S. Parihar; Advocates with him) for Appellant\nJ. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Y.P. Mahajan and Ms A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SUMATI DAYAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 80 = 1996 SLD 80 = 1996 PTD 872 = (1996) 217 ITR 597", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Reassessment on Mining Income\n•\nIssue: Validity of reassessment based on external reports.\no\nHeld: Letters from government agencies indicating under-reporting constituted valid material for reassessment.\nReference: ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (1978) reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2394 of 1977, decision dated: 29-03-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (R. Sathish and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nM.S. Syali, R.N. Dutt and V.B. Saharya, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nVs\nSELECTED DALURBAND COAL CO. (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 81 = 1996 SLD 81 = 1996 PTD 876 = (1996) 217 ITR 746", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Registration of Illegal Partnerships\n•\nIssue: Partnership formed in violation of excise licensing rules.\no\nHeld: Partnerships violating licensing terms are not entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act.\nReferences: CIT v. Pagoda Hotel (1974); CIT v. Nalli Venkataramana (1984).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=184,185 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1825 to 1528 of 1977, decision dated: 16-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Promod Swarup, Praveen Swarup, O.N. Kaul and Ms. Prerna Swarup, Advocates for Appellants\nDr. P.R. Misra, Senior Advocate (S.N. Terdol, Advocate with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BIHARI LAL JAISWAL and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 82 = 1996 SLD 82 = 1996 PTD 901 = (1995) 74 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBQTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) – Transfer of Cases\n•\nIssue: Authority of the Central Board of Revenue to transfer cases.\no\nHeld: Case transfers are administrative and permissible. Proceedings taken after a stay order are invalid regardless of communication delay.\nReferences: Karam Ali v. Raja (1949); Haji Abdul Jalal v. Javed Ahmad (1983).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=8 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax References Nos. 2 to 5 of 1991, hearing DATE : 12-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: M.S. Baqar and Dr. Ilyas Zafar", + "Party Name:": "M/s NATIONAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., GUJRANWALA\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 3 = 2012 SLD 3 = 2012 PLC 458", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Taxability of Freight\n•\nIssue: Tax on profits from in-bound cargo.\no\nHeld: Profits from freight received in Pakistan for deliveries to Pakistan ports are taxable, with taxing rights favoring Pakistan under ambiguity in Double Taxation Agreements.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010=33,47 ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. LHR-2843 of 2010, decision dated: 10-03-2011, hearing DATE : 4-03-2011.", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Shahid for Appellant.\nS.A. Naeem for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 83 = 1996 SLD 83 = 1996 PTD 919 = (1995) 215 ITR 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Deduction for Co-Owners\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 23 deductions for co-owners.\no\nHeld: Each co-owner is entitled to the deduction proportionate to their share in the property.\nReferences: CIT v. Bejoy Kumar Almal (1977).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.229/(NT) of 1977, decision dated: 4-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND G. T. NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (B. S. Ahuja and Ms. A. 5ubhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBIJOY KUMAR ALMAL\nM/S. SHELL (PAKISTAN) LIMITED\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 84 = 1996 SLD 84 = 1996 PTD 922 = (1996) 217 ITR 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Reassessment Limitations\n•\nIssue: Barred reassessment under Sections 147(a) and 147(b).\no\nHeld: Items barred under Section 147(b) cannot be reassessed under 147(a).\nReference: ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad (1989).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 13 of 1982, decision dated: 20-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " A. M. AHMADI C, J.-L, S. P. BHARUCHA AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate with him) for Appellant\nS.K. Agarwal and vinay Vaish, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTHANTHI TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 85 = 1996 SLD 85 = 1996 PTD 923 = (1995) 214 ITR 650", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Sub-Partnerships in Liquor Business\n•\nIssue: Validity of sub-partnerships in excise-regulated businesses.\no\nHeld: Sub-partnerships for financing are permissible if compliant with excise laws.\nReference: CIT v. Degaon Gangareddy (1978).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.222 of 1977, decision dated: 1st March, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. R. R. Mishra, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, Ms. A. Subhashini and B. K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDEGAON GANGA REDDY G. RAMAKRISHNA & CO. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 86 = 1996 SLD 86 = 1996 PTD 928 = (1995) 215 ITR 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Entertainment Expenditure\n•\nIssue: Classification of meals provided to clients.\no\nHeld: Ordinary meals provided to clients before 1976 are not entertainment expenditure.\nReferences: CIT v. Rajasthan Mercantile (1995); Brij Raman Dass v. CIT (1976) overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1455-57 of 1976, decision dated: 9-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA, N. P. SINGH AND M. K. MUKHERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate, B.S. Ahuja, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. A.K. Verma, A. Subba Rao, S.K. Mehta, Drauv Mehta, K.R. Nagaraja, M.G. Ramachandran, S.C. Patel and Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocates for the appearing Parties", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPATEL BROTHERS & CO. LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 87 = 1996 SLD 87 = 1996 PTD 939 = (1995) 215 ITR 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Tax on Discretionary Trusts\n•\nIssue: Applicability of maximum marginal rate.\no\nHeld: Discretionary trusts with indeterminate beneficiaries are taxed at the maximum marginal rate.\nReference: CIT v. Gosar Family Trust (1991).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1180 of 1991 and connected appeals and Civil Appeals Nos.5441 and 5450 of 1995, decision dated: 28-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, S. C. SEN AND G.T NANAVATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "U.V. Eradi and P.H. Earekh, Advocates for Appellants\nRamamurthy, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chander, Ms. A. Subhashini and P. Parameshwaran, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "GOSAR FAMILY TRUST and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 88 = 1996 SLD 88 = 1996 PTD 947 = (1995) 216 ITR 607", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) – Unabsorbed Depreciation\n•\nIssue: Carry forward of depreciation.\no\nHeld: Unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward without the asset or business continuity requirement.\nReferences: CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (1966); CIT v. Virmani Industries (1974).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal (NT) No. 1052 of 1976 with C.A. Nos. 2849(NT) of 1977 and 7372 of 1995, decision dated: 12-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellants", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVIRMANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 89 = 1996 SLD 89 = 1996 PTD 959 = (1996) 217 ITR 768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Relief for Industrial Units\nConclusion: Relief under Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (now Section 84 of the 1961 Act) is limited to five assessment years starting from the year the industrial undertaking begins production. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's claim for relief in the sixth year (assessment year 1962-63), even if additional equipment was installed later. The Court clarified that no partial or phased relief can be granted as and when fresh equipment is added.\nCitation/Reference: Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 352 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1936 of 1977, decision dated: 16-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND B. N. KIRPAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate with him) for Appellant\nDr. R.P. Misra, Senior Advocate (Miss Laxmi Lyengar and S. N Terdol, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "METTUR CHEMICAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 90 = 1996 SLD 90 = 1996 PTD 966 = (1995) 216 ITR 759", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interest on Advance Tax Refunds\nConclusion: Interest under Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is payable only up to the date of the original assessment (regular assessment under Section 143/144). The Court highlighted that no interest is payable for periods beyond the regular assessment unless expressly provided by the statute. Interest payments must adhere strictly to statutory provisions.\nCitation/Reference: CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (1984) 146 ITR 452 (Bom.) and Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1972) 85 ITR 363 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.928 of 1980 with Civil Appeals Nos.5550 and 5551 of 1990, 1395 of 1974 and 4581 of 1990, decision dated: 15-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish N. Salve, S.S. Javeli, B.B. Ahuga, Dr.. Debi Pal, Senior Advocates (Santosh IC. Aggarwal, V.P. Gupta, Vinay Vaish, Ravinder Narain, P.D. Tyagi, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Ashok Sagar, N. Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar, H.K. Puri, G.S.- Chaterjee, Manoj Arora, S.N. Terdol, Ms. A. Subhashini and P. Parmeswaran, Advocate whith them), for the Appearing Parties.", + "Party Name:": "MODI INDUSTRIES Ltd. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 91 = 1996 SLD 91 = 1996 PTD 1036 = (1995) 216 ITR 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Implications of Gifts to Minors\nConclusion: Capital gains from the sale of a property purchased using gifted assets are taxable in the hands of the transferor if the beneficiary is a minor. The Supreme Court overruled previous High Court decisions, emphasizing that the link between the gift and the income generated from the asset must be considered for taxation under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitation/Reference: CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh (1970) 77 ITR 27 explained, CIT v. Smt. Pelleti Sridevamma (1976) 105 ITR 887 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1053 of 1977, decision dated: 11-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND. S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate and R. Sathish, Advocate with him for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. PELLETI SRIDEVAMMA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 3 = 1990 SLD 3 = 1990 SCMR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Property Demarcation After Repeal of Act\nConclusion: The Court upheld the validity of demarcation orders under the repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, provided no evidence was presented to dispute these orders. It ruled that repealed laws do not bar ongoing disputes or orders issued under previous judicial directives.\nCitation/Reference: Mst. Aziz Fatima v. Abdul Hameed Farooqui (1976 SCMR 95) and Mst. Sardar Begum v. Sub-Maj. (Rtd.) Aziz Ahmad (1983 SCMR 90) referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958=10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1108 of 1983, decision dated: 9-04-1989.", + "Judge Name:": " GHULAM MUJADDID AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. M. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court, and Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate-on-Record and Ch. Ata Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Mst. NAWAB BIBI and 4 OTHERS\nvs\nTAJ DIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 92 = 1996 SLD 92 = 1996 PTD 1078", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Powers and Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission\nConclusion: The Income Tax Settlement Commission cannot intervene in assessment proceedings unless disputes arise from completed assessments or appellate orders. Applications based on intended actions or hypothetical scenarios are inadmissible. Additionally, applications regarding undisclosed income must meet prescribed conditions under Sections 138C and 138D.\nCitation/Reference: 1993 PTD 637 (Trib.), 1993 PTD 1482, and 198 ITR 465 referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=138D(i),138C(5) ", + "Case #": "No.9442/Application/ITSC/lhr, decision dated: 9-06-1996, hearing DATE ; 15-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ AND MRS. SAFIA CH., MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Younas for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 93 = 1996 SLD 93 = 1996 PTD 1088", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Validity of Property Valuation in Sale Deeds\nConclusion: Registered sale deeds are public documents, and their declared property values hold sanctity unless rebutted by cogent evidence. The Assessing Officer's rejection of the declared value based on conjecture or surmise is invalid without supporting evidence.\nCitation/Reference: 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1182 and 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1179 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 178/LBI/DB and 499/LBI/DB of 1989-90, decision dated: 15-11-1995, hearing DATE : 15th November 1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sartaj Yousuf, D.R. for Appellant\nAsif Mushtaq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 94 = 1996 SLD 94 = 1996 PTD 1091", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Scope of Issues in Appellate Proceedings\nConclusion: Issues not raised during the initial assessment cannot be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage. The Court stressed maintaining procedural integrity by confining appeals to original disputes.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 3660/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 21-11-1995.hearing DATE : 21-11-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ameer Sadiq for Appellant\nNemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 95 = 1996 SLD 95 = 1996 PTD 1094", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Lifestyle and Taxable Income\nConclusion: Additions to declared income based on the taxpayer's standard of living are justified when household expenses do not align with observable indicators of lifestyle. The Court upheld such additions as reasonable.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 179/LBI/DB of 1989-90, decision dated: 15th November 1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 96 = 1996 SLD 96 = 1996 PTD 1099", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Loan Interest and Rent Claims\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer's disallowance of loan interest and rent claims was upheld when the assessee failed to provide credible evidence. Claims must be substantiated with proper documentation to be admissible.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 744/LB of 1989-90, 745/LB of 1985-86, 1009/LB of 1986-87, 1010/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 3rd September 1995, hearing DATE : 30th May 1995", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK M. TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz Khan, I.T.P. for Appellants (in I.T.As.Nos.744/LB of 1989-90 and 745/LB of-1988-89). Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondents (in I.T.As. No. 744/LB of 1989-90 and 745/LB of 1988-89). Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellants (in I.T.As. Nos. 1009/LB of 1986-87 and 1010/LB of 1986-87/1988-89). Muhammad Nawaz Khan, I.T.P. for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos. 1009/LB of 1986-87 and 1010/LB of 1986-87/1988-89).\nMuhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor, for the Dealing Officer. Waheed Shahzad Butt for the Authorized Representative\nDr. Ikram ul Haq, Advocate Surpeme Court, Rana Munir Hussain, General Secretary-APTBA, Habib Fakhruudin, Ex-Member FBR Syed Pervaiz Amjad, Ex-Member FBR, for the Amici Curie\nWAHEED SHAHZAD BUTT, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 97 = 1996 SLD 97 = 1996 PTD 1104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Grounds for Rejecting Books of Accounts\nConclusion: Non-maintenance of stock or consumption registers alone does not warrant rejection of accounts. The Assessing Officer must establish a strong case with unverified or inaccurate trading account details.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 403 and 493/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 11-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AHSAN ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yousuf, I.T.P. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 403/LB of 1989-90). Abdul Rauf, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A.No. 403/LB of 1989-90). Abdul Rauf, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 493/LB of 1989-90). Muhammad Yousuf, I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 493/LB of 1989-90).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 98 = 1996 SLD 98 = 1996 PTD 1108 = (1995) 73 TAX 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxability of Forgone Income\nConclusion: Income accrued to a taxpayer cannot be excluded from taxation even if the taxpayer decides to forego it later. Subsequent disposal of income or commission is not permissible under tax laws.\nCitation/Reference: Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1964) and (1960) 2 Taxation 207 referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 23 of 1977, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND AHMAD SAEED AWAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Hamid Shabbir on behalf of Raza Karim for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nVs\nPAK. MINERAL INDUSTRIES LTD., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 99 = 1996 SLD 99 = 1996 PTD 1110 = (1995) 73 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Independence of Annual Tax Assessments\nConclusion: Each assessment year is independent, and decisions in one year cannot automatically dictate assessments for subsequent years. The Court ruled that facts and circumstances of each year must guide tax assessments.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 2 of 1992, decision dated: 11-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND AHMAD SAEED AWAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faiz-ur-Rehman for Applicant. Shahbaz Butt for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "FAROOQ ENTERPRISES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 100 = 1996 SLD 100 = 1996 PTD 1111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additions in Trading Accounts\nConclusion: The Court dismissed arbitrary additions to trading accounts when accounts were verifiable, consistent with previous years, and no specific defects were identified. Historical acceptance of accounts strengthens their credibility.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 9523/LB of 1991-92; 632/LB of 1992-93, 8321, 8322/LB, 9236/LB, 9237/LB and 1391/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 4th September 1994, hearing DATE : 4-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHAD QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sarfraz, F.C.A. for Appellant (in I.T.A. Nos.9523/LB of 1992-93, 8321/LB, 8322/LB of 1991-92 and 632/LB of 1992-93). Muhammad Shahid Zaheer, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. Nos.9523/LB of 1992-93, 8321/LB, 8322/LB of 1991-92 and 632/LB of 1992-93). Muhammad Shahid Zaheer, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1391/LB of 1988-89, 9236 and 9237/LB of 1991-92). Muhammad Sarfraz, F.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.1391/LB of 1988-89, 9236 and 9237/LB of 1991-92).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 101 = 1996 SLD 101 = 1996 PTD 1123 = (1995) 73 TAX 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Investment Rebate for Taxpayers\nConclusion: Taxpayers investing in Defense Savings Certificates are eligible for a rebate under Section 15-AA of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but not for deductions from taxable income.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15AA ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 12 of 1987, decision dated: 13-03-1996, hearing DATE : 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND AHMAD SAEED AWAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Applicant in person. Shahbaz Butt and Zahid Pervaiz for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "MIRZA BOOK AGENCY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 102 = 1996 SLD 102 = 1996 PTD 1125 = (1995) 73 TAX 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Mandatory Issuance of Notices\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer must issue proper notices under Sections 22(3) and 23(4)(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, before making an ex parte assessment. Procedural compliance is critical for validity.\nCitation/Reference: C.I.T. v. Sakhi Contractor and Engineering (1981 PTD 210) and Popular Engineering Works (PLD 1975 Lah. 893) referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(2),23(4)(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 17 of 1987, decision dated: 13-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND AHMAD SAEED AWAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, FAISALABAD\nVs\nYOUSAF SONS, SARGODHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 103 = 1996 SLD 103 = 1996 PTD 1134 = (1995) 74 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption for Capital Gains on Shares\nConclusion: Exemption under Clause 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, applies only to shares held as capital assets. Frequent trading of shares within short periods disqualifies such gains from exemption.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.PartI,CI.(116),27 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No.970/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 12-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " HAMIDULLAH MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Aziz Memon, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Shahid, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 104 = 1996 SLD 104 = 1996 PTD 1136 = (1995) 73 TAX 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Time-Barred Tax References\nTopic: Limitation in Filing Tax References\nConclusion: Tax references filed beyond the statutory period without seeking condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are inadmissible. Timeliness is essential for legal validity.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),136(1) ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 110 of 1986, decision dated: 10-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND AHMAD SAEED AWAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbez Butt for Applicant. Malik A.R. Arshad for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEA, LAHORE\nVs\nMalik BASHIR AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 105 = 1996 SLD 105 = 1996 PTD 1138 = (1995) 74 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Leave Travel Assistance\nTopic: Leave Fare Assistance and Tax Exemption\nConclusion: Leave travel assistance paid without actual travel cannot qualify as a tax-exempt free or concessional passage. The exemption applies only when travel is performed.\nCitation/Reference: Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=39(7) ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax References Nos. 18, 21, 22 and 23 of 1989, decision dated: 12-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND AHMAD SAEED AWAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad llyas Khan for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEB, LAHORE\nVs\nMUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 106 = 1996 SLD 106 = 1996 PTD 1157 = (1996) 217 ITR 699", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts and Amended Deeds\nTopic: Charitable Status of Trusts\nConclusion: Trust deeds amended to redefine beneficiary classes must comply with statutory definitions of charitable purpose for tax exemption. The Court upheld the retrospective invalidity of earlier deeds but approved the prospective validity of later amendments.\nCitation/Reference: Kamla Town Trust v. CIT (1982) 133 ITR 632 partially affirmed and reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1741 to 1757 (NT) of 1977, decision dated: 16th November 1995", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 20, 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Income-tax References Nos. 18 of 1973 and 715 of 1972.\nDr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate and (S. Rajappa and S.N. Terdol, Advocate with him) for Appellant. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate, (M.M. Kshatriya, Ms. Arun Banerjee and Vivek Sood, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKAMLA TOWN TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 107 = 1996 SLD 107 = 1996 PTD 1192 = (1996) 75 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal’s Remand Powers\nTopic: Powers of Income Tax Tribunal\nConclusion: The Appellate Tribunal has broad powers analogous to those of civil courts under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the CPC, including remand authority. Such powers must be exercised to rectify errors or initiate fresh proceedings when necessary.\nCitation/Reference: Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC) and Messrs Koduri Pulleswara Rao v. CIT (AIR 1948 Mad. 170) cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135,135(5) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.33 ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 6 of 1987, heard on 28-02-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND AHMED SAEED AWAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadir for Applicant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KARIM AZIZ INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HASANABAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 108 = 1996 SLD 108 = 1996 PTD 1197 = (1995) 212 ITR 199 = 1996 PTCL 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Credits and Tax Assessment\nTopic: Genuineness of Cash Credits\nConclusion: If an assessee establishes the identity, capacity, and genuineness of a cash credit, the burden shifts to the Revenue to disprove it. Courts ruled in favor of assessees when evidence was conclusive.\nCitation/Reference: CIT v. Jain (S.P.) (1973) 87 ITR 370 (SC) cited.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction Case No. 126 of 1990, decision dated: 11th November 1994", + "Judge Name:": " G. B. PATNAIK AND P. C. NAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Ray for the Commissioner. S.N. Rath for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nBAISHNAB CHARAN MOHANTY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 109 = 1996 SLD 109 = 1996 PTD 1207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Compensation and Damages\nTopic: Revenue vs. Capital Receipts\nConclusion: Damages or compensation linked to revenue transactions are taxable, whereas compensation for loss of capital assets is not. Each case depends on the nature of the loss or payment.\nCitation/Reference: IRC v. Newcastle Breweries (1927 All ER 287) and Green v. J. Gliksten and Son Ltd. (1928 1 KB 475) cited.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Nil, decision dated: 7th March 1996. dates of hearing: 15th, 16th, 17th January and 7th March 1996", + "Judge Name:": " LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY, LORD BROWNE WILKINSON, LORD MUSTILL, LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD AND LORD HOFFMANN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bernard Eder QC, Philip Baker and Simon Bryon (instructed by: Elborne Mithchell) for Defendants. Geoffrey Vos QC, John Walters and David Lord (instructed by wilde Sapte) for the Names. Ian Glick QC and Lawncelot Henderson QC (instructed by the Soliciter of Inland avenue) for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "DEENY and others\nVs\nGOODA WALKER LTD. (in liq) and others (No.2) (Inland Revenue Commissioners, third party)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 361 = 2000 SLD 361 = 2000 PTD 3450 = (1999) 237 ITR 902", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Repairs and Revenue Expenditure\nTopic: Hotel Repairs and Tax Deductions\nConclusion: Expenditure on repairs and modernization of hotel premises was deemed revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, and therefore deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitation/Reference: CIT v. Dasaprakash (1978) 114 ITR 210 (Mad.) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 245 to 247 of 1997, decision dated: 12-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " JANARTHANAM AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Vehkatraman for C.V. Rajan and Suresh Kumar for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthan Raja for K.V. Rajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER IncomE tax\nVs\nOOTY DASAPRAKASH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 362 = 2000 SLD 362 = 2000 PTD 2707 = (1999) 237 ITR 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Continuation of Registration for Firms\nTopic: Rectification of Defective Declarations\nConclusion: Firms filing defective declarations for continued registration under Section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be allowed to rectify them. Defects do not nullify declarations.\nCitation/Reference: Mathew and Mathew v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 9 (Ker.) cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.7463 and W. M. P. No.10628 of 1989, decision dated: 3rd August, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. T. MEENAKUMARI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Venkataraman for Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for Petitioner. S. V. Subramaniam for C. V. Rajan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Sri KRISHNA MERCERISERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 363 = 2000 SLD 363 = 2000 PTD 3524 = (1999) 238 ITR 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Interest on Compensation\nTopic: Delayed Compensation Interest\nConclusion: Interest on delayed compensation for land acquisition is taxable as revenue receipt. Assessees are entitled to apportion the interest over the relevant assessment years.\nCitation/Reference: Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector (1997) 224 ITR 551 (SC) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3883 of 1993, decision dated: 22-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.C. Chechi for Petitioners. R.D. Jolly and Ms. Prem Lata Bansal for Respondents\nKafeel Ahmed Abbasi Legal Advisor and Shafqat Hussain Kehar D.R.,", + "Party Name:": "BHIKA RAM and others\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 364 = 2000 SLD 364 = 2000 PTD 2714 = (1999) 237 ITR 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification Powers of Tribunal\nTopic: Scope of Rectification under Section 254(2)\nConclusion: The Tribunal cannot rectify an order unless the error is apparent on the record. Debatable issues or re-evaluations fall outside the purview of rectification.\nCitation/Reference: CIT v. Golul Chand Agrawal (1993) 202 ITR 14 (Cal.) and Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC) cited.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "I. T. R. No. 66 of 1996, decision dated: 28-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C, J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. Ravindranatha Menon, Senior Advocate and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. Joseph Markos for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAM BAHADUR THAKUR LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 365 = 2000 SLD 365 = 2000 PTD 3526 = (1999) 238 ITR 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Disclosure of Income\nTopic: Compliance with Tax Disclosure Deadlines\nConclusion: Tax declarations under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme must be accompanied by payments within the stipulated time. Minor delays caused by unforeseen circumstances may be condoned to align with the scheme’s purpose.\nCitation/Reference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "C.W.P. No. 12754 of 1998, decision dated: 22-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanjay Kaushal for Petitioner. R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Bindal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Smt. LAXMI MITTAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 366 = 2000 SLD 366 = 2000 PTD 2720 = (1999) 237 ITR 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Professional Misconduct by Chartered Accountants\nTopic: Validity of Council Notifications\nConclusion: Notifications limiting the number of audits or prescribing minimum fees for Chartered Accountants are invalid under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Such restrictions are arbitrary and infringe on professional rights.\nCitation/Reference: Arun Grover v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (1998) 93 Comp. Cas. 618 (MP) dissented.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ petitions Nos. 5925 and 5926 and W.M.P. Nos.8677 and 8678 of 1989, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " Y. VENKATACHALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Elam Bharathi for C. V. Mahalingam for Petitioner. S. Sampathkumar for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondent No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "K. BHAGAVATHEESWARAN\nVs\nINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 367 = 2000 SLD 367 = 2000 PTD 3529 = (1999) 238 ITR 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Concealment of Income in Tax Returns\nTopic: Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusion: The term concealment implies an element of mens rea (intent). Merely disclosing income in Part III of the return does not absolve the taxpayer from concealment if the disclosure is false or inaccurate. The Supreme Court held that the inquiry into the truthfulness and correctness of particulars provided in the return must not be dismissed prematurely. If evidence conclusively proves concealment, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are justified.\nCitation/Reference: CIT v. Abdulgafur Ahmed Wagmar (1993) 199 ITR 827 (Guj.), CIT v. Vilasben Hasmukhlal Shah (1991) 192 ITR 214 (Guj.), and others.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 140 of 1983, decision dated: 6-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. BALIA AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir Joshi and Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVIDYAGAURI NATVERLAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 368 = 2000 SLD 368 = 2000 PTD 3454 = (1999) 238 ITR 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditures\nTopic: Allowable and Disallowable Business Expenditures\nConclusion: Expenditure related to business activities like sponsoring events (horse races, golf competitions) and presenting articles to dealers is allowable as it contributes to publicity. However, disallowed expenditures included unsubstantiated claims of entertainment. The Court remanded the case for reconsideration of some disallowed items. Transport subsidies granted to promote industries in backward areas were deemed revenue receipts.\nCitation/Reference: Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 448 (Cal.), CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (1994) 73 Taxman 64 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.22 of 1994 with Income-tax Reference No.32 of 1996, decision dated: 27-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " R. DAYAL AND S. B. SINHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Poddar and C. Banerjee for the Assessee. P. Mallik and B.M. Prasad for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SARDA PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 5 = 1994 SLD 5 = 1994 PTD 22 = (1993) 201 ITR 647", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Perquisites for Foreign Directors\nTopic: Tax Exemption for Foreign Technical Directors\nConclusion: Salaries and perquisites exempt from tax under Section 10(6)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be disallowed when computing business profits. The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that exempt salaries are considered nil for tax purposes and are not subject to limitations under Section 40(c)(iii).\nCitation/Reference: C.I.T. (Addl.) v. Brakes India Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 820.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1287 of 1982, decision dated: 6-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBRAKES INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 369 = 2000 SLD 369 = 2000 PTD 2729 = (1999) 237 ITR 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nTopic: Repairs and Replacement of Machinery\nConclusion: Expenditures on replacing parts of machinery to ensure continued operation are classified as revenue expenditures, not capital expenditures. Such expenditures are deductible as they aim to maintain existing business operations rather than create new assets.\nCitation/Reference: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 1220 of 1986 (Reference No.768 of 1986), decision dated: 7-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSri HARI MILLS (PVT.) LTD\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nARVIND MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 370 = 2000 SLD 370 = 2000 PTD 3480 = (1999) 238 ITR 384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Powers in Tax References\nTopic: Framing and Answering Questions in Tax References\nConclusion: High Courts can only answer questions referred to them by Tribunals and cannot frame new questions based on the statement of the case. Aggrieved parties must approach the High Court under Section 256(2) if a Tribunal refuses to refer a question.\nCitation/Reference: CIT v. Anusuya Devi (1968) 68 ITR 750 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 223 of 1990, decision dated: 23rd October, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND R. BAYAPU REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee. S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Sri KRISHNA MOHAN ENTERPRISES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 371 = 2000 SLD 371 = 2000 PTD 3485 = (1999) 238 ITR 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Defects in Tax Returns\nTopic: Timelines for Correcting Defective Returns\nConclusion: The Assessing Officer must provide a statutory period (15 days) to the taxpayer to correct defects under Section 139(9). Orders passed before this period violate procedural rights and are invalid. The matter was remanded for reassessment.\nCitation/Reference: Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 12977 of 1999-T, decision dated: 11-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": " B.N PATNAIK, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Nagendran and Premjit Nagendran for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SEEYAN PLYWOODS\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 110 = 1996 SLD 110 = 1996 PTD 36 = (1995) 73 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction in Tax Matters\nTopic: Relief for Fiscal Rights\nConclusion: The High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction in cases of fiscal rights involving misapplication of law. However, it refrains from interfering in factual controversies or substituting findings of fact.\nCitation/Reference: Muhammad Younus Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. (1993 SCMR 618).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6453 of 1995, decision dated: 24-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAMEER ELECTRONICS\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CIRCLE10, ZONE A' LAHORE\nMessrs CRESCENT COTTON PRODUCTS, FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 372 = 2000 SLD 372 = 2000 PTD 2731 = (1999) 237 ITR 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Interest on Delayed Tax Payments\nTopic: Discretionary Power to Waive Interest\nConclusion: Discretionary powers under Section 220(2-A) must be exercised judiciously, and reasons for denial of waiver should be explicitly stated. Orders lacking such reasoning are invalid.\nCitation/Reference: Apex Finance and Leasing Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 781 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10851 and W. M. P. No. 15933 of 1988, decision dated: 19-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K. SAMPATH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for Petitioner. S. V. Subramanian for C. V. Rajan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "P. RAMASAMY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 373 = 2000 SLD 373 = 2000 PTD 2741 = (1999) 237 ITR 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Perquisites\nTopic: Employer-Paid Taxes as Perquisites\nConclusion: Taxes paid by employers on behalf of employees are considered perquisites and must be included in taxable income. Such amounts need to be grossed up for calculating total tax liability.\nCitation/Reference: Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 52 ITR 283 (Mys.).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Case No. 85 of 1995, decision dated: 3rd September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND S.R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Sarangan for S. Parthasarathi for the Assessee. E. R. Indra Kumar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "S. TAKENAKA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 6 = 1994 SLD 6 = 1994 PTD 44 = (1993) 201 ITR 520", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation on Annual Value of Property\nTopic: Ejectment Suits and Property Tax\nConclusion: Annual value of a property is taxable based on its reasonable rental value, irrespective of actual rent received or pending ejectment suits. Ownership and not possession determines tax liability.\nCitation/Reference: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.280 of 1986, decision dated: 19-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Murarka for the Assessee. Sunil Mitra and R.C. Prasad for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SWAIKA OIL AND PRODUCE CO. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 7 = 1994 SLD 7 = 1994 PTCL 398 = 1994 PTD 47 = (1994) 69 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Assessments\nTopic: Payment and Adjustments of Advance Tax\nConclusion: Advance tax is payable in quarterly installments based on the latest assessment order. Errors in status assignment or adjustments without specific approvals are subject to rectification.\nCitation/Reference: C.B.R. Circular No. 4 of 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132,134,53,59,59A,60,62,63or65. ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2574/KB, 2572/KB and 3467/KB of 1987-88, 1490/HQ of 1988 89, 350/HQ and 446/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 12-09-1993, hearing DATE : 5-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Siddiqui, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Naseem for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 8 = 1994 SLD 8 = 1994 PTCL 146 = 1994 PTD 61 = (1993) 68 TAX 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Tax Returns\nTopic: Verification of Returns\nConclusion: Tax returns must be signed and verified as prescribed. Returns not conforming to the rules are invalid.\nCitation/Reference: (1950) ITR 569.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(41),55 Income Tax Rules, 1982=190 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 211/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 6-05-1993, hearing DATE : 4-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Appellant. Haji Yousuf for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 800 = 1996 SLD 800 = (1995) 73 TAX 227 = 1996 PTD 740", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme\nTopic: Adjustments Under Self-Assessment\nConclusion: Disallowing adjustments during self-assessment requires reopening cases post-completion. The assessing officer must adhere to the boundaries of the scheme.\nCitation/Reference: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),59(3),65(1)(c),62,63 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1017/KB OF 1988-89 (Assessment year 1987-88), DATE of order : 05-12-1995, hearing DATE : 30-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Mehfoorzur Rehman Pasha, D.R., Respondent by . Mr. Salman Pasha, Adv", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 801 = 1996 SLD 801 = (1995) 73 TAX 230 = 1996 PTD 724", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Appeals\nTopic: Justification for Delays\nConclusion: Bona fide reasons for delays in filing appeals, such as pursuing alternate remedies, justify condonation. The Tribunal emphasized fairness in handling procedural delays.\nCitation/Reference: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(3),138(2)(b),132,138(2)(c),58,61,63 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 250(IB)/1994-95 Assessment year 1993-94, DATE of order : 12-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TARIQ AZIZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by . Mr. Azim-ul-Qadar Mirza, Advocate. Respondent by . Mr. Mobeen Gul Khan, DR. ITA No. 195(IB)/1994-95 Assessment year 1993-94. Appellant by . Mr. Mobeen Gul Khan. DR. Respondent by . Mr. Azim-ul-Qadar Mirza, Advocate.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 802 = 1996 SLD 802 = (1995) 73 TAX 252 = 1996 PTD 750", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cancellation of Agreed Assessments\nTopic: Scope of Revisional Powers\nConclusion: Revisional powers cannot override earlier agreed assessments unless supported by new evidence or facts. Cancellation based on differing opinions is unsustainable.\nCitation/Reference: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,66A ", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 30.1.1996. DATE of Order : 30.1.1996", + "Judge Name:": " RASHID AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TARIQ, AZIZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by . Mr. Jawaid Anwar, FCA. Respondent by . Mr. Gul Muhammad, DR", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 177 = 1996 SLD 177 = (1995) 74 TAX 42 = 1996 PTD 1117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nTopic: Rectification and Status Assignment\nConclusion: Errors apparent from the record, such as assigning incorrect status, can be rectified. However, reopening assessments based on subsequent information is not justified.\nCitation/Reference: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 3300/HQ to 3306/HQ of 1987-88 (Assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81 and 1982-83 to 1985-86), hearing DATE : 14-09-1995", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Assessee versus Department, Ibrahim Dahodwala, C.A., for the appellant. Israr Rauf, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 803 = 1996 SLD 803 = (1995) 74 TAX 191 = 1997 PTD 13 = 1997 PTCL 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation Agreements\nTopic: Transfer Pricing and Taxation\nConclusion: International agreements for avoiding double taxation override domestic tax provisions. Mutual agreements between governments dictate assessments in cross-border cases.\nCitation/Reference: Agreement with Germany, Notification No. 1253(K).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=79,163,78 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 206-A/KB of 1985-86, 1512/KB of 1986-87, 3489/KB & 3490/HQ of 1987-88, 1722/KB of 1988-89 and 604/KB of 1991-92 (Assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88 and 1989-90), decision dated: 10-7-1996. decided on 10-7-1996, hearing DATE : 18-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S. M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haseeb-ul-Haque, D.R., for the Appellant. Fateh Ali W. Vallani, I. M. Zubairi, Miss Akbar and Mr. Amin, Advocates, for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "ADEEM HOSIERY DYEING through Proprietor Muhammad Rasheed Faisalabad\nVs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 9 = 1994 SLD 9 = 1994 PTCL 331 = 1994 PTD 70 = (1993) 68 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Fair Market Value\nTopic: Asset Valuation and Depreciation\nConclusion: Valuations not approved by the appropriate authority are invalid. Depreciation claims on certain assets, such as wooden shuttering, are permissible under the rules.\nCitation/Reference: C.B.R. Circular No. 10 of 1979", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=29 & ThirdSched.,Rr.7 & 8(5)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.277/KB of 1990-91, decision dated: 5th September; 1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raisul Hasan for Appellant. Muhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 10 = 1993 SLD 10 = 1994 PTD 79 = 1994 PTCL 167 = (1993) 68 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Subterfuge in Property Leasing\nTopic: Taxability of Rental Income\nConclusion: Arrangements designed to evade taxes, such as leasing property to a relative for subleasing, are treated as subterfuges. The actual rental income realized is taxable as the owner's income.\nCitation/Reference: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=9,136 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 106 of 1986, decision dated: 24-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Miss BABRA SHARIF\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 11 = 1994 SLD 11 = 1994 PTCL 172 = 1994 PTD 83 = (1994) 69 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and Limitation\nTopic: Appeals to Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AA.C.)\nConclusion:\n1.\nFiling Requirements: Appeals must be submitted in the prescribed format and within the stipulated limitation period. Non-compliance results in the appeal not being admitted.\n2.\nCondonation of Delay: AA.C. can admit appeals filed beyond the limitation period if satisfied with the reasons for the delay, under Section 130(3). However, refusal to admit such appeals is not considered an order under Section 132, making it non-appealable to the Tribunal.\n3.\nStatutory Right: The right to appeal is statutory and cannot be assumed. Appeals dismissed as time-barred under Section 130(3) do not reach adjudication under Section 132.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nMela Ram and Sons v. CIT Punjab (1956) 29 ITR 607.\n•\nAkhtar Ali Pervaiz v. Altafur Rehman PLD 1963 Lah. 390.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,129,130,130(3),131,132,134(1),148(2),156 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1096/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 31st May, 1992, hearing DATE : 3rd October, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, CHAIRMAN AND A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naved A. Andrabi for Appellant. Mian M. Masood, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 3 = 1995 SLD 3 = 1995 PTD 95 = (1993) 204 ITR 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Industrial Undertakings in Backward Areas\nTopic: Relief Under Section 80HH\nConclusion:\n1.\nConstruction activities, such as building dams or canals, are not considered manufacture or production of articles for claiming relief under Section 80HH.\n2.\nThe Supreme Court reversed High Court decisions allowing benefits for construction-related undertakings, emphasizing that legislative language and context excluded construction from the ambit of articles or things. \nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Pressure Piling Co. (1980) 126 ITR 333.\n•\nCIT v. Buildmet P. Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 160.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.ANos.4238 to 4240 of 1983, 5865 and 5.866 of 1983 and 4239 to 4248 of 1992, decision dated: 7-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (R.K. Mehra and Ms. Mana Chakraborty Advocates, (with him) for Respondents (in C.A. Nos.4238 to 4240 of 1983). A.M. Kanwilkar, Advocate for Respondent (in C.As. Nos.5865 and 15866 of 1983). Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Mukul Mudgal, Advocate with him) for Respondent (in C.As. Nos.4239 to 4248 of 1992).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nN.C. BUDHARAJA & CO. and another\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRESSURE PILING CO. (INDIA) P. LTD.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHANKAR CONSTRUCTION CO.\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSURESH MALPANI & CO\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBUILDMET P. LTD\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUNIVERSAL BOREMET AGENCIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 374 = 2000 SLD 374 = 2000 PTD 2744 = (1999) 237 ITR 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Representative Assessee and Capital Gains\nTopic: Trustee’s Assessment and Exemptions\nConclusion:\n1.\nTrustees are treated as representative assessees under Section 161, enjoying the same exemptions as beneficiaries.\n2.\nTrustees can claim exemptions under Section 54 for capital gains if proceeds from the sale of a property used for residence are reinvested in another residential property.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nArundhati Balkrishna v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 275 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 328 of 1984, decision dated: 10-06-1980", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND A. Y. SAKHARE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. D. Mistry with B. D. Damodar instructed by Kanga & Co. for the Assessee. R. V. Desai with B. M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner. I.N. Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. AMY F. CAMA (TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF LATE M. R. ADENWALLA)\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 12 = 1994 SLD 12 = 1994 PTCL 267 = 1994 PTD 100 = (1993) 68 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Representative Assessee and Capital Gains\nTopic: Trustee’s Assessment and Exemptions\nConclusion:\n1.\nTrustees are treated as representative assessees under Section 161, enjoying the same exemptions as beneficiaries.\n2.\nTrustees can claim exemptions under Section 54 for capital gains if proceeds from the sale of a property used for residence are reinvested in another residential property.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nArundhati Balkrishna v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 275 (SC).\n•\nCIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(43),27,50(1),50(2),53,59,59A,60,62,63,65,80AA,80AA(5),87 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos.375/KB to 378/KB of 1991-92 and 1593/HQ of 1988-89, decision dated: 23rd August, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Appellant. Khalid Siddiqui for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 13 = 1994 SLD 13 = 1994 PTD 108 = 1994 PTCL 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Appeals\nTopic: Advance Tax Liability\nConclusion:\n1.\nAdvance tax liability, calculated based on the latest assessment order, is subject to revision after modifications in appeals.\n2.\nThe appellate order becomes the basis for recalculating advance tax.\n3.\nProvisions with non-abstante clauses do not override unless inconsistency exists between provisions.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nBegum Mumtaz Jamal’s case PLD 1976 Lah. 761", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,28(1)(a),28(b) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos.706 to 710 of 1958-59, decision dated: 19-04-1960", + "Judge Name:": " M. AMEEN AND A.S.M. SALEK MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Z.S. Siddiqi for Appellant. G. Mawla, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 14 = 1994 SLD 14 = 1994 PTD 112 = (1993) 68 TAX 166 = 1994 PTCL 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty After Assessee's Death\nTopic: Penalty Proceedings for Deceased Assessees\nConclusion: Penalty cannot be initiated or continued against the representative of a deceased taxpayer for defaults committed during the latter’s lifetime. However, penalties imposed before death can be recovered from the deceased’s estate.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nPunjab Province v. The Federation of Pakistan (1957) 32 ITR 198.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,111,134 ", + "Case #": "A. T. As. Nos.517/LB and 518/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 28-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Qaiser Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 375 = 2000 SLD 375 = 2000 PTD 2755 = (1999) 237 ITR 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Appeals Against I.A.C. Orders\nTopic: Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal\nConclusion:\n1.\nNo appeal lies against an order by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I.A.C.) under Section 66-A unless it results in an enhanced assessment or reduced refund.\n2.\nA right to appeal is statutory and must be explicitly provided in the law. Practices unsupported by statutes lack legal validity.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nWahid Bux v. Afzal Transport Company PLD 1966 Lah. 684.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2599 of 1997 in I.T.C. No.39 of 1996, decision dated: 9-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. R. Goel for Applicant. R. D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nVs\nPREM CHAND BANSAL & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 16 = 1994 SLD 16 = 1994 PTD 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Change of Opinion in Assessments\nTopic: Lawful Authority for Reassessment\nConclusion: A reassessment notice based on the same facts previously considered by the Assessing Officer constitutes a change of opinion and lacks lawful authority. The Court annulled the subsequent assessment and penalty.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nPakistan Oil Mills case 1969 SCMR 175.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59,91 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos.1031/LB and 1032/LB of 1990-91", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Ullah Kiyani and Kh. M. Asghar for Appellants. Javed Tahir Butt, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs POWER ELECTRONIC PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 4 = 1995 SLD 4 = 1995 PTD 132 = (1993) 204 ITR 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Agricultural Land\nTopic: Taxability of Agricultural Land Sale\nConclusion: Land classified as agricultural in records but used for non-agricultural purposes (e.g., sold for housing projects) is liable for capital gains tax. The intention and actual use of the land are pivotal in determining its classification.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (1982) 136 ITR 621", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4001 to 4004 of 1982, decision dated: 14-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate (S.C. Patel, Advocate, with him), for the Appellants. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar, D.S. Mahra and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him), for the Respondent\nAppeals by special leave against the judgment and order dated April 17, 1981, of the Gujarat High Court in Income-tax References Nos. 92, 72, 73 and 87 of 1976. The judgment of the High Court is reported as CIT v. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim (1982) 136 ITR 621 (Guj.).", + "Party Name:": "SARIFABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 17 = 1994 SLD 17 = 1994 PTD 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Burden of Proof\nTopic: Nature of Penalty Proceedings\nConclusion:\n1.\nPenalty proceedings under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are penal in nature, and the burden of proving concealment of income or false particulars lies with the department.\n2.\nA mere falsity in the assessee's explanation during assessment does not conclusively establish concealment. Additional material evidence is necessary to prove the charge of concealment.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nLalchand Gopal Das v. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 324.\n•\nGokuldas Harivallabhdas v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 98.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28 ", + "Case #": "Reference No.19 of 1963, decision dated: 21st September, 1964", + "Judge Name:": " J.M. SHELAT, C.J. AND BHAGWATI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.M. Thakore, A.G. with M.M. Thakore and M.G. Doshit for the Commissioner. J.M. Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, GUJARAT\nVs\nL.H. VORA IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 376 = 2000 SLD 376 = 2000 PTD 2761 = (1999) 237 ITR 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Notice of Demand\nTopic: Tax Recovery and Partial Re-assessment\nConclusion:\n1.\nA notice of demand remains enforceable for the determined liability unless fully set aside.\n2.\nWhen specific additions are remanded or deleted, the original notice of demand remains valid for the remaining assessment, making recovery lawful.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nBrooke Bond & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 37 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 8361 of 1991-U decided on 4th December 1998", + "Judge Name:": " P. V NARYANAN NAMBIAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for Petitioner. P. K. R. Menon and N. R. K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "B. INDIRA RANI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 377 = 2000 SLD 377 = 2000 PTD 2765 = (1999) 236 ITR 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debts and Revision Powers\nTopic: Year of Claim and Tribunal's Authority\nConclusion:\n1.\nBad debts can be claimed even if the debt originated years earlier, provided it remains trade-related.\n2.\nTribunals cannot justify a Commissioner’s order on grounds not mentioned by the Commissioner during revision.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Sarabhai Sons Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 473 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 189 of 1992, decision dated: 17-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " AJOY NATH RAY AND DIPAK PRAKASH KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mullick for the Commissioner. N. K. Poddar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHOWRAH FLOUR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 5 = 1995 SLD 5 = 1995 PTD 154 = 1960 AIR 729 = (1995) 72 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Profit Estimation\nTopic: Justifications for Rejection\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe absence of critical records, such as stock registers or supporting vouchers, can justify rejecting accounts and estimating profits.\n2.\nThe tribunal’s reliance on estimated profit margins for similar businesses is permissible when the correct profits cannot be deduced.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCIT v. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 218 to 223 of 1955, decision dated: February 3rd, 1960", + "Judge Name:": " KAPUR AND HIDAYATULLAH, Justice(s).", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Chowdhuri (N.. A. Palkhivala and Naunit Lal with him) for Appellant. H. N. Sanyal (Additional Solicitor-General of India) (R. Ganapathi Iyer and D. Gupta with him) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "S. N. NAMASIVAYAM CHETTIAR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 18 = 1994 SLD 18 = 1994 PTD 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction in Penalty Proceedings\nTopic: Successor Officer's Role\nConclusion:\n1.\nA succeeding officer must notify the assessee before continuing penalty proceedings left incomplete by their predecessor.\n2.\nFailure to issue such notice undermines the procedural validity of the penalty.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nMurlidhar Tejpal v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 129", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=5(7C) & 28(3) ", + "Case #": "C.A. No.62 of 1965, decision dated: 12-09-1969", + "Judge Name:": " GOPAL RAO EKBOTE AND RAMACHANDRA RAJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siva Rao for the Assessee. K. Anantha Babu for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ANANTHA NAGANNA CHETTY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 6 = 1995 SLD 6 = 1995 PTD 163 = (1993) 204 ITR 628", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Company and Concessional Tax Rates\nTopic: Classification of Companies\nConclusion:\n1.\nCompanies must demonstrate that at least 51% of their income is from manufacturing or processing to qualify for concessional industrial tax rates.\n2.\nCompanies failing to meet this burden of proof cannot claim the reduced tax rate.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 134.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1573 and 1574 of 1986, decision dated: 8-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Arvind Minocha, Advocate with him), for the Appellant. J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (R. Ayyam Perumal and D.S. Mahra, Advocates, with him) for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MINOCHA BROS. P. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 378 = 2000 SLD 378 = 2000 PTD 2776 = (1999) 236 ITR 524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Refunds\nTopic: Scope of Refund Interest\nConclusion:\n1.\nInterest on refunds is a statutory right and forms part of the refund, including refunds from Section 104 assessments.\n2.\nDenial of such interest is appealable under the Income Tax Act.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCentral Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No.448 of 1983 (Reference No.230. of 1983), decision dated: 26th November 1997", + "Judge Name:": " N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. S. A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nT. V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 7 = 1995 SLD 7 = 1995 PTD 166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surtax and Computation of Capital\nTopic: Exclusions in Surtax Calculations\nConclusion:\n1.\nDeductions under Sections 80G, 80L, and 80M for donations, interest, and dividends should not reduce the company's capital for surtax purposes.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 828", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "of 1984; 351 and 1186 of 1987 and 4026 to 4028 of 1989, decision dated: 7-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " M. N. VENKATACHALIAH AND G. N. RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMADRAS AUTO SERVICE P. LTD. (and other appeals)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 8 = 1995 SLD 8 = 1995 PTD 170 = (1964) 53 ITR 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts in Cotton Ginning\nTopic: Basis for Rejection\nConclusion:\n1.\nAbsence of stock or day-to-day production records justifies rejecting accounts under Section 13.\n2.\nLower yields compared to previous years also provide grounds for such rejection.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1938) 6 ITR 36.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.7 of 1962, decision dated: 24-09-1963", + "Judge Name:": " D. FALSHAW, C.J. AND A.N GROVER, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. L. Agarwal and S. S. Mahajan for the Assessee. D.N. Awasthy and H. R. Mahajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Rana ABDUL SATTAR\nVs\nPASSCO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 19 = 1994 SLD 19 = (1993) 68 TAX 41 = 1994 PTD 174 = 1994 SCMR 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounting Methods\nTopic: Consistency and Rejection Grounds\nConclusion:\n1.\nLong-accepted accounting methods cannot be rejected without substantive reasons or material defects.\n2.\nChanges in assessment conclusions require specific justifications, not merely a change in opinion.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCIT East Pakistan, Dacca v. Wahiduzzaman 1965 PTD 283.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 83-K and 84-K of 1989, decision dated: 20th December 1992", + "Judge Name:": " SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court with A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-III, KARACHI\nVs\nKRUDD SONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 9 = 1995 SLD 9 = 1995 PTD 176 = (1995) 72 TAX 94 = (1994) 205 ITR 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Optional Payments\nTopic: Expenditure Legitimacy\nConclusion:\n1.\nPayments made under statutory schemes, even as options, are deductible as business expenses if incurred during normal business operations.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nTextile Control Order, 1948; Section 37, Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2123, 2149, 2171, 2172, 2226, 2241 and 2245 of 1977, decision dated: 15-10-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S.P. Senthikumara Nadar and Sons v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 138 (Mad.) and Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC) distinguished. CIT (Addl.) v. Rustam Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 298 (Guj.) and CIT v. Tarim Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. (1977) 107 ITR 172 (Guj.) approved. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (R. Salim, P.N. Misra, C. Ramesh and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocate (of J.B. Dadachanji and Co.) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAHMEDABAD COTTON MFG. CO. LTD. and others\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMIHIR TEXTILES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 379 = 2000 SLD 379 = 2000 PTD 2791 = (1999) 236 ITR 503", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Merger of Orders\nTopic: Appellate Mergers\nConclusion:\n1.\nWhen an appellate authority considers an entire order, it merges with the appellate order, leaving no scope for further revision by the Commissioner.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nCIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.3l of 1998, decision dated: 5-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MOTILAL B. NAIK AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. V. Prasad for Petitioner. K. K. Viswanathan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNEW SRINIVASA CONSTRUCTION CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 20 = 1994 SLD 20 = 1994 PTD 183 = (1993) 202 ITR 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification Powers of Tribunal\nTopic: Limited Scope of Rectification\nConclusion:\n1.\nRectification powers under Section 254(2) only address apparent errors. They do not permit reviews or substantive reconsiderations of Tribunal orders.\nCitation/Reference:\n•\nSection 254(2), Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.242 of 1991, decision dated: 9-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Mitra for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOKUL CHAND AGARWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 380 = 2000 SLD 380 = 2000 PTD 2796 = (1999) 236 ITR 430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax: Business Expenditure and Depreciation\n•\nTopic: Business expenditure, depreciation, and guarantee commission.\n•\nConclusion: The guarantee commission was deemed assessable as business income, and expenses on depreciation, legal costs, urban land tax, property tax, interest, and loss were deductible under Sections 28, 32, and 37(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895 (Mad.).\n(b) Income Tax: Dividend from Foreign Countries\n•\nTopic: Dividend income assessment.\n•\nConclusion: Dividend received from foreign countries is assessed as gross income under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nReference: A.F.W. Low v. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 213 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Text case No.947 of 1985 (Reference No.478 of 1985), decision dated: 26-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAMALGAMATIONS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 10 = 1995 SLD 10 = 1995 PTD 188 = (1995) 72 TAX 56 = (1994) 205 ITR 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Penalty and Concealment of Income\n•\nTopic: Burden of proof for income concealment under the Finance Act, 1964.\n•\nConclusion: The explanation to Section 271(1)(c) establishes a presumption of concealment unless the assessee disproves fraud or gross neglect. Penalty proceedings remain quasi-criminal, requiring the assessee to establish reasonable cause for errors in income declarations.\n•\nReferences:\no\nCIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC).\no\nCIT v. K.R. Sadayappan (1990) 185 ITR 49 (SC).\no\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1209 to 1213 of 1976, decision dated: 16-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (Manoj Arora and D.S. Mahra, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)\nVs\nJEEVAN LAL SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 11 = 1995 SLD 11 = 1995 PTD 194 = (1995) 72 TAX 47 = (1994) 205 ITR 251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Capital or Revenue Receipt\n•\nTopic: Surplus received during company liquidation.\n•\nConclusion: Surplus received by a dealer in shares held as stock-in-trade constitutes revenue and is taxable. The nature of income depends on whether shares were held as investments or as stock-in-trade.\n•\nReferences:\no\nDalmia Cement and Paper Marketing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1949) 17 ITR 141 (Pat.).\no\nCIT v. Ram Kumar Agarwalla and Bros. (1977) 108 ITR 457.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1453 of 1976, decision dated: 2-11-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (W.C. Chopra, T.R. Talwar and D.S. Mahra with him) for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAM KUMAR AGGARWAL and Bros" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 381 = 2000 SLD 381 = 2000 PTD 2798 = (1999) 236 ITR 706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Lease Income and Business Expenses\n•\nTopic: Lease income classification and deductions for business expenses.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nLease income from plant and machinery was classified as income from other sources due to the discontinuation of business operations.\n2.\nHostel income earned by the company was classified as business income due to active operational involvement.\n3.\nClaims for compensation, interest, and travel expenses were disallowed as they were unrelated to ongoing business activities.\n•\nReferences:\no\nCEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC).\no\nCIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 597 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.509 of 1985, decision dated: 13-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. B. Bhujle for the Assessee. R. V. Desai for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SASWAD MALI SUGAR FACTORY LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 21 = 1994 SLD 21 = 1994 PTD 199 = (1975) 100 ITR 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Penalty for Late Filing of Returns\n•\nTopic: Mens rea in penalty proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty proceedings require the establishment of mens rea. The burden of proof lies on the department to show deliberate defiance of law or negligence in filing returns.\n•\nReferences:\no\nHindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26.\no\nAll India Sewing Machine Co. v. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 206 (Mys.).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.29 of 1974, decision dated: 18th December 1974", + "Judge Name:": " OBUL REDDI, C.J. AND PUNNAYYA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Rama Rao for Petitioner. Y.V. Anjaneyulu and P.V. Raghavendra Rao for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNARAYANADAS RAMKISHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 382 = 2000 SLD 382 = 2000 PTD 3496 = (1999) 238 ITR 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Honest Mistake in Income Attribution\n•\nTopic: Concealment of income due to honest mistakes.\n•\nConclusion: The assessee's mistaken belief that income from a truck owned by his minor son should be assessed separately was not considered deliberate concealment. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed unwarranted.\n•\nReference: Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (1980) 124 ITR 15 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=271(l)(c),274 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.289 of 1981, decision dated: 24-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " S.L. SARAF AND IKRAM-UL-BARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for the Assessee. Shambhu Chopra for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Pandit GOVIND PRASAD MISHRA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nHaji TUFAIL MUHAMMAD\nVs\nASSISTANT ENGINEER No.1, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS D.S. OFFICE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 12 = 1995 SLD 12 = 1995 PTD 204 = (1994) 205 ITR 426", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Provision for Gratuity\n•\nTopic: Deductibility of gratuity provisions.\n•\nConclusion: Gratuity provision for the assessment year 1972-73 was allowed as a deductible expense. Retrospective amendments under the Finance Act, 1975, did not apply to the assessment year in question.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5850 of 1983, decision dated: 9-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (Sudhir Walia and D.S. Mahra, Advocate with him) for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGARWARE SYNTHETIC BRISTLES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 383 = 2000 SLD 383 = 2000 PTD 2668 = (2000) 81 TAX 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Financial Charges and Penalties\n•\nTopic: Deductibility of delayed deposit charges.\n•\nConclusion: Payments to the State Bank for delayed deposits were not classified as penalties and were deductible as business expenses.\n•\nReference: Atherton v. British Insulated and another (1926) 10 Tax Cas. 155.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,23(vii) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947=20(3) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 126/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 11-04-2000, hearing DATE : 29-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shabbar Zaidi, F.C.A. for Appellant. Muhammad Farid and Anisul Hasnain Mausvi, D.R. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 13 = 1995 SLD 13 = 1995 PTD 205 = (1994) 205 ITR 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Appeals and Cooperative Societies\n•\nTopic: Appeals before the Appellate Tribunal and cooperative society expenses.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nIssues remain open during pending appeals before the Tribunal.\n2.\nExpenses unrelated to generating income are not deductible.\n•\nReference: J.K. Woollen Manufacturers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (UP), 1969 PTD 7.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,31(1)(b),SecondSched.Cl.103(a),31(3),24 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1489 of 1979, decision dated: 2-11-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellants. J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (Manoj Arora and D.S. Mahra, Advocate with him) for Respondent\nH.H. SIR RAMA VERMA (Decd by L. Rs.)", + "Party Name:": "H.H. SIR RAMA VERMA (Decd by L. Rs.)\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 22 = 1994 SLD 22 = 1994 PTD 210 = (1977) 107 ITR 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Penalty for Delay in Filing Returns\n•\nTopic: Burden of proof in penalty cases.\n•\nConclusion: The department must establish an absence of reasonable cause for delayed filings. The principle of mens rea applies in penalty proceedings.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Gangaram Chapolia (1976) 103 ITR 613 (Orissa).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.24 of 1973, decision dated: 3rd May, 1976", + "Judge Name:": " B.J. DIVAN, C.JP.D. DESAI AND B.K MEHTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.H. Kaji with R.P. Bhatt of Messrs R.P. Bhatt & Co. Solicitors, for the Additional Commissioner. J.M. Thakore, Advocate-General with K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, GUJARAT\nVs\nI.M. PATEL & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 14 = 1995 SLD 14 = 1995 PTD 212 = (1994) 205 ITR 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Limitation on Reassessment Orders\n•\nTopic: Period of limitation for reassessment.\n•\nConclusion: No order of reassessment can be made beyond the statutory period. Mandamus cannot compel violation of statutory limitations.\n•\nReference: Vithaldas v. ITO (1969) 71 ITR 204 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3006 of 1983, decision dated: 27-10-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Sen, Senior Advocate (S.R. Aggarwal, Advocate, for Messrs Khaitan and Co., Advocates, with him) for Appellants\nR. Satish and D.S. Mahra, Advocates for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "HOPE TEXTILES LTD. and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 15 = 1995 SLD 15 = 1995 PTD 215 = (1993) 204 ITR 23 = (1994) 70 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Capital vs. Revenue Loss\n•\nTopic: Classification of losses and amendments affecting carry-forward provisions.\n•\nConclusion:\n1.\nLosses from premature encashment of investments were deemed capital losses.\n2.\nAmendments requiring timely filings for loss carry-forward were not retrospective.\n•\nReference: CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. (1962) 46 ITR 649 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 139 of 1991, decision dated: 31st, March 1993", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "KRISHNA CHANDRA DUTTA (COOK ME) PVT. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 16 = 1995 SLD 16 = (1994) 70 TAX 60 = (1993) 204 ITR 135 = 1995 PTD 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Discretionary Trust Taxation\n•\nTopic: Tax rates applicable to private trusts.\n•\nConclusion: Income of a discretionary trust was taxed at rates applicable to an association of persons as no beneficiary had taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.22 of 1979, decision dated: 20-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, C.J. AND R.K. ABICHANDANI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.J. Shelat for Messrs R.P. Bhatt and Co. for the Commissioner. N.R. Divetia for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAHARAJA DALJITSINHJI TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 17 = 1995 SLD 17 = (1994) 70 TAX 63 = (1993) 204 ITR 113 = 1995 PTD 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Invalid Garnishee Proceedings\n•\nTopic: Tax recovery via garnishee proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: Garnishee proceedings against ONGC for liabilities of a subcontractor were invalid due to the absence of contractual relationships.\n•\nReference: McDermott International Inc. v. Union of India (1988) 173 ITR 155 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2654 of 1991, decision dated: 21st September, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.E. Dastur with N. Dalvi with B.D. Damodhar, instructed by Messrs Kanga and Co., for Petitioner. P.S. Jetly with G.S. Jetly, instructed by K. C. Sidhwa, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. D.H. Mehta, instructed by Messrs Desai and Diwanji for Respondent No. 3", + "Party Name:": "HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES COMPANY LIMITED\nVs\nD.C. PANT and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 384 = 2000 SLD 384 = 2000 PTD 2811 = (1999) 236 ITR 993", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax: Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\n•\nTopic: Applicability of Section 194C.\n•\nConclusion: Transport contracts constitute carrying out work under Section 194C, requiring tax deduction at source.\n•\nReference: Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 435 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W. As. Nos. 135, 163, 217, 218, 221, 224, 225, 243, 244, 247, 265, 331, 343, 415, 423, 498, 499 and 695 of 1996, decision dated: 14-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C, J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. Ravindranatha Menon, Senior Advocate and N. R. K. Nair for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL. BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES\nVs\nCOCHIN GOODS TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 18 = 1995 SLD 18 = (1994) 70 TAX 54 = (1993) 204 ITR 103 = 1995 PTD 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Business Expenditure – Expenditure on Advertisement\nTopic: Constitutionality of ceiling on deduction of advertisement expenditure\nConclusion: Subsections (3A) and (3B) of Section 37 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, do not violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. These provisions impose a uniform allowance for deductions on advertisement expenses and ensure equitable treatment across industries. The legislation does not interfere with the freedom of trade or business and falls under Parliament's legislative competence as per entry 82, List I of the Seventh Schedule.\nReferences:\n•\nMysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. Union of India (1986) 160 ITR 50 (Kar.)\n•\nBritish Electrical and Pumps (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 620 (Cal.)\n•\nFederation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India (1989) 178 ITR 97 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.7868 of 1983, decision dated: 9-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " KANAKARAJ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. Srinivasamoorthy for Petitioner. N.V. Balasubramanian for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "DOLLAR CO. PRIVATE LTD\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others\nMessrs MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED through General Manager, Lahore\nVs\nPUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 3, LAHORE and 2 others\nMessrs MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED through General Manager, Lahore\nVs\nPUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 3, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 23 = 1994 SLD 23 = 1994 PTD 232 = (1977) 106 ITR 720", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty – Concealment of Income\nTopic: Applicability of penalty provisions when accounts are rejected, and best assessment is applied\nConclusion: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be levied if there is evidence of concealed income. Mere enhancement of income through best assessment does not automatically attract penalty. The Tribunal found no evidence of fraud or gross and willful neglect by the assessee.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Harnam Singh & Co. (1977) 106 ITR 532 (All.)\n•\nCIT v. Swatantra Confectionary Works (1976) 104 ITR 291 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.15 connected with Income-tax Reference No.17 of 1973, decision dated: 22nd January 1975", + "Judge Name:": " R.L. GULATI AND C.S.P. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Deokinandan for the Additional Commissioner. N.D. Pant and M.C. Pant for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHORILAL KUNJ BEHARI LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 19 = 1995 SLD 19 = (1994) 70 TAX 123 = (1993) 204 ITR 83 = 1995 PTD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income Heads – Income from Other Sources\nTopic: Treatment of rental income from flats under a lease agreement\nConclusion: Rental income derived by the assessee under a lease agreement was assessed as income from other sources and not income from house property. The agreement was deemed a lease, not a sale, and did not constitute a revocable transfer under Section 63 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Ganga Properties Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 637 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. Hans Raj Gupta (1982) 137 ITR 195 (Delhi)\n•\nCIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizams Miscellaneous Trust (1986) 160 ITR 253 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.221 of 1987, decision dated: 12-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND K. M. YUSUF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Poddar for Assessee. S.K. Mitra and R.C. Prasad for Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "K. N. RAZDAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 24 = 1994 SLD 24 = 1994 PTD 237 = (1993) 202 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital or Revenue Expenditure\nTopic: Classification of expenses and depreciation claims for setting up a new plant\nConclusion:\n1.\nExpenses incurred on the travel of foreign experts for setting up a new plant were classified as capital expenditure.\n2.\nExpenditure related to bringing and installing gifted machinery was includible in the actual cost for depreciation and development rebate purposes.\n3.\nThe Tribunal must address all aspects of claims, including alternative submissions.\nReferences:\n•\nChallapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.191 of 1978, decision dated: 25-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P. SARAF AND U.T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "NA. Dalvi with B.D. Damodar instructed by Messrs Kanga & Co. for the Assessee. G.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. Sengupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CIBA OF INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 20 = 1995 SLD 20 = (1994) 70 TAX 178 = (1993) 204 ITR 93 = 1995 PTD 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Profession vs. Business\nTopic: Classification of share brokerage as business or profession\nConclusion: The activity of share-brokers was held to constitute business and not profession. As a result, the firm was not entitled to the benefit of a lower surcharge rate under the Finance Act, 1973. The distinction between business and profession was clarified.\nReferences:\n•\nStanwill (P.) and Co. v. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 316 (All.)\n•\nCIR v. Maxse (1919) 12 TC 41 (CA)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 311 of 1978, decision dated: 3rd February, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetly, with P.S. Jetly for the Commissioner. A.Y. Sonde for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLALLUBHAI NAGARDAS AND SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 385 = 2000 SLD 385 = 2000 PTD 2818 = (1999) 236 ITR 269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Undisclosed Sources\nTopic: Tax treatment of income from customs clearance permits and cash credits\nConclusion:\n1.\nTribunal’s estimate of profits from customs clearance permits based on evidence was upheld as justified.\n2.\nCash credits were added to the income after the creditor denied the transaction's genuineness and submitted an affidavit. The burden of proof was on the assessee to establish the authenticity of the transaction.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Harnam Singh & Co. (1977) 106 ITR 532 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T. C. Nos. 292 and 293 of 1983 and 1374 of 1982 (References Nos. 122 and 123 of 1983 and 854 of 1982), decision dated: 25-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Ramachandran for K. Mani and Mallika Srinivasan for the Assessee. J. Jayaraman for C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TRADERS AND TRADERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 386 = 2000 SLD 386 = 2000 PTD 2830 = (1999) 236 ITR 932", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Income Tax – Discontinuance of Business\nTopic: Taxability of income received after business discontinuance\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the income received from arbitration post-discontinuance of the business should be assessed in the hands of the three firms that executed the contracts and not in the hands of the individual assessee. The income received after discontinuance is taxable in the year of receipt under Section 176(3A). Additionally, the reference filed by the assessee could not be answered due to their absence despite due notice.\nReferences: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.176", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.217 of 1990, decision dated: 22-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND R. BAYAPU REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. R. Ashok for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Y. V. SUBBA RAO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 21 = 1995 SLD 21 = (1994) 70 TAX 168 = (1993) 204 ITR 62 = 1995 PTD 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Penalty – Concealment of Income\nTopic: Burden of proof and applicability of penalties under Section 271(1)(c)\nConclusion: The assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving there was no concealment of income under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal's reduction of the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was deemed incorrect. The law applicable to penalties is the one prevalent at the time the original return was filed.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Onkar Saran and Sons (1992) 195 ITR 1 (SC)\n•\nAluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 11 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income Tax Reference No.54 of 1981, decision dated: 17-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K. C. AGARWAL, C, J. AND V. K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Bapna for Commissioner. N.M. Ranka and J.K. Ranka for Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDr. A.K. SHARMA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 387 = 2000 SLD 387 = 2000 PTD 2833 = (1999) 236 ITR 950", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjBMTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Loss – Genuineness of Transactions\nTopic: Deductibility of loss claimed on sale of shares to a related party\nConclusion: The transaction of share sale to the company's Chairman was held non-genuine due to lack of evidence and simultaneous issuance of cheques without sufficient funds. The Tribunal’s direction to allow the deduction for loss was reversed. The High Court has the jurisdiction to intervene when the Tribunal’s findings are inconsistent with evidence or based on conjecture.\nReferences:\n•\nMcDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. S.P. Jain (1973) 87 ITR 370 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 180 of 1992, decision dated: 17-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN AND BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHEKHAWATI RAJPUTANA TRADING CO.(P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 388 = 2000 SLD 388 = 2000 PTD 2853 = (2000) 82 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\nTopic: Scope and interpretation of fiscal statutes and exemptions\nConclusion: Tax burdens must be explicitly stated by law, and exemptions under Part IV, Clause (9B) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are concessionary and not imposing additional burdens. Once tax at the import stage is paid under presumptive tax schemes, no further tax on the same goods can be levied. Relief granted by the First Appellate Authority was upheld.\nReferences:\n•\n1997 PTD (Trib.) 1143\n•\nCIT v. Muhammad Kassim 2000 PTD 280", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C(2)(i)(ii),50(4)(5)SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.26/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 27-09-1999, hearing DATE : 23rd September, 1999", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN AND SHAHID, JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaki Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Tayyab G. Adeeb, F.C.A. and Javed Zakaria for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 25 = 1994 SLD 25 = 1994 PTD 273 = (1993) 202 ITR 222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charge of Tax – Assessment of Unregistered Firms\nTopic: Double taxation and assessment of unregistered firms\nConclusion: The Income Tax Officer cannot assess both the unregistered firm and its partners for the same income. Section 4 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, retains the same substance as Section 3 of the 1922 Act, allowing the option of assessing either the firm or its partners. The High Court affirmed that findings inconsistent with statutory provisions could be overturned.\nReferences:\n•\nCh. Atchaiah v. ITO (1979) 116 ITR 675 (AP)\n•\nCIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.41 of 1980, decision dated: 19th,june, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MUHAMMAD QUADRI, N.D. PATNAIK AND PARVATHA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nB.R. CONSTRUCTIONS\nPARKE DAVIS & COMPANY LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nMANZAR HUSSAIN\nPARKE DAVIS & COMPANY LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nMANZAR HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 390 = 2000 SLD 390 = 2000 PTD 2883 = 2001 PTCL 88 = (2000) 82 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Deduct or Pay Tax\nTopic: Jurisdiction and liability under Sections 52, 50, and 52A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nConclusion: Proceedings under Sections 52 and 86 for failure to deduct or pay tax are independent. Amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 1999, clarified that liability rests with the deductor, not the recipient, if tax has already been paid at one stage. The Tribunal set aside the Assessing Officer's order, ensuring no double taxation.\nReferences:\n•\n1996 PTD (Trib.) 65 overruled\n•\n1999 PTD 4037 not applicable", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,50,52A,86 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No 1794/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 13-05-2000, hearing DATE : 11-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI CHAIRMAN MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi and Ms. Lubna Pervaiz for Appellant. Khalid Siddiqui, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 22 = 1995 SLD 22 = 1995 PTD 277 = (1994) 206 ITR 83 = (1994) 70 TAX 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Surtax - Computation of Capital\nTopic: Classification of interest-free loans and reserves for surtax purposes\nConclusion: Interest-free loans from Siemens Asia Investments could not be considered paid-up share capital or reserves before the actual allotment of shares. The amount was adjusted to share capital only on the date of allotment, March 25, 1971. Dividends declared from reserves were appropriately deducted from the computation of capital.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, Sch. II\n•\nA & C Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 387 of 1979, decision dated: 7-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. J. Pardiwala for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramaniam with J. P. Deodhar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SIEMENS INDIA LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 391 = 2000 SLD 391 = 2000 PTD 2903 = 2001 PTCL 80 = (2000) 82 TAX 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals – Rectifiable Defects in Memorandum\nTopic: Dismissal of appeal for defects in grounds of appeal\nConclusion: The Tribunal’s dismissal of an appeal for non-conforming grounds without identifying specific defects was improper. The Tribunal should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defects instead of outright dismissal.\nReference: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, R.10", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=10 ", + "Case #": "Tax References Nos. 2 to 5 of 1999, heard on 19-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": " SYED, JAMSHED ALI AND SAQIB NISAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL GASES LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 392 = 2000 SLD 392 = 2000 PTD 2905 = 2001 PTCL 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Assessment – Definite Information\nTopic: Validity of reopening assessments under Section 65\nConclusion: Reopening an assessment based on lesser claims of expenditure in the profit and loss account was not justified as it did not constitute definite information indicating under-assessment or escaped income. The Tribunal canceled the reopening of the assessment.\nReferences:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.65\n•\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 973", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5758/LB of 1999, decision dated: 13-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 23 = 1995 SLD 23 = (1994) 70 TAX 240 = (1994) 206 ITR 76 = 1995 PTD 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Offences and Prosecution – Mens Rea in Tax Evasion\nTopic: Prosecution for false verification and wilful tax evasion\nConclusion: Mens rea must be established for prosecution under Sections 276-C and 277. In the absence of evidence showing intentional evasion or false verification, convictions were not sustainable. The receipt of remuneration by the individuals was reflected in their returns, accepted by the authorities.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT (Addl.) v. Burugupalli China Krishnamurthy (1980) 121 ITR 326 (AP)\n•\nGujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 455 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Revisions Cases Nos. 627 and 628 and Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 627 and 625 of 1990, decision dated: 25-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " ESWARA PRASAD, JUSTICE.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Venkataiah for Petitioners. P.L. Naidu for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "KRISHNA MEDICAL STORES and another\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 393 = 2000 SLD 393 = 2000 PTD 2906 = (1998) 234 ITR 661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction – Interest on Borrowed Capital\nTopic: Deductibility of interest for borrowed capital used for business expansion\nConclusion: Interest on borrowed capital for business expansion is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal’s finding that the capital was borrowed for expansion and not production commencement was not challenged and upheld.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Malva Vanaspati and Chemicals Co. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 253 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 64 of 1994, decision dated: 26-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND KIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Tankha for the Commissioner. B. L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHILAI IRON FOUNDRY (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 24 = 1995 SLD 24 = 1995 PTD 289 = (1995) 71 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additions – Deemed Income vs. Trading Additions\nTopic: Set-off of deemed income against trading additions\nConclusion: Additions under Section 13(1) for deemed income must be set off against trading additions as a mixed question of law and fact. Taxation cannot be imposed arbitrarily based on general morality but must strictly adhere to legislative provisions and judicial interpretation.\nReferences:\n•\n1963, 7 Tax 1", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 473/LB/1994, decision dated: 28-06-1994.hearing DATE : 8-05-1994", + "Judge Name:": " PER INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AGREEINGABDUR RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, CONTRA-", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Oureshi and Ali Bin Abdul Qadir for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 394 = 2000 SLD 394 = 2000 PTD 2908 = (1998) 234 ITR 603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cross-Objections in Appeals\nTopic: Scope of cross-objections under Section 253(4)\nConclusion: Cross-objections in appeals can challenge any part of the appellate order and are not confined to issues raised in the main appeal. There is no legal distinction between an appeal and a cross-objection, except for the filing deadlines.\nReferences:\n•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, S.253(4)\n•\nIncome-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, R.22", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 18 of 1992, decision dated: 22-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " N. C, JAIN, ACTG. C, J. AND P. C. PHUKAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. K. Joshi and U. Bhuyan for the Commissioner. K. H. Choudhury for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nPURBANCHAL PRAIBHAN GOSTHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 26 = 1994 SLD 26 = 1994 PTD 295 = (1993) 202 ITR 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax – Interest Payable by Government\nTopic: Interest on advance tax paid after due dates but within the financial year\nConclusion: Interest under Section 214 is payable on excess advance tax even if installments are paid after the due dates but within the financial year. The amendment to Section 211 clarifies this and is applicable retrospectively. The decision in Kangundi Industrial Works (P.) Ltd. v. ITO was overruled.\nReferences:\n•\nKangundi Industrial Works (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (1980) 121 ITR 339 (AP) overruled\n•\nCIT v. Viswanatha Reddy (T.N.) (1991) 190 ITR 266 (AP) approved", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.124 of 1985, decision dated: 16-06-1992", + "Judge Name:": " SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, N.D. PATNAIK AND PARVATHA, RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Swamy for the Assessee. S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner\nCh. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Shah Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "BAKELITE HYLAM LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nCHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE and another\nVs\nGULBAT KHAN\nCHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE and another\nVs\nGULBAT KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 25 = 1995 SLD 25 = 1995 PTD 299 = (1995) 71 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Transactions with Non-Resident Principals\nTopic: Deemed income from transactions with closely connected non-residents\nConclusion: Section 79 applies when transactions with non-residents are arranged to show no or less profit for the resident entity. The Income Tax Officer correctly applied the provision to determine and add the deemed income. Collusive arrangements reducing the resident's profit are discouraged.\nReferences:\n•\nI.T.O. v. Beecham Pakistan Limited 1988 PTD (Trib.) 447\n•\nC.I.T. v. Pfizer Laboratories Limited 1989 PTD 612", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=7962 ", + "Case #": "ITAs.Nos.1374/KB of 1992-93 and 1796/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 14-09-1994, hearing DATE : 14-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": " PER A.S.K. SHEERANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AGREEING-", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naseem Haider and Ebrahim Sidad for Appellant. Muhammad Yousaf Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Muhammad Zaheer Butt . Raja Mahmud Akhtar . Tanveer Ahmad Qureshi on behalf of A.G\nRana VAKIL AHMAD\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through the Secretary Labour and Manpower Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 7 others\nRana VAKIL AHMAD\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through the Secretary Labour and Manpower Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 395 = 2000 SLD 395 = 2000 PTD 2912 = (1998) 234 ITR 687", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Estimation of Income by Tribunal\nTopic: Tribunal’s findings on income estimation\nConclusion: The Tribunal’s determination of net profit rates and disallowed expenses was based on evidence, making it a finding of fact. No question of law arose under Section 256(2).\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference Application No.79 of 1995, decision dated: 7-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": " B.R. ARORA AND A. S. GODARA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for Appellant. Dinesh Mehta for Respondent.\nRaja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney General alongwith Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Respondent. Ex parte", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS.M. BHATIA ASSOCIATES\nCHIEF DIRECTOR, CENTRAL DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS, ISLAMABAD and another\nVs\nRAHAT ALI SHERWANI\nCHIEF DIRECTOR, CENTRAL DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS, ISLAMABAD and another\nVs\nRAHAT ALI SHERWANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 26 = 1995 SLD 26 = (1994) 70 TAX 92 = 1995 PTD 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income – Unexplained Investments\nTopic: Burden of proof for unexplained investments\nConclusion: The Income Tax Officer must present credible evidence to invoke deeming provisions. Mere presumption without concrete proof of investment during the income year is insufficient. Site inspections without notice are invalid.\nReferences:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.13(1)\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.134", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),SecondSched.,PartIV,C1.7,134,131,134,135,16 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1511/LB-of 1994, decision dated: 28-06-1994, hearing DATE : 27-06-1994", + "Judge Name:": " PER IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERMUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AGREEINGABDUR RASHID QURESHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, CONTRA-", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner. Saadat Saeed, D.R. for Respondent\nTariq Mehmood, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. S.A. M. Quadri, Advocate-on-Record", + "Party Name:": "EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CENTRAL CIVIL DIVISION, PAK. P.W.D. QUEETA\nVs\nABDUL AZIZ and others\nEXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CENTRAL CIVIL DIVISION, PAK. P.W.D. QUEETA\nVs\nABDUL AZIZ and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 27 = 1994 SLD 27 = 1994 PTD 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax – Additional Tax\nTopic: Penalty for failing to deposit advance tax\nConclusion: Additional tax under Section 87 applies to failures to deposit advance tax, distinguished from provisions under the old Act. Appeals against orders under Section 87 are not maintainable before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).\nReferences:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.87\n•\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, S.18-A(8)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53 & 87,129 Income Tax Rules, 1922=18A(8) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No.119(IB) of 1992-93, decision dated: 16-02-1993.hearing DATE : 16-02-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Zareen Saleem Ansari, DR for Appellant. Azim-ul-Qadar Mirza for Respondent\nAbdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji M.A. Qayyum, Advocate-on-Record (absent)", + "Party Name:": "Mst. SAMRA ASHFAQ\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary, S & GAD, Peshawar and 2 others\nMst. SAMRA ASHFAQ\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary, S & GAD, Peshawar and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 396 = 2000 SLD 396 = 2000 PTD 3543 = (1999) 238 ITR 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nTopic: Penalty based on additions deleted by the Tribunal\nConclusion: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the underlying additions have been deleted. The High Court expedited the resolution, bypassing a prolonged reference process.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271(1)(c)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.7 of 1992, decision dated: 19-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " B. SUBHASHAN REDDY AND K. B. SIDDAPPA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Srirama Rao for the Assessee\nS.R. Ashok for the Commissioner\nCh. Altaf Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record.", + "Party Name:": "CITY DRY FISH COMPANY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nPOSTMASTER GENERAL, AJK & FC ISLAMABAD and 2 others\nVs\nMUHAMMAD ZORAB\nPOSTMASTER GENERAL, AJK & FC ISLAMABAD and 2 others\nVs\nMUHAMMAD ZORAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 397 = 2000 SLD 397 = 2000 PTD 2915 = (1998) 234 ITR 702", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income – Interest on Court Award\nTopic: Timing of income accrual for enhanced interest\nConclusion: Interest enhanced by a High Court order accrued in the accounting year of the order (assessment year 1973-74). The Tribunal correctly determined the timing of accrual.\nReference: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 66 of 1996, decision dated: 11-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR C, J. AND DIPAK MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. V.K. Tankha for the Commissioner\nShah Abdur Rashid, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "RSH VERMA AND M. KANHAIYALAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nSyed SAJJAD HUSSAIN\nVs\nSECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, CABINET SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD and 2 others\nSyed SAJJAD HUSSAIN\nVs\nSECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, CABINET SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 28 = 1994 SLD 28 = 1994 PTD 323 = (1993) 202 ITR 584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Suspension of High Court Stay – Section 44-AC\nTopic: Completion of assessments despite High Court stay\nConclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the completion of assessments involving Section 44-AC despite a stay order by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, preventing assessments from becoming time-barred.\nReferences:\n•\nSanyasi Rao (A.) v. Government of A.P. (1989) 178 ITR 31 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "IA. Nos. 1 to 105 in C.A, Nos. 4290-4394 of 1989, decision dated: 31st March, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, Ms. A. Subhashini and P. Parameshwaran, Advocate with him) for the Petitioners", + "Party Name:": "UNION OF INDIA and another\nVs\nA. SANYASI RAO and others\nALI AHMAD\nVs\nDIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; PAKISTAN RAILWAYS\nALI AHMAD\nVs\nDIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; PAKISTAN RAILWAYS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 29 = 1994 SLD 29 = 1994 PTD 324 = (1993) 202 ITR 24 = (1993) 67 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax – Security via Title Deeds\nTopic: Return of title deeds deposited as security for tax arrears\nConclusion: The Revenue failed to provide evidence that the title deeds were deposited for the arrears of the appellant’s father. As the appellant was a minor at the time and lacked the legal capacity to mortgage property, the title deeds must be returned.\nReferences: Constitution of India, Art. 226", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Writ Appeal No. 221 of 1990, decision dated: 26-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " V.S. MALIMATH, C.J. AND T.L. VISWANATHA IYER, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Gopalakrishnan Nair for the Appellant\nN.R.K. Nair for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "N.S. VIJAYARAGHAVAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nEMPLOYEES UNION, REGISTERED ADAM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED\nVs\nTHE REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, BAHAWALPUR REGION, BAHAWALPUR and others\nEMPLOYEES UNION, REGISTERED ADAM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED\nVs\nTHE REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, BAHAWALPUR REGION, BAHAWALPUR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 398 = 2000 SLD 398 = 2000 PTD 2917 = (1998) 234 ITR 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Under Section 54\nTopic: Eligibility for exemption on capital gains for residential house transactions\nConclusion: The assessee satisfied Section 54 conditions by purchasing a new house within one year before the sale of the old house. The use of the property mainly for residence qualifies for exemption, even if part of it was rented. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Kamala Ranganathan (1990) 186 ITR 536 (Mad.)\n•\nCIT v. Mrs. P. Pajasulochana (1994) 210 ITR 423 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case (Reference) No. 313 of 1986, decision dated: 12-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": " N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nP.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR\nMUHAMMAD RAFIULLAH KHAN and 127 others\nVs\nMessrs FAUJI POLYPROPYLENE PRODUCTS\nMUHAMMAD RAFIULLAH KHAN and 127 others\nVs\nMessrs FAUJI POLYPROPYLENE PRODUCTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 30 = 1994 SLD 30 = 1994 PTD 327 = (1993) 202 ITR 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax – Return of Title Deeds\nTopic: Entitlement to title deeds after tax arrears are cleared\nConclusion: There was no evidence that the title deeds were deposited as security for the arrears of the petitioner’s husband or any associated party. As the petitioner cleared her dues, the title deeds must be returned.\nReferences: Vijayaraghavan (ICS.) v. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 24 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 6979 of 1988-E, decision dated: 16th October,1992", + "Judge Name:": " P.K SHAMSUDDIN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Ramcahandran for the Assessee\nN.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "K. DEVAKI AMMA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 27 = 1995 SLD 27 = 1995 PTD 329 = (1994) 70 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal to Tribunal – Amending Grounds of Appeal\nTopic: Allowing amendments to grounds of appeal\nConclusion: Errors in drafting grounds of appeal should not penalize the appellant. Additional or amended grounds may be filed if they do not introduce new facts or legal issues, advancing justice.\nReferences: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, R.10 and R.14", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=14,10 ", + "Case #": "M.A. (A.G.) Nos. 1 and 2 of 1994, I.T.As. Nos.6173/KB and 6174/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 25-10-1994, hearing DATE : 25-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Shamim for Applicant\nBasharatullah Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Dr. MUHAMMAD SOHAIL AKHTAR QURESHI\nVs\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, ISLAMABAD and another\nDr. MUHAMMAD SOHAIL AKHTAR QURESHI\nVs\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 31 = 1994 SLD 31 = 1994 PTD 330 = (1993) 202 ITR 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains – Timing of Sale\nTopic: Determining the time of sale for capital gains\nConclusion: The sale occurred only after obtaining required approvals and setting the consideration. The intention of the parties and subsequent entries in books confirmed the timing. Gains were categorized as long-term.\nReferences:\n•\nAlapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Bhurangya Coal Co. (1958) 34 ITR 802 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R.C. No.62 of 1990, decision dated: 6-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Raghavendra Rao for the Commissioner\nK.R. Prasad for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nH.K. PATIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 28 = 1995 SLD 28 = 1995 PTD 333 = (1995) 71 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nTopic: Scope and application of rectification under Section 156\nConclusion: Rectification must address mistakes apparent on record, brought within statutory limits. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is excluded from the deeming provision of Section 156(3). Repeated rectification requests are non-maintainable once an application is decided or the issue is final.\nReferences:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.156(3), 3 & 136\n•\nPrinciples of natural justice and finality in judicial proceedings", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156(3)3,156,136 ", + "Case #": "MA.(Rect) No.9/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 7-04-1994.hearing DATE : 5-04-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamarul Islam for Applicant\nMalik Bashir Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 399 = 2000 SLD 399 = 2000 PTD 2923 = (1998) 234 ITR 796", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Interest on Securities\nTopic: Classification of interest income on debentures issued by cooperative land mortgage banks\nConclusion: The Tribunal initially held that the interest income from debentures issued by a cooperative land mortgage bank should be assessed under the head Interest on securities. However, upon reference, it was clarified that the cooperative land mortgage bank, being established under the Cooperative Societies Act, did not qualify as a bank established by a Central, State, or Provincial Act. As such, the income could not be assessed under Interest on securities but instead fell under Income from other sources. This classification aligns with the principle that specific statutory provisions must govern the taxability of income. The decision highlights the importance of determining the nature of the entity issuing the securities for accurate tax treatment.\nReference: CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 697 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.1349 and 1350 of 1985. References Nos. 850 and 851 of 1985, decision dated: 4-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nP.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 32 = 1994 SLD 32 = 1994 PTD 335 = (1993) 202 ITR 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure on Technical Collaboration\nTopic: Deduction of payments made under technical collaboration agreements\nConclusion: The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, entered into a collaboration agreement with a foreign company to obtain technical know-how and related assistance for its existing products. The payments were calculated annually based on gross sales and were linked to ongoing business operations. The collaboration agreement, although spanning ten years, was terminable with one year's notice, and upon termination, the assessee was required to return all intellectual property to the foreign company. Furthermore, the secrecy clause prevented the assessee from sharing acquired information with third parties. The court determined that these arrangements provided no enduring benefit and were integral to the existing business, classifying the expenditure as revenue in nature. This decision underscores the principle that expenditures supplementing ongoing operations without creating new assets are deductible as revenue expenditures.\nReference: Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 539 of 1977, decision dated: 27-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner\nG. Krishnan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nKIRLOSKAR CUMMINS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 33 = 1994 SLD 33 = 1994 PTD 341 = (1993) 202 ITR 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust - Capital Gains Exemption\nTopic: Exemption on capital gains from the sale of assets by charitable trusts\nConclusion: The case involved a charitable trust selling gold received as a corpus donation and using the proceeds to acquire a fixed deposit. The trust claimed that the investment qualified as acquiring a new capital asset under Section 11(1A) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Income Tax Officer found discrepancies, as the proceeds were temporarily loaned to third parties before being deposited. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the trust, but the matter was remanded for further examination. The court directed the Tribunal to consider whether the proceeds were genuinely utilized for acquiring new assets and to evaluate in light of the relevant circular and legal precedent. This case highlights the strict scrutiny required to ensure compliance with conditions for capital gains exemptions in charitable trusts.\nReferences:\n•\nCircular F. No.180/54/72-IT(A-1), dated 25-9-1975\n•\nCIT v. Damodar Kalyanji Memorial Trust (ITR No. 101 of 1983)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.162 of 1987, decision dated: 14-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nANARA DEVI CHARITABLE TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 400 = 2000 SLD 400 = 2000 PTD 2925 = (1998) 234 ITR 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Opportunity of Hearing in Revision Cases\nTopic: Procedural requirements under Section 263\nConclusion: The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has the authority to assume jurisdiction under Section 263 if the assessing officer's order is erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue's interests. The court clarified that issuing a notice or providing an opportunity of hearing is not a precondition for assuming jurisdiction. However, before passing an enforceable order under Section 263, the assessee must be given an opportunity to present their case. In this instance, the CIT passed an order without providing such an opportunity, which led the Tribunal to invalidate the order and remand the case. This case emphasizes the importance of balancing jurisdictional authority with procedural fairness in tax proceedings.\nReference: CIT v. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.44 of 1980, decision dated: 12-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R. K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "RENUSAGAR POWER CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 34 = 1994 SLD 34 = 1994 PTD 344 = (1993) 202 ITR 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Entertainment Expenditure and Disallowance\nTopic: Classification of hospitality-related expenses as entertainment\nConclusion: The court ruled that expenditures incurred on providing meals, coffee, and beverages to customers qualify as entertainment expenditure under Section 37(2-A). Explanation 2 to the section explicitly includes such hospitality expenses, even if incurred as part of customary trade practices. Only hospitality expenses for employees are excluded. This decision reinforces the principle that all forms of non-employee hospitality are subject to disallowance, reflecting legislative intent to curb unwarranted business deductions.\nReference: CTT v. Grandlay Electricals (India) (1992) 198 ITR 591 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 188 and 189 of 1982, decision dated: 3rd November, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " B. N. KIRPAL AND P.K BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta and R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner. Bishamber Lal and Ms. Geetanjali Mohan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCENTRAL DISTILLERY AND BREWERIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 29 = 1995 SLD 29 = 1995 PTD 350 = (1995) 71 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Income Tax to Tribal Area Employees\nTopic: Tax liability of government employees working in Tribal Areas\nConclusion: The court rejected claims for exemption from income tax by government employees working in Tribal Areas. The ruling clarified that income tax liability is based on receiving salaries from the state exchequer, regardless of the employee’s location or the nature of their duties. Exemptions are valid only when explicitly provided by statute. This judgment underscores the universal applicability of income tax laws to salaried government employees unless specific exclusions are legislated.\nReferences:\n•\n1992 SCMR 250\n•\n1990 MLD 1960", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(1) ", + "Case #": "C. P. No. 103 of 1994, decision dated: 10-08-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMIR MUHAMMAD NAWAZ MARRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Amanullah Baloch\nRespondent(s) by: Yakub Khan Yousufzai, Advocate-General, Raja Rab Nawaz, Deputy Attorney-General", + "Party Name:": "SANAULLAH KHAN\nVS\nPROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, QUETTA AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 35 = 1994 SLD 35 = 1994 PTD 351 = (1994) 69 TAX 30 = (1993) 202 ITR 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Business Loss Due to Embezzlement\nTopic: Business losses and their tax deductibility\nConclusion: The court upheld that losses incurred due to embezzlement from current accounts maintained for business operations are incidental to the business and deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 28(i). This decision rests on the principle that unforeseen operational losses, integral to conducting business, are deductible, ensuring that only net profits are taxed.\nReferences:\n•\nBadridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 156 of 1978, decision dated: 19-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dilip Dwarkades with P.D. Shah instructed by Messrs M. K. Ambalal and Co. for the Assessee\nG.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley, instructed by Mrs. S. Sengupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "G.G. DANDEKAR MACHINE WORKS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 401 = 2000 SLD 401 = 2000 PTD 2929 = (1998) 234 ITR 785", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nTopic: Validity of rectification orders under Section 154\nConclusion: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal found no apparent mistake in the original order that warranted rectification. The Tribunal affirmed that rectification powers could not be invoked in the absence of a clear error. This decision reaffirms the limited scope of Section 154 for correcting errors that are unequivocal and apparent from the record.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.78 of 1995, decision dated: 25-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. K. MATHUR, C, J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. K. Tankha for the Commissioner\nB. L. Nema, Senior Advocate for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDESHRI METAL (PVT.) LTD\nGHULAM NABI\nVs\nMessrs PROGRESSIVE LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nGHULAM NABI\nVs\nMessrs PROGRESSIVE LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 402 = 2000 SLD 402 = 2000 PTD 3500 = (1999) 238 ITR 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Revenue Expenditure for Replacement of Motors\nTopic: Classification of motor replacements as revenue or capital expenditure\nConclusion: The court ruled that replacing worn-out motors to ensure uninterrupted production in a textile mill did not create new assets or confer enduring benefits. The expenditure was thus classified as revenue expenditure and deductible under Section 37. This ruling reinforces the distinction between expenses that maintain operations and those that result in new asset creation.\nReference: New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.1637 of 1986 (Reference No.1107 of 1986), decision dated: 26-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nP.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSREE NARASIMHA TEXTILES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 30 = 1995 SLD 30 = 1995 PTD 360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Juristic person-Taxation-Change in management of juristic person-¬Effect -Business of the mill was nationalized which was denationalized later and possession of the mill was handed over to the original shareholders-Mill having a separate and independent legal existence, and being a juristic person remained and continued as it was and it was thus liable for dues against it whoever was in the management.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.844 of 1991, decision dated: 29-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MD. ABDUL, JALIL AND MUHAMMAD FAZLUL KARIM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asrarul Hossain, Abdul Alim and Iftikhar Ahmed for Petitioner. Moksedur Rehman for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHAND TEXTILE (SPINNING) MILLS LTD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 36 = 1994 SLD 36 = 1994 PTD 365 = (1993) 202 ITR 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Penalty-Delay in filing return-Levy of penalty -Mens rea not required to be proved by Revenue-Return filed after inordinate delay of 43 months-¬Tribunal cancelling penalty on grounds of dispute among partners leading to protracted litigation, Department seizing books of account and assessee filing incomplete return under compelling circumstances-Disputes among partners no ground for such inordinate delay in filing return-No material brought on record by Tribunal to prove that there was real dispute among partners-¬Tribunal not considering whether long delay was justified-Tribunal proceeding on wrong assumption that Department had to prove mens rea before imposition of penalty-No material to show that assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing return within time-Levy of penalty valid-¬Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271(1)(a).\n \nFor the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee-firm filed the return of its income after a delay of 43 months. The Income Tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for imposition of penalty since the return was filed after an inordinate delay. The assessee contended that the return could not be filed in time as (i) certain connected books of earlier years were in the custody of the Department, and (ii) the partners were quarrelling among t1wmselves and certain cases were pending in the Court in this regard. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the action of the Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the Tribunal did not bring on record any material to hold that there was a real dispute amongst the partners which prevented them from filing the return in time. The submission of the assessee could not be treated as evidence. The Tribunal accepted the submission of the assessee that it had not, intended to rile an incomplete return but had done so later under compelling circumstances. The Tribunal had not considered whether the long delay in filing the return was justified having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal proceeded solely on the erroneous assumption that it was for the Department to prove that there was any conscious disregard on the part of the assessee of its legal obligation to file the return within time. It was not necessary for the Revenue to prove mens rea before penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(a). It was for the assessee to satisfy the authority that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. Merely because there was a dispute amongst the partners or the Income Tax Department had seized the books of account could not be a ground for such inordinate delay. There was no material on record to show that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the return in time. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty.\n \nGujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 455 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=271(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 243 of 1982, decision dated: 27-06-1989", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSOORAJMULL NAGARMULL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 31 = 1995 SLD 31 = (1994) 70 TAX 295 = (1994) 206 ITR 174 = 1995 PTD 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income tax-Tax Clearance Certificate-Registration of document-Value of property shown in the document less than Rs.2 lakh-Registering Authority has no power to enquire into actual value of property and reject registration on ground that Tax Clearance Certificate not produced.\n \nSection 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, does not empower the Registering Authority to decline to register a document on the ground that the market value of a property has not been truly disclosed in the deed in question. If he has reason to believe that the property has not been properly valued in the instrument, he may refer the document to the Deputy Commissioner for proper valuation after registering the document. The power vested in the registering authority to make a reference is not an arbitrary power but a power to be exercised provided he has valid reason to believe that the property has been undervalued.\n \nSection 230-A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, is a provision found in a fiscal legislation. It shall have to be understood by reference to the language used and not with the supposed intention behind the provision. If a document purports to transfer any right in any property valued at more than Rs.2 lakh, section 230-A is attracted. The section does not say that, where any document purports to transfer any right in any property \"\"value of which\"\" is more, than Rs.2 lakh, then the section is attracted; instead, it says that the requisite certificate is necessary when the property is valued at more than Rs.2 lakh. There is a difference between the meaning conveyed by the phraseology which says that the \"\"property valued at\"\" and the phraseology \"\"property value of which is\"\". In the latter case, it is the actual value of the property that shall have to be taken into consideration while, in the former; it is the valuation that has been done by someone who is concerned with the property or the transaction in question. A plain reading of section 230-A conveys the idea that if the document purports to transfer any property valued at more than Rs.2 lakh, the said provision would be attracted. If the valuation is less than Rs.2 lakh, the registering authority is not given the power to enquire into the actual value of the property. Section 230-A nowhere provides for an enquiry by the registering authority at all. Therefore, the registering authority has no competence to reject the registration of a document only on the ground that a tax clearance certificate under section 230-A had not been produced.\n \n(b) Writ-\n \n- Exercise of writ jurisdiction discretionary-Alternative remedy available-¬Question raised of general public importance and likely to affect large number of cases-Exercise of writ jurisdiction will be valid-Constitution of India, Art.226.\n \nExercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary. Even though there is an alternative remedy by way of appeal available to the petitioner, where the question raised is of general public importance and is likely to affect a large number of cases, the exercise of writ jurisdiction will be valid.\n \nSwastic Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1991) 191 ITR 443 (All.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=230 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.31126 of 1992, decision dated: 8-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " K SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Haranahalli for Petitioner\nB. V. Muralidhar for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "M. MOHAN SHET\nVs\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 1 = 1993 SLD 1 = 1993 PTD 371 = (1994) 69 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXIX of 1979)-Ss.13 & 63-Best assessment-Unexplained investment-Ex parte proceedings -Assessee who absents himself after putting in an appearance cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the mischief of default by seeking help from procedure technicalities for that would amount to allow assessee premium on his default-Action of Assessing Officer in proceeding ex parte and making addition on failure of the assessee to reconcile his net wealth was justified in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.9828/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 22-11-1993, hearing DATE : 17-11-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asmar A. Sheikh for Appellant, Agha Sarwar Qazilbash D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 32 = 1995 SLD 32 = (1994) 70 TAX 283 = (1994) 206 ITR 215 = 1995 PTD 372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Business expenditure -Disallowance -Expenditure incurred on maintenance of Guest House in Assessment Year 1978-79-Not deductible-¬ Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37(4).\n \nThe language of subsection (4) of section 37 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 19o1, is quite emphatic and provides that no allowance at all is intended in respect of any expenditure incurred after February 28, 1970, on the maintenance of any residential accommodation in the nature of a guest house. No allowance of depreciation is also permissible for such guest house or any assets in such guest house, The prohibition against the allowance of maintenance expenditure in respect of the guest house is unmitigated. The only relaxation is in respect of holiday homes meant for the exclusive use of whole time employees while on leave. There in no other relaxation. Where, however, the assessee collects any charge from the boarders, such charges have to reduce the amount of disallowance. This subsection was inserted by the Finance Act, 1970, having effect from the assessment year 1970-71.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Capital or revenue expenditure-Sugar industry-Contribution to Molasses Storage and maintenance reserve fund-Revenue expenditure-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37.\n \nTribunal was justified in treating the contribution to Molasses Storage and Maintenance Reserve created under the Uttar Pardesh Sheera Niyatran (Sansodhan) Adesh, 1974, as a revenue expenditure.\n \nCIT v. New India Sugar Mills Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR-212 (Cal) fol.\n \n(c) Income-tax-\n \n-Donation to charitable trust-Special deduction-Trust for religious purposes also-Trustees could spend the entire income of trust for religious purpose-Donation to such trust not entitled to special deduction-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.80-G.\n \nDonation had been given to the Viswa Mangal Trust and one of the purposes of the trust was to establish, maintain and/or grant aid to places of worship. Thus, one of its purposes was clearly a religious purpose and it was open to the trustees to spend the entire income or the fund of the trust for this one purpose alone. Thus, this purpose clearly attracted the mischief of Explanation 3 to section 80-G which mandatorily requires that charitable purposes could not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. The assessee was not, therefore, entitled to special deduction under section 80-G in respect of the donation to the Viswa Mangal Trust.\n \nCIT v. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 308 (Cal.) fol.\n \nCost of food provided to the employees in the guest house and the salary paid to them constituted the cost of maintenance of the guest houses because the object of employment of the said employees was the maintenance of the guest houses. It was the employees who maintained and ran the guest houses. The expenses relating to food, tiffin and salary paid to guest house staff and depreciation on assets used in the assessees guest house, were not deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37(4),256 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.54 of 1985, decision dated: 11-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUPPER GANGES SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 2 = 1993 SLD 2 = 1993 PTD 374 = (1993) 202 ITR 708", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Reference-Income from undisclosed sources-Interest-Addition of notional interest on loan whether justified-Question of law-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256.\n \nQuestion whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of the notional interest on the loan given by the assessee was a question of law.\n \n(b) Income-tax-\n \n-Reference-Capital or revenue expenditure-Expenditure on repair of worn-out machinery-Whether revenue expenditure-Question .of law-¬Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37 & 256.\n \nQuestion whether .the expenditure on repair of worn-out plant and ma4inery was revenue expenditure was a question of law.\n \n(c) Income-tax-\n \n-Reference-Business expenditure-Disallowance of expenditure-¬Expenditure on purchasing articles for presents-Presents not for purposes of advertisement-Rule 6-B does not apply-Tribunal justified in allowing deduction of expenditure-No question of law arises-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37 & 256-Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, R. 6-B.\n \nRule 6-B of the Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, applies only in cases of presentation of articles by way of advertisement. It was not claimed by the assessee that items, which were presented were by way of advertisement. This being so, the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of the cost of the articles purchased for purpose of presentation. No question of law arose from its order.\n \n(d) Income-tax-\n \n-Reference-Capital or, revenue expenditure-Expenditure on maintenance of garden-Tribunal justified in allowing part of expenditure-No question of law arose-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37 & 256.\n \nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing part of the expenses in connection with the maintenance of the garden as revenue expenditure. No question of the law arose from its order.\n \n(e) Income-tax-\n \n-Reference-Business expenditure-Disallowance-Computation of admissible expenditure under S.40(c)-Tribunal justified in holding that pro rata electricity and water charges incurred for official use of premises occupied by Directors was, deductible-No question of law arose. Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37 & 256.\n \nTribunal was right in directing that, while computing admissible deduction under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the pro rata electricity and water charges incurred for alleged official use of the premises occupied by the directors should be allowed. No question of law arose from its order.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.144 of 1990, decision dated: 17-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND ARUN KUMAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Aggarwal for the Commissioner\nB. Gupta and R.K. Chaufla for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 3 = 1993 SLD 3 = 1993 PTD 376 = (1993) 202 ITR 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Assessments and Stay Orders\nTopic: Effect of judicial stay orders on assessment timelines\nConclusion: The court clarified that the period during which proceedings are stayed by judicial orders must be excluded from the limitation period for completing assessments. In this case, the assessments, though delayed, were completed within the adjusted timeline. This ruling ensures that statutory timelines do not penalize Revenue for delays caused by judicial interventions.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.274 of 1987, decision dated: 22-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "INDIA PERRO ALLOY INDUSTRY PVT. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 33 = 1995 SLD 33 = (1994) 70 TAX 316 = (1994) 206 ITR 260 = 1995 PTD 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation, Development Rebate, and Industrial Projects\nTopic: Classification of assets as plant and entitlement to special deductions\nConclusion: The Tribunal affirmed that certain assets, such as wet docks and shipways, constituted plant and were thus eligible for depreciation and development rebate. However, dredging of the sea for creating approach channels was deemed analogous to roads and not classified as plant, disqualifying it from development rebate. The court further validated the special deductions under Section 80-J for a frigate project, emphasizing the functional test for determining whether an asset qualifies as plant. \nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Mazagaon Dock Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 460 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 228 of 1978, decision dated: 15-07-1993", + "Judge Name:": " V. A. MOHTA AND DR. B.P. SARAF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Balasubramaniam and J.P. Devadhar, instructed by Mrs. S. Sengupta for the Commissioner\nS.E. Dastur with Arvind Sonde with P.F. Kaka, instructed by Messrs Bayley and Co., for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAZAGAON DOCK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 37 = 1994 SLD 37 = 1994 PTD 383 = (1994) 69 TAX 59 = (1993) 202 ITR 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Firms with Changed Constitution\nTopic: Treatment of income during reconstitution of a firm\nConclusion: The court held that income earned before and after a change in the firm's constitution must be assessed separately. The assessment should align with the firm's constitution at the time of the assessment. This decision clarified that income derived by the original and reconstituted firms cannot be clubbed, ensuring fairness in taxation.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Shiv Shanker Lal Ram Nath (1977) 106 ITR 342 (All.)\n•\nWazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 761 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.466 of 1981, decision dated: 9-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " V.A. MOHTA AND DR. B.P. SARAF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.S. Dewani for the Assessee\nP.N. Chandurkar; Senior Advocate (Smt. Chandurkar and Smt. Wandile with him) for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KUKREJA AGENCIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\n[Supreme Court of Pakistan]\nMUHAMMAD ANWAR NASEEM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE and another\nMUHAMMAD ANWAR NASEEM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 34 = 1995 SLD 34 = 1995 PTD 385 = (1994) 206 ITR 92 = (1994) 70 TAX 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance on Plant and Machinery\nTopic: Integrated manufacturing processes and investment allowance eligibility\nConclusion: The court upheld that items integral to manufacturing, such as electrical installations, underground cables, and air-conditioning systems, qualify for investment allowance under Section 32-A. These were deemed necessary for operational integration, and the distinction between principal and accessory processes was dismissed as impractical.\nReferences:\n•\nHinton v. Maden and Ireland Ltd. (1960) 39 ITR 357\n•\nScientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.329 in CA. No.372/(Cal) of 1987, decision dated: 6th, February, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr.D. Pal and Miss M. Seal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTRIBENI TISSUES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 38 = 1994 SLD 38 = 1994 PTD 398 = (1993) 202 ITR 710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Expenditure on Unset Business\nTopic: Non-deductibility of expenses for business not yet established\nConclusion: Expenses incurred for setting up a new line of business that never materialized were disallowed as deductions. The court reasoned that deductibility applies only to expenses related to an established and operational business.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Kanoria General Dealers (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 524 (Cal.)\n•\nWestern India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 151 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.49 of 1987, decision dated: 15-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "MINING MACHINERY AND EXPLOSIVES (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 35 = 1995 SLD 35 = 1995 PTD 401 = (1995) 71 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale and Leaseback Transactions\nTopic: Determination of fair market value in sale and leaseback transactions\nConclusion: The court emphasized the dual nature of sale and leaseback as legal and financial arrangements. While the sale price may differ from market value, the Assessing Officer must determine the fair market value without arbitrary or harsh methods. Expert valuation was recommended for fairness.\nReference: Modern Accounting by Sidney Davidson; International Accountant Standard No. 17", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched.,R.8(5)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.550/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 10-04-1994.hearing DATE : 29-11-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Nasir Bokhari, D.R. for Appellant\nNasim Hyder, C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 403 = 2000 SLD 403 = 2000 PTD 2930 = (1998) 234 ITR 730", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Delayed Filing of Returns\nTopic: Statutory minimum penalties for late returns\nConclusion: Penalty under Section 271(1)(a) is mandatory and cannot be reduced below the statutory minimum. The Tribunal cannot exercise discretion once it establishes that a penalty is warranted.\nReference: Maya Rani Punj v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 330 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1998 of 1984 (Reference No. 1463 of 1984), decision dated: 29-01-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Subramaniam for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJ. STEAD & CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 4 = 1993 SLD 4 = 1993 PTD 409 = (1993) 202 ITR 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Inclusion of Collected Sales Tax in Income\nTopic: Tax treatment of sales tax collected but not paid\nConclusion: For entities using the mercantile system of accounting, sales tax collected but unpaid during the adjudication period is treated as revenue income for the year of collection.\nReferences:\n•\nJonnalla Narashimharao & Co. v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 588 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1193 of 1977, decision dated: 17-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 15, 1975, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.C. No. 35 of 1974.\nDr. V. Gauri Shankal, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, C. Ramesh and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nA Subba Rao, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)\nVs\nT. NAGGIREDDY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 39 = 1994 SLD 39 = 1994 PTD 410 = (1994) 69 TAX 4 = (1993) 202 ITR 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Surtax and Capital Base Computation\nTopic: Revision powers concerning bonus share issuance\nConclusion: The court ruled that the Commissioner’s revision order was valid when addressing the capital base adjustment for bonus shares. The Tribunal was directed to refer the question of law to the High Court.\nReference: CIT v. East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 314 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964=16(1),18(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.394 of 1978, decision dated: 17-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nDipa Dixit, Advocate for Swarep John & Co., Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 404 = 2000 SLD 404 = 2000 PTD 2933 = (1998) 234 ITR 756", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Partnership Dissolution\nTopic: Taxability of capital gains from asset relinquishment\nConclusion: Gains from the sale of partnership assets during dissolution were taxable under Section 45 as capital gains. The court distinguished between distributing sale proceeds versus assets in kind, limiting exemptions under Section 47(ii).\nReferences:\n•\nJames Anderson v. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 123 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.50 of 1990, decision dated: 24-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MOTILAL B. NAIK AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. V. Prasad for the Commissioner\nK. Ranganathachari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSARASWATHI TALKIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 40 = 1994 SLD 40 = 1994 PTD 431 = (1993) 202 ITR 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Interest\nTopic: Commissioner’s discretion under Section 273-A\nConclusion: The court invalidated the Commissioner’s rejection of waiver applications for subsequent assessment years when earlier years were considered favorably. It reiterated that all applications must be evaluated equitably.\nReferences:\n•\nRam Sarandas Har Swaroop Mal v. CIT (1990) 186 ITR 503 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.10584 of 1991, decision dated: 10-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " S. RAJENDRA BABU, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ganesh Rao for the Petitioner\nH. Raghavendra Rao for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C. SUBRAMANI\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 41 = 1994 SLD 41 = 1994 PTD 419 = (1993) 202 ITR 660", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retention of Seized Books\nTopic: Return of seized books post-investigation\nConclusion: The court directed the Revenue to return the petitioner’s seized books as no justification was provided for prolonged retention beyond statutory limits.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.386 of 1992, decision dated: 2-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " A.P. MISRA AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "VARIETY GENERAL STORES\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 405 = 2000 SLD 405 = 2000 PTD 2941 = (1998) 234 ITR 772", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Discretionary Trusts\nTopic: Simultaneous taxation of trustees and beneficiaries\nConclusion: Trustees and beneficiaries cannot both be taxed on the same income. The Tribunal upheld that discretionary trust income must be assessed as individual income under Section 164.\nReferences:\n•\nJyotendrasinhji v. Tripathi (1993) 201 ITR 611 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos. 150 with 159, 160 and 184 of 1998, decision dated: 11-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Nayak instructed by Manish R. Bhatt for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSANCHAY ANGANA TRUST and others\nMUHAMMAD YOUSUF SIDDIQUI\nvs\nHaji SHARIF KHAN through L.Rs. and others\nMUHAMMAD YOUSUF SIDDIQUI\nvs\nHaji SHARIF KHAN through L.Rs. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 36 = 1995 SLD 36 = 1995 PTD 421 = (1995) 71 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Advertisement Expenses for Pharmaceuticals\nTopic: Deductibility of advertising expenses beyond regulatory limits\nConclusion: The court ruled that excess advertising expenses by pharmaceutical companies are deductible, rejecting artificial caps imposed by the Income Tax Department.\nReferences:\n•\n1994 PTD 1271", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(xviii),2(24)readwithSecondSched.,Cl.(65),2(44)11,4(2) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.58/HQ of 1987-88, decision dated: 15-10-1994.hearing DATE : 12-10-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Appellant\nM. Yousuf Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 42 = 1994 SLD 42 = 1994 PTD 423 = (1994) 69 TAX 124 = (1993) 202 ITR 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Administrative Deductions from Interest Income\nTopic: Deductibility of administrative costs from interest earned by custodians\nConclusion: The Tribunal allowed full deduction of statutory and administrative expenses from interest income before taxation", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.175 of 1984, decision dated: 4th December,1989", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.N. Bhattacharjee for the Commissioner\nR.N. Bajoria and S.C. Sinha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRICHARDSON AND CRUDDAS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 43 = 1994 SLD 43 = 1994 PTD 427 = (1994) 69 TAX 128 = (1993) 202 ITR 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rental Income Classification\nTopic: Rectification and classification of income\nConclusion: Classifying rental income as property or business income is debatable and cannot be rectified under Section 154", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.280 of 1987, decided 30-10-1990", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "ORIENTAL COTTON CORPORATION AND MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 112 = 1996 SLD 112 = 1996 PTD 431 = (1994) 206 ITR 567", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax and Net Maintainable Rent\nTopic: Valuation adjustments for liabilities and deductions\nConclusion: Payments to lessees to vacate property were deductible in calculating net maintainable rent, and unpaid municipal taxes did not constitute secured debts.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 422 of 1991, decision dated: 20-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Chatterjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nVs\nCHAMPA PROPERTIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 37 = 1995 SLD 37 = 1995 PTD 431 = (1995) 71 TAX 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Autonomous Corporations\nTopic: Liability of government-controlled corporations\nConclusion: Punjab Small Industries Corporation was deemed separate from the provincial government and subject to income tax.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165,165A Punjab Small Industries Corporation Act, 1973=3(2) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.7187 to 7189 of 1994, heard on 6-11-1994.hearing DATE : 6-11-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Javed for Petitioner.\nMuhammad IIyas Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES\nVs\nTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CIRCLE 14, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 44 = 1994 SLD 44 = 1994 PTD 434 = (1993) 202 ITR 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Business Loss Set-Off Rules\nTopic: Mandatory set-off of losses\nConclusion: Assessees must set off business losses against non-capital gains income in the same year and cannot defer for future adjustments.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.513 of 1977, decision dated: 22-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U.T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanium with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBRITISH INSULATED CALENDER'S LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 38 = 1995 SLD 38 = 1995 PTD 435 = (1995) 71 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Banking Securities and Taxability\nTopic: Revenue income from securities\nConclusion: Income from securities held as stock-in-trade by banks is taxable as business income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=20 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2520/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 12-09-1994.hearing DATE : 12-09-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND TAHSEEN AHMAD BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "E.U. Khawaja for Appellant. Ilyas Shaikh, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 45 = 1994 SLD 45 = 1994 PTD 439 = (1994) 69 TAX 131 = (1993) 202 ITR 389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Interest on Delayed Returns\nTopic: Interest applicability in reassessment\nConclusion: Interest under Section 139(8) is leviable during reassessment proceedings, ensuring compliance with filing obligations.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.194 of 1989-W, decision dated: 10-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " M.M. PAREED PILLAY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran for Petitioner. P.K\nRavindranatha Menon for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "THEKKANATU-FIRMS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 39 = 1995 SLD 39 = 1995 PTD 440 = (1995) 71 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Allowance and Business Expenditure\nTopic: Extra depreciation allowance, asset existence, additions, and business penalties\nConclusions:\n•\n(a) Extra Depreciation Shift Allowance cannot be claimed without clearly defined shifts for the usage of assets like storage tanks for molasses.\n•\n(b) The Income Tax Officer must verify the existence of assets like dock lines before disallowing depreciation.\n•\n(c) Deletion of additions unchallenged by the department implies acceptance.\n•\n(f) Penalties paid for breach of contractual obligations (e.g., exporting molasses with lower sugar content) are admissible as business expenditures.\nReferences:\n•\nGunaish Sugar Mills v. CIT (1960) 73 ITR 395\n•\nBlacks Law Dictionary; 1986 PTD 52", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(v),ThirdSched.,Rr.1,2,3,23(xviii) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 3967/KB to 3970/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 2-11-1994.hearing DATE : 2-11-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S. SHOUKAT ALI ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Basharatullah Khan, D.R. for Appellant, Muzaffar Jafferi, A.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 46 = 1994 SLD 46 = 1994 PTD 441 = (1993) 202 ITR 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Wrong Estimates of Advance Tax\nTopic: Non-speaking orders for interest under Section 216\nConclusion: Levying interest for incorrect estimates of advance tax requires a speaking order. Orders without reasoning are invalid and subject to quashing.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Hindusthan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd. (1989) 180 ITR 21 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 311 of 1987, decision dated: 1st November, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Mitra and R.C. Prasad for the Commissioner\nM.K. Poddar, S.N. Dey and D. Mitra for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nWILIARD INDIA LTD\nKAMRAN MURTAZA\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN\n ( under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan)\nKAMRAN MURTAZA\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 47 = 1994 SLD 47 = 1994 PTD 444 = (1993) 202 ITR 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Pursue Reference by Assessee\nTopic: Assessee's inaction in reference proceedings\nConclusion: When an assessee fails to provide necessary steps for adjudication, the court may return the reference unanswered.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.29 of 1984, decision dated: 4-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee\nP.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "O.K. INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 48 = 1994 SLD 48 = 1994 PTD 445 = (1993) 202 ITR 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure\nTopic: Payments for technical know-how and depreciation claims\nConclusions:\n•\nPayments for technical know-how are revenue expenditures, not capital, due to the lack of enduring benefit.\n•\nDepreciation on assets used for scientific research is not allowable under Section 32.\nReferences:\n•\nAlembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.158 of 1978, decision dated: 21st January, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanium with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner\nG. Krishnan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 49 = 1994 SLD 49 = 1994 PTD 450 = (1993) 202 ITR 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income\nTopic: Timing of income accrual based on agreements\nConclusion: Income accrues when the right to receive it arises, not necessarily when the agreement is signed. Guaranteed profits spread over multiple years do not accrue in full at the agreement date.\nReference: CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 48 of 1978, decision dated: 19-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramaniam with Mrs. Manjula Singh for the Commissioner\nMrs. S. Jagtiani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nACE BUILDERS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 40 = 1995 SLD 40 = 1995 PTD 451 = (1995) 71 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liabilities in Case of Deceased Persons\nTopic: Tax recovery from legal heirs\nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities must be pursued against legal representatives post-death.\n•\nProceedings without proper notice to legal heirs are invalid.\nReferences:\n•\nC.B.R. v. Chanda Motors 1992 PTD 1681", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=74134(3) Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.172 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.707/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 21st November, 1994.hearing DATE : 23rd September, 1994.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Shahnaz Rafique, D.R. for Appellant\nNemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 50 = 1994 SLD 50 = 1994 PTD 457 = (1993) 201 ITR 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Representatives in Assessment Proceedings\nTopic: Validity of assessment proceedings after death\nConclusion: Assessment proceedings may continue against legal representatives, but notices must be issued to them to ensure procedural fairness.\nReference: Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 505 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ No. 849 of 1972, decision dated: 21st October, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITTAL, C.J. AND SAT PAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anoop Sharma for Petitioner\nB. Gupta and R.N. Verma for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VIJAY SARIN\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 41 = 1995 SLD 41 = 1995 PTD 458 = (1995) 71 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers and Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal\nTopic: Tribunal's jurisdiction and interpretation of statutory provisions\nConclusions:\n•\nProvisos in statutes cannot override main provisions.\n•\nNotification conferring jurisdiction to single-member benches does not nullify the jurisdiction of division benches.\nReferences:\n•\nStatutory Construction by Crawford, 1940 Edn.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,133(6) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=R.14 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.583/KB and 584/KB of 1988-89, decision dated: 2-10-1994.hearing DATE : 2-10-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " PER MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUE, CHAIRMANAGREEING WITH ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER-", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Ahmed Farooqui for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 51 = 1994 SLD 51 = 1994 PTD 461 = (1994) 69 TAX 93 = (1993) 202 ITR 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Limitation\nTopic: Time limits for rectification of assessment orders\nConclusion: The doctrine of merger is not universally applicable. Rectification time limits run from the original order for aspects not addressed in subsequent rectifications.\nReferences:\n•\nAhmedabad Srangpur Mills Co. Ltd. v. A.S. Manobar, ITO (1976) 102 ITR 712 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=154 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.51 of 1991, decision dated: 24-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHIND WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 406 = 2000 SLD 406 = 2000 PTCL 794 = 2000 PTD 2949", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments\nTopic: Validity of reopening assessments based on prior records\nConclusion: Reopening assessments based on the same facts without new material constitutes a change of opinion, which is impermissible under the law.\nReferences:\n•\n1995 PTD (Trib.) 580", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 & 59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A, No.2437/LB of 1999, decision dated: 12-02-2000, hearing DATE : 12-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan for Appellant\nMrs. Talat Altaf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 52 = 1994 SLD 52 = 1994 PTD 470 = (1994) 69 TAX 54 = (1993) 202 ITR 291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation on Unregistered Vehicles\nTopic: Eligibility for depreciation on purchased vehicles\nConclusions:\n•\nDepreciation applies even if vehicles are not registered in the assessee’s name, provided ownership is established.\n•\nAmendments in depreciation rates apply prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 357 of 1987, decision dated: 14-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " V.A. MOHTA AND DR. B.P. SARAF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.N. Chandurkar, Senior Advocate (Smt. Chandurkar and Sint. Wandile with him) for the Commissioner\nL.S. Dewani and K.P. Dewani and Moriyani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMirza ATAULLAH BAIG and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 53 = 1994 SLD 53 = 1994 PTD 476 = (1993) 202 ITR 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surrender of Lease as a Transfer\nTopic: Taxability of compensation for lease surrender\nConclusion: Premature surrender of a leasehold right amounts to a transfer under Section 2(47), attracting capital gains tax.\nReferences:\nLet me know if you need a deeper dive into any of these cases or specific discussions!", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 23 of 1984, decision dated: 10-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Prasad for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRAMIA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD\nABDUL HAMEED CHANNA through Attorney\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad\nand 2 others\nABDUL HAMEED CHANNA through Attorney\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad\nand 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 54 = 1994 SLD 54 = 1994 PTD 479 = (1994) 69 TAX 51 = (1993) 202 ITR 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding Refunds\nTopic: Conditions for withholding refunds under Section 241 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\n•\nRefunds can be withheld if one of three conditions is met: pending proceedings, appeals, or notices.\n•\nAn Assessing Officer must provide reasoning showing how granting the refund would adversely affect revenue.\n•\nA non-speaking order withholding refunds is invalid and liable to be quashed.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.6171 of 1992, decision dated: 15-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " A.P. RAVANI AND Y.B. BHATT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner\nM.R. Bhatt for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Vs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 55 = 1994 SLD 55 = 1994 PTD 481 = (1993) 202 ITR 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and Interest\nTopic: Right to appeal and disputes over interest under Section 214.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe right to appeal must be explicitly granted by statute.\n•\nInterest disputes under Section 214 are appealable as they form part of the assessment.\n•\nLegal fictions in tax law must be carried to their logical conclusion.\nReferences:\n•\nChockalingam v. CIT (1963) 48 ITR (SC) 34\n•\nCIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co. (1992) 194 ITR 645 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=214,229,246(c) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.444 of 1977, decision dated: 1st December, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U.T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.J. Mehta with I.M. Munim for the Assessee. G.S. Jetley with P.S. Jatley instructed by Ms. S. Sengupta for the Commissioner. A.V. Sonde instructed by M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Intervener.", + "Party Name:": "CALTEX OIL REFINING (INDIA) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 407 = 2000 SLD 407 = 2000 PTD 2953 = (2000) 82 TAX 426 = (2001) 83 TAX 390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Land Acquisition\nTopic: Taxability of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.\nConclusion: Interest awarded under Section 28 is considered a revenue receipt, not a capital receipt, and is taxable.\nReferences:\n•\nDr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT (1964) ITR 151 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(29)136(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894=28 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 30 of 1993, decision dated: 30-05-2000 hearing DATE : 25-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": " NASIRUL MULK AND SHAH, JEHAN KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Muhammad Khattak for Appellant\nIqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., PESHAWAR\nVs\nMessrs GHULAM SIDDIQUE, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 42 = 1995 SLD 42 = 1995 PTCL 258 = 1995 PTD 482 = (1995) 71 TAX 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Retrospective Application of Laws\nTopic: Retrospective application and fairness in taxation statutes.\nConclusions:\n•\nRetrospective amendments are valid if they adhere to principles of fairness.\n•\nSubstantive rights such as the right to appeal can only be altered explicitly or through necessary implication.\nReferences:\n•\nEssential Commodity Industries v. CBR 168 Tax 247", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3789/LB and 4197/LB of 1994, decision dated: 27-12-1994.hearing DATE : 15-11-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, IRSHAD AHMAD NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBERS, INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Fayyaz Ahmad Ch. and Abdul Hamid Oamar, ITP for Appellant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Mansoor Ahmed Khan and Latif Shahid. Amicus curiae. Shabaz Butt. LA. and Nawal Rai N. Oad. D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 408 = 2000 SLD 408 = 2000 PTD 2958 = (2000) 82 TAX 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exempt Income and Workers Welfare Fund\nTopic: Treatment of exempt income in assessments.\nConclusions:\n•\nExempt income forms part of the total assessable income, even if not taxable.\n•\nWorkers Welfare Fund applies to all assessable income, irrespective of tax exemption.\nReferences:\n•\nArmy Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14 & 48,Second Schedule,Clause118A,118D Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4,3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6, 8, 10 and 14 of 1999, decision dated: 12-04-2000 hearing DATE : 12-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Appellant\nNafeers Ahmad Ansari for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, MULTAN ZONE, MULTAN\nVs\nALLAH YAR COTTON GINNING & PRESSING MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, MULTAN ROAD, VEHARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 56 = 1994 SLD 56 = 1994 PTD 494 = (1994) 70 TAX 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Scrutiny Selection\nTopic: Disclosure of reasons for selecting cases for scrutiny.\nConclusion: Failure to disclose material justifying scrutiny renders the action arbitrary and discriminatory.\nReferences:\n•\nPakistan Educational Society v. Government of Pakistan 1993 PTD 804", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1274 of 1992, decision dated: 9-08-1993, hearing DATE : 9-08-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND WAJIHUDDIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Athar Saeed for Petitioner.\nShaik Haider for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMADI OIL TRADING CO. through Partner, Karachi\nVs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, SOUTHERN REGION, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 57 = 1994 SLD 57 = 1994 PTD 501", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Insurance Company Taxation\nTopic: Assessment of insurance companies and surcharge.\nConclusions:\n•\nSurcharge is levied based on retained income excluding tax liability.\n•\nInsurance company profits are assessed using statutory accounts under the Insurance Act.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Mercantile Fire and Central Insurance Company Limited 1989 PTD 142", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=FirstSched.,R.6 & S.10(7),10(2A)(7) & FirstSched.,R.1,10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 36 of 1990, decision dated: 30-03-1993.hearing DATE : 30-03-1093.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, C, J. AND SHOUKAT HUSSAIN ZUBEDI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaik Haider for Applicant.\nMuhammad Fareed for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-III, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 409 = 2000 SLD 409 = 2000 PTD 2976 = (1999) 235 ITR 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation for Motor Buses\nTopic: Depreciation rates for vehicles used in a transport business.\nConclusion: Assessees in the business of running motor buses on hire are entitled to 50% depreciation under relevant rules.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 83 of 1996, decision dated: 3rd October, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND DIPAK MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abhay Sapre for the Commissioner\nG.N. Purohit for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHARMA MOTOR SERVICE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 58 = 1994 SLD 58 = 1994 PTD 503 = (1994) 69 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge and Working Capital\nTopic: Calculation of surcharge.\nConclusion: Taxes payable are excluded from total income for determining retained income for surcharge.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. The Asbestos Cement Industries Limited 1993 PTD 343", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1977=Sched.1,PartIII ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 124 of 1990, decision dated: 21st April, 1993.hearing DATE : 21st April, 1993.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND SHOUKAT HUSSAIN ZUBEDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant.\nMakhdoom Ali Khan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 59 = 1994 SLD 59 = 1994 PTCL 541 = 1994 PTD 505 = (1994) 69 TAX 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "House Rent and Salary Valuation\nTopic: Interpretation of house rent allowance rules.\nConclusion: The calculation should consider minimum of time scale distinct from basic salary. Rule amendments suggested for clarity.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=3(2)(a),4,R.3(2),Rule3(1) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 293/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 5-06-1993.hearing DATE : 5-06-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ismail, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RIFFAT HASSAN and 9 others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue/\nSecretary, Revenue Division and another\nRIFFAT HASSAN and 9 others\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue/\nSecretary, Revenue Division and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 410 = 2000 SLD 410 = 2000 PTD 2978 = (1999) 235 ITR 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Litigation Costs\nTopic: Compensation for costs in refund disputes.\nConclusion: Interest compensates delay but not litigation costs, warranting separate compensation.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "C. W. No. 1849 of 1998, decision dated: 15-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.C. Jain for Petitioner\nR.D. Jolly with Ms. Prem Lata Barisal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BAGRI FOUNDATION\nVs\nCHIEF COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 60 = 1994 SLD 60 = 1994 PTD 514", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge on Retained Income\nTopic: Surcharge computation.\nConclusion: Surcharge is not applicable on taxes payable; retained income excludes tax liability.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. The Asbestos Cement Industries Limited 1993 PTD 343", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1977=Sched.I,PartIII ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.223 of 1988, heard on 10-03-1993.hearing DATE : 10-03-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI AND SHOUKAT HUSSAIN ZUBEDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaik Haider for Applicant.\nMohsin Tayebally for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs ATLAS BATTERY LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 61 = 1994 SLD 61 = 1994 PTD 515 = (1994) 69 TAX 122 = 1994 PTCL 389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Casual Income\nTopic: Definition of casual income.\nConclusion: Voluntary, whimsical payments without consideration are not taxable as income.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Messrs Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd. 1987 PTD 482", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.145 of 1990, decision dated: 19-05-1993.hearing DATE : 19-05-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND AKHTAR ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaik Haider for Applicant.\nIqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES II, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs CIBA GEIGY (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 62 = 1994 SLD 62 = 1994 PTD 517 = (1993) 68 TAX 193 = 1994 PTCL 159 = 1994 PTD 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts\nTopic: Grounds for rejecting accounts of a garments manufacturer.\nConclusions:\n•\nAccounts cannot be rejected solely for missing consumption records or unverifiable supplier details.\n•\nThe assessing officer must demonstrate inability to deduce profits accurately.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. M/s. Krud Sons Ltd. 1994 PTD 174", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.68, 69, 70 and 71 of 1990, decision dated: 12-10-1993", + "Judge Name:": " SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND SHOUKAT HUSSAIN ZUBEDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rahan Hassan Naqvi for Applicant.\nNasrullah Awan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RIMPA (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-I, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 411 = 2000 SLD 411 = 2000 PTD 3535 = (1999) 238 ITR 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Interest\nTopic: Retrospective amendments creating tax liability.\nConclusion: Interest levied due to retrospective amendments is subject to waiver.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Pure Beverages Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 57 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition Nb.4996-98 of 1993, decision dated: 11-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramabhadran for Petitioner\nM. V. Seshachala for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BHARAT CONDUCTORS (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 412 = 2000 SLD 412 = 2000 PTD 2980 = (1999) 235 ITR 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": ": Amnesty Scheme and Assessment\nTopic: Amnesty schemes and appeal rights.\nConclusions:\n•\nQuestions of law arise when assessing officers reject amnesty offers.\n•\nDeductions for commissions require factual determination.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.72 of 1995, decision dated: 18-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND MUKUL MUDGAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate with Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar for Petitioner\nR.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RAJASTHAN MERCANTILE CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 43 = 1995 SLD 43 = 1995 PTCL 17 = 1995 PTD 523 = (1995) 71 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes\nTopic: General principles of statutory interpretation.\nConclusions:\n•\nPlain language of statutes must be respected; ambiguities resolved equitably.\n•\nCourts cannot add or modify statutory provisions unless ambiguity exists.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT, Punjab v. Ram Lal Mansikh Rai (1970) 77 ITR 964", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(1),66A,134A,134 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As. Nos.8163/LB of 1991-92 and 202/LB of 1994, decided n 23rd November, 1994, hearing DATE : 5-10-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar and Tahir Mahmood Butt for Appellants.\nZahid Pervaiz LA. and Muhammad Sadiq Butt, D.R. for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 63 = 1994 SLD 63 = 1994 PTCL 370 = 1994 PTD 524 = (1994) 69 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Appeals Against Assessing Officer's Orders\nTopic: Right to appeal under Section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nNot every order by the Assessing Officer is appealable; the right of appeal must be expressly provided under Section 129.\n•\nOrders under Section 52 for treating an assessee as a defaulter were not appealable before the Finance Act of 1987.\n•\nThe amendment to Section 129 allowing such appeals is not retrospective.\nReferences:\n•\nMuhammad Farid Jan v. Colonization Officer, Sukkur Beraj Hyderabad, PLD 1965 SC 399", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,2(7),50(4)(5),52,56,62 Income Tax Act, 1922=18(3BB) ", + "Case #": "I.TA s. Nos. 1377/LB and 1378/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 17-06-1992.hearing DATE : 7-05-1992.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Arshad, DR for Appellant\nNaseem Zafar ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 64 = 1994 SLD 64 = 1994 PTCL 587 = 1994 PTD 535 = (1994) 69 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income and Valuation of Property\nTopic: Addition of unexplained investment under Section 13.\nConclusions:\n•\nFor additions under Section 13, the Assessing Officer must obtain prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and provide the assessee an opportunity to explain.\n•\nDiscrepancies between declared values and stamp duty valuations justify additions but must account for property-specific disadvantages.\n•\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is bound to interpret statutory provisions, even if challenged on broader jurisprudential grounds.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Siemen A.G. 1991 PTD 488", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(2),13(1)(d),62,111 Stamp Act, of 1899=27A,27 ", + "Case #": "I.TA s. Nos. 1714/HQ of 1989-90, 507/HQ and 678/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 21st November, 1992.hearing DATE : 21st November, 1992.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SABIR SYED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque for the Assessee.\nIsrar Raouf, D.R. for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 413 = 2000 SLD 413 = 2000 PTD 2993 = (1999) 235 ITR 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure on Foreign Travel\nTopic: Deduction for travel expenses under Section 37(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\n•\nTravel expenses for the wife of a chief executive can be allowed if justified as business-related.\n•\nThe Tribunal disallowed 50% of such expenses due to possible social aspects of the travel.\nReferences:\n•\nBombay Mineral Supply Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 437 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.39 of 1995, decision dated: 24-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K.K. USHA AND G. SIVARAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner\nC. N. Ramchandran Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASPINWALL & CO. LTD\nMoazzam Hayat, Members\nFarrakh Qayyum, Members\nNOOR-ULKHITAB\nVS\nELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Chief Election Commissioner and another\nNOOR-ULKHITAB\nVS\nELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Chief Election Commissioner and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 414 = 2000 SLD 414 = 2000 PTD 2997 = (1999) 235 ITR 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction for Penalty Proceedings\nTopic: Continuation of penalty proceedings post-amendment.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe deletion of Section 274(2) with effect from April 1, 1976, does not affect penalty proceedings already referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before that date.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Sharadamma (Smt.) (1996) 219 ITR 671 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.715 of 1982 (Reference No.453 of 1982), decision dated: 4-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": " K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND S.M. SIDICKK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPILOT PEN COMPANY (INDIA) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 415 = 2000 SLD 415 = 2000 PTD 2999 = (1999) 235 ITR 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Loans, Deposits, and Penalty\nTopic: Acceptance of cash deposits exceeding Rs. 20,000 in violation of Section 269-SS.\nConclusion:\n•\nDeposits categorized as Amanat (trusts) are not considered loans or deposits under Section 269-SS.\n•\nQuestions of law arose regarding whether such deposits could attract penalties under Section 271-D.\nReferences: None explicitly cited", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 163 of 1296, decision dated: 22-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rakesh Garg for Appellant\nB.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "JAGIR SINGH BALRAJ KUMAR & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 416 = 2000 SLD 416 = 2000 PTD 3002 = (1999) 235 ITR 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Reassessment Based on Escaped Income\nTopic: Validity of reassessment under Section 147(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nInformation from appellate orders constitutes valid grounds for reassessment if income has escaped assessment.\n•\nAmounts deleted in a parent's assessment but not assessed in the minors' hands justify reopening the minors' assessments.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Simon Caves Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 212 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.J.C and 2829 of 1991-R, decision dated: 8-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Binod Poddar, Biren Poddar and B.K. Jalan for Petitioners\nK.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SAURABH KUMAR PANDEY and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 417 = 2000 SLD 417 = 2000 PTD 3008 = (1999) 235 ITR 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest and Business Expenditures\nTopic: Deductions for interest on borrowed capital, business expenditures, and provisions for liabilities under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nInterest on borrowed capital used for business is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii).\n•\nExpenditure incurred for business purposes and liabilities that are not contingent are deductible under Section 37.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 173 of 1980, decision dated: 9-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND M. KATJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for Petitioners\nP.K.R. Menon and N.R.K Nair for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAM LAL RAJARAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 418 = 2000 SLD 418 = 2000 PTD 3011 = (1999) 235 ITR 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Ownership\nTopic: Conditions for claiming depreciation on assets under Section 32 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nOwnership for depreciation purposes does not require full legal title; control and use are sufficient.\n•\nA firm's vehicles contributed by partners as capital were deemed assets of the firm, entitling it to depreciation.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.261 of 1981, decision dated: 17-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNAVDURGA TRANSPORT CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 44 = 1995 SLD 44 = 1995 PTD 557 = (1995) 71 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sovereign Immunity and Taxation\nTopic: Applicability of tax to government-controlled institutions under Article 165-A of the Constitution of Pakistan.\nConclusions:\n•\nSovereign immunity is unavailable to corporations or institutions owned or controlled by the government.\n•\nService clubs controlled by the federal government are taxable under Article 165-A.\nReferences:\n•\nPakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. C.I.T. 1979 PTD 431", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(6) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Art.165A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.14/KB of 1984-85, 1422/KB of 1986-87, 3634/KB, 3635/KB of 1987-88,151/KB and 152/HQ of 1989-90, decision dated: 25-01-1994, hearing DATE : 21st August, 1993.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Appellant.\nMuhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 419 = 2000 SLD 419 = 2000 PTD 3014 = (1999) 235 ITR 635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Salary and Incentive Bonus\nTopic: Tax treatment of incentive bonuses and salary under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nIncentive bonuses given to cover expenses are partly deductible (up to 30%) if spent for official duties.\n•\nThe profit element in incentive bonuses not spent is taxable as salary.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Sheo Raj Bhatia (1999) 235 ITR 523 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References No.54 with Income-tax References Nos. 272 of 1993, 121, 132 of 1996, 15, 19 and 49 of 1997, decision dated: 27-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.G. Desai and Mihir Joshi with M.R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. S.N. Divetia for the Assessee (in I.T.Rs. Nos.54, 272 of 1993 and 132 of 1996). Mukesh M. Patel for the Assessee (in I. T.Rs. Nos. 121 of 1996, 15 and 19 of 1997)\nS.N. Soparkar for the Assessee (in I.T.R. No. 49 of 1997)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKIRANBHAI H. SHELAT and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 5 = 1993 SLD 5 = 1993 PTCL 791 = 1994 PTD 560", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjAzTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Appeals and Jurisdiction\nTopic: Imposition and appeals against penalties under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nPenalties for non-compliance must align with specific provisions (e.g., Section 110 penalties cannot substitute Section 108).\n•\nAppellate authorities have limited options: confirm, cancel, enhance, or reduce penalties.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132(1)(b),58,61,65 & 110,108,132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.6303/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 22-07-1993", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj Khalid for Appellant\nMuhammad Ather, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 420 = 2000 SLD 420 = 2000 PTD 3041 = (1999) 235 ITR 431", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Writs Against Reassessments\nTopic: Maintainability of writs challenging reassessments under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nWrits are generally inadmissible if alternative remedies exist unless the reassessment is mala fide or jurisdictionally flawed.\nReferences:\n•\nTitaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 142 ITR 663", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.P. No. 5109 of 1997, decision dated: 11-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": " G. S. SINGHVI AND N.C. KHICHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Mahajan for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "HARBHAJAN SINGH\nVs\nT.C. BANSAL, I.T.O. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 65 = 1994 SLD 65 = 1994 PTD 565 = (1994) 69 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal Orders and Rectifications\nTopic: Scope of rectification under Section 156 and appeals under Section 135 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nRefusals to rectify mistakes are not appealable under Section 135.\n•\nRectified orders are treated as fresh orders under Section 135, allowing appeals.\nReferences:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited (1971) 82 ITR 892", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),135,156 ", + "Case #": "SA. No.217/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 17-11-1993.hearing DATE : 16-11-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, CHAIRMAN AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Applicant\nMazhar F. Sherazi, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY, PUNJAB PROVINCIAL BRANCH\nvs\nZIA ULLAH KHAN NIAZI\nPAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY, PUNJAB PROVINCIAL BRANCH\nvs\nZIA ULLAH KHAN NIAZI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 113 = 1996 SLD 113 = 1996 PTD 569 = (1995) 212 ITR 92 = (1995) 73 TAX 64 = 1996 PTCL 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest for Late Tax Remittance\nTopic: Liability for interest on late remittance of tax deducted at source under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nInterest payment under Section 201(1A) is mandatory, with no consideration for reasonable cause.\nReferences:\n•\nBennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. V.P. Damle, Third ITO (1986) 157 ITR 812 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 143 of 1984, decision dated: 30-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S.M, JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arun Sathe for the Assessee\nG.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate, P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. -Bhattacharyya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PENTAGON ENGINEERING PVT. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 66 = 1994 SLD 66 = 1994 PTD 570 = (1994) 69 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Rectification\nTopic: Limits on rectification of assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nSection 156 allows rectification of patent mistakes but not reopening or reviewing assessments.\n•\nReopening cases for under-assessment should follow procedures under Section 65.\nReferences:\n•\nMothuradas B. Moths v. C.I.T. 1965 PTD 651", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,132,5913,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.4710/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 30-12-1993.hearing DATE : 13-12-1952.", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Nauman, I.T.P. for Appellant\nAgha Sarwar Qazilbash, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 114 = 1996 SLD 114 = 1996 PTD 572 = (1995) 212 ITR 653 = (1995) 73 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surtax and Loan Inclusion\nTopic: Computation of capital for surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.\nConclusions:\n•\nLoans repayable over seven years qualify for inclusion in capital computations.\nReferences:\n•\nNew India Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1977) 108 ITR 181", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1513 to 1516 of 1977, decision dated: 24-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " J. S. VERMA, S. P BHARUCHA AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Viswanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar and S.N. Terdol with him) for Appellant\nJoseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Punit Tyagi, Advocate (of J.B. Dadachanji & Co. with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nNEW INDIA INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 421 = 2000 SLD 421 = 2000 PTD 3043 = (1999) 235 ITR 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Compulsory Acquisition\nTopic: Taxability of capital gains and balancing charges under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nCompensation from compulsory acquisition attracts taxes under Sections 41(2) and 45.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No.635 of 1983, decision dated: 19-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": " N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee\nC.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 67 = 1994 SLD 67 = 1994 PTCL 363 = 1994 PTD 577 = (1994) 69 TAX 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Public Companies and Tax Rates\nTopic: Tax rates for banking companies under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nBanking companies are treated as public companies for tax purposes under Part V of the First Schedule.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=First Schedule,PartV,parasA,D ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 789/LB of 1993, decision dated: 6-01-1994.hearing DATE : 4-01-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmed Shuja Khan for Appellant\nJavid-ur-Rehman, D.R. and Muhammad Anwar Goraya, Deputy Commissioner for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 45 = 1995 SLD 45 = 1995 PTD 577 = (1995) 71 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Promotion and Disallowance\nTopic: Sales promotion expenses exceeding prescribed limits under the Drugs Rules, 1976.\nConclusions:\n•\nPenalties for excess expenses under other rules are not automatically extended to the Income Tax Ordinance.\nReferences:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Alpha Insurance Company PLD 1981 SC 293", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(xviii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 287 of 1988, decision dated: 1st December, 1994.hearing DATE : 1st December, 1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Petitioner.\nShaikh Haider for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BEECHAM PAK\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 422 = 2000 SLD 422 = 2000 PTD 3053 = (1999) 235 ITR 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Garnishee Proceedings\nTopic: Tax recovery and garnishee notices under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nValid garnishee notices and admitted liabilities cannot be quashed via writs.\n•\nWrits are inadmissible when alternate remedies exist.\nReferences:\n•\nBeharilal Ramcharan v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 129 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10269 of 1990, decision dated: 30-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.R. Prasad for Petitioner\nM.V. Sheshachala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SALAR PUBLICATIONS TRUST\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 46 = 1995 SLD 46 = 1995 PTD 580 = (1995) 71 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6Q1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments\nTopic: Conditions for reopening assessments under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nReopening based on reappraisal of existing facts or audit objections is impermissible.\n•\nSatisfaction of the Assessing Officer is a prerequisite.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.2887/KB, 2888/KB, 2889/KB, 2891/KB and 2892/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 13-12-1994.hearing DATE : 4-09-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.S. Jafri, I.T.P for Appellant.\nM. Yousaf Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 68 = 1994 SLD 68 = 1994 PTD 581 = 1994 PTCL 555 = (1994) 70 TAX 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petitions in Tax Matters\nTopic: Maintainability of constitutional petitions challenging tax assessments under Article 199.\nConclusions:\n•\nConstitutional petitions are maintainable when questioning the vires of legislation or alleging mala fide actions.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-615 of 1992, decision dated: 5-07-1993.hearing DATE : 5-07-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " G.H. MALIK AND AHMED YAR KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Appellant.\nNasrullah Awan for Respondents.\nApplicant by: Mir. Qaisar Mehamood, DR.\nRespondent by: Mr. Waseem Ahmad Malik, Advocate", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others\nAPPELLETE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE.\nThe CIR, Zone-III, LTU Lahore....-Applicant\nvs\nM/s. Pakistan Fruit Juice, Lahore. ...\nThe CIR, Zone-III, LTU Lahore....-Applicant\nvs\nM/s. Pakistan Fruit Juice, Lahore. ...\n by: Mr. Waseem Ahmad Malik, Advocate" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 423 = 2000 SLD 423 = 2000 PTD 3537 = (1999) 238 ITR 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital and Corporate Veil\nTopic: Disallowance of interest on borrowed capital under Section 36 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nBorrowed capital must be directly used for the assessee's business.\n•\nThe corporate veil can be lifted to ascertain the real nature of transactions.\n•\nIn this case, the funds were diverted through a subsidiary to benefit an associate company, rendering the interest non-deductible.\nReferences: None explicitly cited", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. No. 846 of 1984 (Reference No.761 of 1984), decision dated: 25-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R, JAYASIMHA BABU AND N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nR. Kumar for T.N. Seetharaman and Hema Sampath for the Assessee\nAppellant by: Mr. Kamran Iqbal Butt, FCA.\nRespondent by: Mr. Muhammad Asim Halim, DR.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (MADURAI) (P.) LTD\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE\nM/s. Expeditors International Pakistan Ltd, Lahore....\nvs\nThe CIR, Zone-I, (LTU), Lahore.....\nM/s. Expeditors International Pakistan Ltd, Lahore....\nvs\nThe CIR, Zone-I, (LTU), Lahore....." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 69 = 1994 SLD 69 = 1994 PTD 584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay on Recovery Proceedings\nTopic: Stay of recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Rules, 1982.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Tribunal directed that attached properties should not be auctioned and bank accounts be released to enable the assessee to continue business operations.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=Rr.117 & 165 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 ", + "Case #": "I.TA s. Nos. 2400/KB and 2401/KB of 1991-92 and MA. (Stay) No.59/KB and 60/KB of 1993, decision dated: 18-01-1994.hearing DATE : 18-01-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Farogh Nasim for Applicant\nAli Nasir Bukhari, D.R. for Respondent\nApplicant by: Mr. Shahid Mustafa, FCA.\nRespondent by: Mr. Shafiq-ur-Rehman Siddiqui, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE\nM/s. TNW Engineering Works, Lahore...-Applicant\nvs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO.-II Lahore.. \nM/s. TNW Engineering Works, Lahore...-Applicant\nvs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO.-II Lahore.." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 70 = 1994 SLD 70 = 1994 PTD 585", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Alleged Changes in Wealth Statement\nTopic: Burden of proof for changes in the wealth statement during stay proceedings.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe burden to prove alterations in the wealth statement lies with the Assessing Officer.\n•\nThe Tribunal granted a stay of recovery pending verification of the allegation.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(6) ", + "Case #": "MAs. (Stay) Nos. 16/KB to 18/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 7-12-1993.hearing DATE : 7-12-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir for Applicant.\nAli Nasir Bukhari, D.R. for Respondent\nAppellant by: Mr. M. Iqbal Hashmi, Advocate\nRespondent by: Ms.Ghazala Hameed Razi, DR.", + "Party Name:": "APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE LAHORE BENCH\nM/s. TEXCO, New Garden Town, Lahore.....\nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore....\nM/s. TEXCO, New Garden Town, Lahore.....\nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore...." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 71 = 1994 SLD 71 = 1994 PTD 586", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reliance on Inspectors’ Reports\nTopic: Basis for additions to stocks and furniture under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nAdditions based on inspectors' reports received post-assessment and unsupported estimates for furniture are unsustainable.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 774/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 7-12-1993.hearing DATE : 7-12-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQU4, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir for Appellant\nAli Nasir Bukhari, D.R. for Respondent\nAppellant by: Ch. Qamar uz Zaman, Adv.\nRespondent by: Mr. M. Ali, DR", + "Party Name:": "APPELATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE.\n(Empowered u/s 130(8)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to exercise powers and functions of the ATIR sitting singly)\nM/s. Seven Impex, 16-B, Lalazar Colony Raiwind Road, Lahore.... \nvs\nThe CIR, Zone-III, RTO, Lahore.... \nM/s. Seven Impex, 16-B, Lalazar Colony Raiwind Road, Lahore.... \nvs\nThe CIR, Zone-III, RTO, Lahore...." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 72 = 1994 SLD 72 = 1994 PTD 590 = (1994) 69 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Double Taxation Avoidance with Sweden\nTopic: Tax exemption for Swedish nationals under the Pakistan-Sweden Tax Convention.\nConclusions:\n•\nNon-resident Swedish nationals working in Pakistan for less than 183 days and acting for their Swedish employer qualify for tax exemption.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=163 ", + "Case #": "Civil T.R. No.30 of 1976, decision dated: 17-04-1993.hearing DATE : 17-04-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.\nAppellant by: Mr. Bilal Zafar, Advocate.\nRespondent by: Mr. Shafique-ur-Rehman Siddique, D.R.", + "Party Name:": "LARS COSTA ADHOM\nVs\nTHE C.I.T., RAWALPINDI\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE\nM/s. Lion Press (Pvt) Ltd, Lahore.....\nvs\nThe CIR, ZonEll, RTO, Lahore......\nM/s. Lion Press (Pvt) Ltd, Lahore.....\nvs\nThe CIR, ZonEll, RTO, Lahore......" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 424 = 2000 SLD 424 = 2000 PTD 3060 = (1999) 235 ITR 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Payments and Business Deductions\nTopic: Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits under Section 40A(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nPayments made under exceptional circumstances, verified by affidavits, qualify for deductions.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.237 of 1981, decision dated: 10-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Hashim Aslam Butt, Advocate. \nRespondent by: Mr. Hassan Mabroor, D.R", + "Party Name:": "LARS COSTA ADHOM\nVs\nTHE C.I.T., RAWALPINDI\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE\nM/s. Creative Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Lahore..... \nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore. ......\nM/s. Creative Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Lahore..... \nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore. ......" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 73 = 1994 SLD 73 = 1994 PTD 593", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment Procedures and Limitation\nTopic: Proper procedural recourse and limitation for assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nProceedings must align with specific sections (e.g., Section 56 versus Section 65).\n•\nAssessments made beyond the statutory limitation are void.\nReferences:\n•\n1991 PTD 294", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,64(1) & 62,13(1)(e),13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.TA s. Nos. 2280/LB to 2082/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 9-06-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fayyaz Ahmad Ch. for Appellant\nMuhammad Athar, D.R. for Respondent\nApplicant by: Mr. M. Ayub Sabir, Advocate\nRespondent by: Mr. Zahid Mehmood, DR.", + "Party Name:": "APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE\nM/s. NTAM (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore..-Applicant \nvs\nThe CIR, RTO-ll, Lahore...\nORDER\n2- 366/1 01.10.2014 10.10.2014 The AR of the taxpayer filed adjournment till 16.10.2014\n4- 377/01 21.10.2014- 28.10.2014 The AR of the taxpayer sought\n5- 441 05.1.20117.1.2014 The adjournment allowed through Office letter\nM/s. NTAM (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore..-Applicant \nvs\nThe CIR, RTO-ll, Lahore..." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 47 = 1995 SLD 47 = 1995 PTD 598 = (1995) 71 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction and Criminal Prosecution\nTopic: Legal distinctions between penalty, interest, and prosecution under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nInterest and penalties do not preclude prosecution for non-deposit of tax deducted at source.\n•\nNo statutory notice is required before initiating criminal proceedings.\nReferences:\n•\nJayappan v. Perumal (1984) 149 ITR 696 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=194A,200,201(1A),276,278B279 ", + "Case #": "S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.194, 268, 270, 272, 274, 276, 278 and 280 of 1990, decision dated: 30-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. K. Kasliwal and Ravi Kasliwal for Petitioners. Amar Singh for Respondent No. 2\nAppellant by: Mr. Hashim Aslam Butt, Advocate\nRespondent by: Mrs. Ghazala Hameed Razi, DR", + "Party Name:": "UNIVERSAL SUPPLY CORPORATION and others\nVs\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN and another\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE BENCH, LAHORE.\nM/s. Ishtiaq Steel Industry, Lahore... \nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore... \nM/s. Ishtiaq Steel Industry, Lahore... \nvs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore..." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 74 = 1994 SLD 74 = 1994 PTCL 559 = 1994 PTD 598 = (1994) 69 TAX 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Repeal of Laws and Savings\nTopic: Legal effects of repealed ordinances under the Constitution of Pakistan.\nConclusions:\n•\nRepealed laws do not carry forward unless expressly saved for pending actions or past transactions.\n•\nProcedural mechanisms established under repealed rules remain valid if aligned with substantive laws.\nReferences: None explicitly cited", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=264(b)(c),264(e) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,4,5 Income Tax Rules, 1982=35A,35B,35C,35D,35E,35F,35G ", + "Case #": "LTA. No. 444/KB of 1989-90, decision dated: 19-12-1993, hearing DATE : 28-11-1993", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, CHAIRMAN, NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND M. SARWAR KHAWAJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi, I.N. Pasha and Kh. Muhammad lqbal for Appellants (in both I.T.As.). Nasrullah Awan, L.A. and Muhammad Saeed Khan, DR for Respondents (in both I.T.As.)\nPetitioner by: Syed Reza Ali, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 4407/2015, 27698/2014 and 1812/2014.\nM/s Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Barrister Shehryar Kasuri, Muhammad Humzah and Raza Imtiaz, Advocates for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 18213/2013, 1627/2014, 28272/2013, 25950/2013, 16851/2015, 14764/2015, 14918/2015, 14766/2015, 14299/2015, 37683/2015 and 38187/2015.\nM/s Salman Akram Raja and Malik Ahsan Mehmood, Advocates for the petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 17350/2013, 6498/2014 and 26963/2013.\nMr. Naveed A. Andrabi, Advocate in W.P. No. 21463/2015, 5983/2015, 23273/2015, 7207/2014, 17854/2013, 1510/2014 and 40307/2015.\nMr. Mansoor Usman Awan, Advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 24049/2013, 5028/2013 and 4725/2013.\nMr. Waseem Ahmad Malik, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 578/2014, 582/2014, 580/2014, 571/2014, 1380/2014, 767/2014, 5403/2014, 5389/2014, 773/2014, 818/2014, 822/2014, 803/2014, 729/2014, 817/2014, 575/2014, 777/2014, 732/2014, 815/2014, 1019/2014, 5391/2014, 5398/2014, 5401/2014, 5353/2014, 5396/2014, 1028/2014, 8812/2014, 5407/2014, 5405/2014, 1009/2014, 1010/2014, 1026/2014, 1378/2014, 18674/2014, 18936/2014, 1753/2016, 727/2016, 374/2016, 32897/2015, 1887/2016 and 40156/2015.\nM/s Muhammad Masood Chishti and Waseem Ahmad Malik, Advocates in W.P. No. 14508/2013\nM/s Uzair Karamat Bhandari, Mian Muhammad Kashif and Muhammad Suhail Tipu, Advocates for the petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 8208/2014, 39392/2015 and 39601/2015.\nM/s Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Sumaira Khanum, Advocates for the petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 5803/2013, 31549/2015, 31540/2015, 31979/2015, 31547/2015, 29795/2015, 31538/2015, 28663/2015, 28664/2015, 28650/2015, 12646/2015, 4130/2015 and 39286/2015.\nDr. Ilyas Zafar and Syed Nasir Ali Gillani, Advocates in W.P. No. 6253/2015. \nM/s Shezada Mazhar, Jawad Khan Lodhi and Asad Raza, Advocates in Writ Petitions No. 15945/2015 and 20091/2015.\nM/s Muhammad Mohsin Virk, Abu Baker Haider and Shahzad Saleem Bhatti, Advocates for the petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 31403/2015, 31400/2015, 31405/2015, 20440/2015, 3501/2015.\nMr. Abdul Waheed Habib, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 35537/2015, 32971/2015, 32959/2015 and 34216/2015.\nMr. Moiz Tariq, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 1565/2016, 1567/2016, 1572/2016, 35140/2015, 35282/2015, 35267/2015, 1573/2016, 35187/2015, 35334/2015, 35186/2015, 37646/2015, 35406/2015, 35255/2015, 37650/2015, 37653/2015, 36098/2015, 35306/2015, 38392/2015, 35836/2015, 35844/2015, 35852/2015, 35855/2015, 36450/2015, 37656/2015, 35139/2015, 35360/2015, 38405/2015, 35841/2015, 35845/2015, 35853/2015, 35856/2015, 37658/2015, 35271/2015, 35405/2015, 35834/2015, 35843/2015, 35851/2015, 35854/2015, 35280/2015,\nM/s Zulfiqar Khan and Tanveer Hussain, Advocates for the petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 18809/2014, 18805/2014, 18969/2014, 18804/2014, 18812/2014, 1881/2014, 30593/2015, 19559/2014, 18808/2014, 30594/2015, 1264/2016 and Advocate for 18806/2014 18968/2014 18807/2014 30577/2015, 35822/2015. \nMr. Adnan Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No. 38907/2015. \nSyed Muhammad Ijaz, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No. 40373/2015. \nMr. Masood Ahmad Wahla, Advocate in W.P. No. 698/2016.\nMalik Sahib Khan Awan, Advocate in W.P. No. 36023/2015.\nRana Hamad Aslam, Advocate in W.P. No. 37725/2015\nM/s. Zia Haider Rizvi and Sajjad Haider Rizvi, Advocates in Writ Petitions No. 26223/2015 and 33043/2015.\nMr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Advocate in W.P. No. 19739/2015.\nMr. Sikandar Javed, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 23327/2015, 30339/2015, 24749/2015, 24885/2015 and 24750/2015.\nMr. Khurram Shahbaz Butt, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 1850/2013 and 21536/2015\nMr. Sumair Saeed Ahmad, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 29695/2015 and 29696/2015\nMr. Khubaib Ahmad, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 31248/2015 and 31236/2015.\nMr. Muhammad Amir Sohail, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 8789/2015 and 19078/2015.\nMr. Ghulam Murtaza, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 1807/2014 and 1802/2014.\nSirdar Ahmad Jamal, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 8072/2014 and 8397/2014.\nMr. Assad Ullah Jaral, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 1034/2015 and 1027/2015.\nM/s Hamza H. Rashid and Ch. Saeed Ashraf, Advocates in Writ Petitions No. 723/2015, 27465/2015 and 23314/2015.\nMr. Imran Anjum Alvi, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 1375/2015, 4489/2015, 2915/2015, 2665/2015, 2081/2015, 2681/2015 and 1373/2015.\nMr. Saqib Akram Gondal, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 17365/2015, 17364/2015, 17366/2015 and 17367/2015. \nCh. Riaz Ahmad Basra, Advocate in W.P. No. 12686/2014.\nMr. Awais Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate in W.P. No. 15486/2015\nMr. Haider Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No. 4124/2015.\nMr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Advocate in W.P. No. 997/2014\nM/s Jawad Hassan, Haider Zaman Qureshi and Rana Muhammad Asif, Advocates in W.P. No. 33002/2013\nMalik Muhammad Ali Awan, Advocate in W.P. No. 31877/2015. \nBarrister Ahmad Umar Saqib, Advocate in W.P. No. 16874/2013.\nSardar Kalim Ilyas, Advocate in W.P. No. 32573/2013. \nMr. Hamza Khan, Advocate in W.P. No. 33876/2014.\nSyed Samar Hussain, Advocate in W.P. No. 15864/2013.\nMr. Akhtar Javaid Malik, Advocate in W.P. No. 8845/2014.\nM/s Ali Sibtain Fazli, Hasham Ahmad, Umer Tariq Gill, Advocates in W.P. No. 7995/2014.\nMian Muhammad Ismail Thaheem, Advocate in W.P. No. 7686/2014.\nMian Muhammad Irfan, Advocate in W.P. No. 9130/2014.\nM/s Shahid Pervaiz Jami and Mudassar Shuja-ud-Din, Advocates in W.P. No. 1841/2014.\nMr. Mustafa Kamal, Advocate in W.P. No. 23521/2014.\nRao Muhammad Faisal Iqbal, Advocate in W.P. No. 7052/2013.\nCh. Waseem Ahmad and Aamir Ch., Advocates in W.P. No. 16565/2015.\nM/s Afzal Bashir and Rao Qasim Ali Khan, Advocates in W.P. No. 38767/2015.\nKh. Mahmood Ayaz, Advocate in W.P. No. 18183/2015.\nMr. Fawad Malik Awan, Advocate in W.P. No. 21516/2015.\nMr. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Advocate in W.P. No. 174/2015. \nRespondents by: M/s Nasar Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Jahangir Wahla, Deputy Attorney Generals for Pakistan.\nM/s Anwaar Hussain and Ahmad Hasan Khan, Assistant Advocate Generals, Punjab.\nM/s Sajid Ijaz Hotiana, Afzal Hussain Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid, Umer Sharif and Barrister Muhammad Ahmad Pansota Advocates PRA.\nMr. Sarfraz Ahmed Cheema, Advocate in Writ Petitions No. 5028/2013, 7052/2013, 1802/2014, 25950/2015 and 29257/2015.\nCh. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Advocate for the respondent.\nMr. Sarfraz Akhtar, Advocate P.T.A. in Writ Petitions No. 32573/2013 and 14508/2013.\nMr. Ibrar Ahmad, Advocate FBR in W.P. No. 26223/2015.\nMr. Ali Raza Kabir, Advocate No. 3 in W.P. No. 16874/2013.\nMr. Ayyaz Shaukat, Advocate No. 4 in W.P. No. 16874/2013.\nMr. Ghulam Subhani, Advocate No. 6 in W.P. No. 5316/2015.\nAssisted by: M/s. Qaisar Abbas and Mohsin Mumtaz, Research Associates & Civil Judges, Lahore High Court Research Centre(LHCRC).", + "Party Name:": "The Institute of Architects, Pakistan(Lahore Chapter)\nvs\nProvince of Punjab, etc.\nRaja Jehanzeb Akhtar, in W.P. No. 5316/2015. \nThe Institute of Architects, Pakistan(Lahore Chapter)\nvs\nProvince of Punjab, etc." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 425 = 2000 SLD 425 = 2000 PTD 3063 = (1999) 237 ITR 630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Deduction on Transport Contracts\nTopic: Applicability of Section 194C for transport contracts under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nSection 194C does not apply to transport contracts prior to July 1, 1995, based on Explanation III.\nReferences:\n•\nAssociated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 435 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 14991-93, 24697, 26725, 28494-95, 29410, 32004 of 1994 and 18245 and 19947 of 1997, decision dated: 14-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Parthasarathi for Petitioners (in W.Ps. Nos.14991 to 14993 of 1994 and 29410 of 1994). Vigneshwar S. Shastry for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 26725 of 1994). S. Shekar Shetty for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 24697 of 1994). P.K. Basheer Ahmed for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 32004 of 1994). M. Ravi Prakash for Petitioner- (in W. Ps. Nos. 18245 and 19947 of 1997). M. V. Seshachala for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "V. M. SALGAOCAR & BROS. LTD. and others\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 426 = 2000 SLD 426 = 2000 PTD 3071 = (1999) 237 ITR 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Accrual for Services in India\nTopic: Retrospective applicability of Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Explanation effective from April 1, 1979, is not retrospective and does not apply to earlier assessment years.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. S. G. Pgnatale (1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.R. No. l of 1984, decision dated: 17th June. 1998", + "Judge Name:": " C. K. THAKKAR AND M. C. PATEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir Joshi and Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. Manish J. Shah and J.P. Shah for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nI.G. BELLINE\nSHAFQAT MUNIR\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary Education, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 5 others\nSHAFQAT MUNIR\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary Education, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 48 = 1995 SLD 48 = 1995 PTD 612 = (1995) 71 TAX 218 = (1995) 71 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Contractual Penalties\nTopic: Business deductions for penalties under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.\nConclusions:\n•\nPenalties deducted directly from contract payments are allowable as business expenses.\nReferences:\n•\nCentral Trading Agency v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 32 Tax 104", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No.172 of 1990, heard on 6-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND ABDUL LATIF U. QURESHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES-II, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs INSTRUMENTS KRAFTS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 49 = 1995 SLD 49 = 1995 PTD 614 = (1995) 71 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Fiscal Statutes and Retrospectivity\nTopic: Interpretation of explanations in fiscal statutes.\nConclusions:\n•\nRetrospective operation cannot be presumed unless explicitly stated.\n•\nAmendments affecting assessment years apply prospectively unless the legislative intent dictates otherwise.\nReferences:\n•\nMercantile Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Income Tax Officer 1989 PTD 221", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos.9 of 1986, 29, 124 of 1987, 45, 59, 290, 291 of 1988, 4 and 131 of 1991, decision dated: 25-10-1994. dates of hearing: 20th, 24th and 25-10-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha and Sirajul Haq for Appellant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "EVERSHINE PAINTS (EASTERN) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 75 = 1994 SLD 75 = 1994 PTD 615 = (1993) 203 ITR 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Reassessment Notice and Communication of Reasons\nTopic: Assessee's entitlement to reasons recorded under Section 148 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusions:\n•\nWhen a return is filed in response to a notice under Section 148, the assessee is entitled to a copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, except where protecting the source or informant is deemed necessary.\nReferences:\n•\nK.M. Bansal v. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 247 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993, decision dated: 24-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND A.N. GUPTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for Petitioner\nStanding Counsel for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MAN MOHAN SINGH\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 76 = 1994 SLD 76 = 1994 PTD 617 = (1993) 203 ITR 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Minor’s Income in Parent’s Total Income\nTopic: Aggregation of minor child's income with the parent's income under Section 64(1)(iii).\nConclusions:\n•\nThe income of a minor from a firm, where they are admitted to benefits of a partnership, is includible in the total income of the parent, even if the parent has no other income.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Sanyasi Mohapatra (1991) 188 ITR 602 (Orissa)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 54 of 1986, decision dated: 11-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " A. P. MISRA AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.B.L. Srivastava and Vikram Gulati for the Assessee\nStanding Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PUSPA DEVI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 77 = 1994 SLD 77 = 1994 PTD 621 = (1993) 203 ITR 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dissolution of Firm and Taxability of Amounts Received\nTopic: Treatment of amounts received by a partner on dissolution of a firm.\nConclusions:\n•\nAmounts received by a partner on dissolution as their share of goodwill and revaluation premiums do not qualify as benefit or perquisite arising from business under Section 28(iv).\nReferences:\n•\nMalabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.42 of 1980, decision dated: 17-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " G. T. NANAVATI AND S.D. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mihir J. Thakore for Messrs R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. CHETANABEN B. SHETH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 50 = 1995 SLD 50 = 1995 PTCL 29 = 1995 PTD 624 = (1995) 71 TAX 269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Credits and Procedure in Deemed Income Cases\nTopic: Handling unexplained investments and deemed income under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nAssessing officers are not required to issue separate notices at different stages for additions under Section 13(1) and 13(2).\n•\nA single, comprehensive notice is sufficient if the requirements of law and natural justice are fulfilled.\nReferences:\n•\n1989 PTD (Trib.) 150\n•\n1991 PTD (Trib.) 758 (Overruled)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(2Ato2-F) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=14 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),13(2),134 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.3468/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 12-12-1994.hearing DATE : 28-11-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, TAHSEEN AHMAD BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ASAD ARIF, AS.K SHEERANI AND MEHBOOB ALAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Athar Saeed, Rehan Hasan Naqvi, Qazi Anwar Kamal and Arshad Siraj for Appellant.\nBasharatullah Khan, M. Yousuf Butt, Malik Bashir Ahmed, D.Rs. and Miss Seema Jabeen, D.C.I.T. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 427 = 2000 SLD 427 = 2000 PTD 2619 = (1999) 236 ITR 577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Debenture Premium\nTopic: Deduction of debenture premiums and investment allowance for data processing machinery.\nConclusions:\n•\nPremium on debentures is deductible over the years between issuance and redemption.\n•\nData processing machinery not exclusively for accounting qualifies for investment allowance.\nReferences:\n•\nMadras Industrial Investment Corp. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.210 of 1993, decision dated: 3rd September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " AJOY NATH RAY AND DIPAK PRAKAS KUNDU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. P. Agarwal and J. C. Saha for the Commissioner\nR. N. Bajoria, J. P. Khaitan and Prabhay Khaitan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 78 = 1994 SLD 78 = 1994 PTD 630 = (1993) 203 ITR 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Non-Resident Shipping Assessments\nTopic: Applicability of Section 44B for non-resident shipping concerns and rectification under Section 154.\nConclusions:\n•\nLosses and depreciation set off in assessments prior to the introduction of Section 44B (effective April 1, 1976) cannot be retrospectively rectified.\nReferences:\n•\nT.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 73 of 1983, decision dated: 14-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "SK Mitra and RC. Prasad for the Commissioner\nDr. Pal and Miss M. Seal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAMERICAN EXPORT LINES INC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 428 = 2000 SLD 428 = 2000 PTD 3074 = (1999) 237 ITR 638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Undisclosed Sources\nTopic: Determination of whether amounts constitute income from undisclosed sources.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe question of whether additions made for unexplained sales, closing stock, and cash credits constitute income from undisclosed sources is a question of fact and not subject to further legal reference.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Reference No.42 of 1996, decision dated: 4-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " B. R. ARORA AND B. S. CHOUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sandeep Bhandawat for the Commissioner\nVineet Kothari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPUSHPA RAJ MEHTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 79 = 1994 SLD 79 = 1994 PTD 636 = (1993) 203 ITR 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Dividend and Accumulated Profits\nTopic: Taxation of loans as deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e).\nConclusions:\n•\nLoans received by a holding company from its wholly owned subsidiary can be treated as deemed dividends to the extent of accumulated profits, including reserves for development rebates.\n•\nOnly loans received in the relevant accounting year are taxable as deemed dividends.\nReferences:\n•\nBadiani (P.K.) v. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 642 (SC)\n•\nSadhana Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 318 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 159 of 1979, decision dated: 26-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " SMT. SUJATA MANOHAR AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dilip Dwarkadas, instructed by M/s. Gagrat & Co. for the Assessee\nG.S. Jetley and P.S. Jetley instructed by Mrs. S. Sengupta for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "STAR CHEMICALS PVT. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nGHULAM YASIN\nvs\nMessrs NOVARTIS PHARMA (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI through Authorities\nGHULAM YASIN\nvs\nMessrs NOVARTIS PHARMA (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI through Authorities" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 429 = 2000 SLD 429 = 2000 PTD 3076 = (1999) 237 ITR 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Based on Change of Opinion\nTopic: Validity of reassessment under Sections 147 and 148.\nConclusions:\n•\nReassessment cannot be initiated based on a mere change of opinion on previously concluded matters unless supported by new material.\nReferences:\n•\nBirla VXL Ltd. v. CIT (Asstt.) (1996) 217 ITR 1 (Guj.)\n•\nLakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO (1986) 162 ITR 240 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil. Applications Nos. 3257, 3258, and 3259 of 1991, decision dated: 24-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. BALIA AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. F. Shah for Applicant\nB. B. Naik for R. P. Bhatt for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "STAR CHEMICALS PVT. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 80 = 1994 SLD 80 = 1994 PTD 642 = (1993) 203 ITR 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Managing Director's Salary\nTopic: Justification of disallowance under Section 40(c).\nConclusions:\n•\nRemuneration to a managing director may be partially disallowed if found excessive and unsupported by evidence of services rendered, even without explicitly citing legitimate business needs. \nReferences:\n•\nCalcutta Art Studio (Pvt.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1979) 118 ITR 752 (Cal)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 205 of 1978, decision dated: 10-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " A.P. MISHRA AND M C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for the Assessee\nStanding Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GANGA CHIT FUND (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 81 = 1994 SLD 81 = 1994 PTD 645 = (1993) 203 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax and Rectification of Mistakes\nTopic: Levy of interest under Section 217(1-A) and scope of rectification under Section 154.\nConclusions:\n•\nInterest cannot be levied in rectification proceedings if the issue involves interpretational ambiguity or is debatable.\nReferences:\n•\nPremchand Nathmal Kothari v. Kisanlal Bachharaj Vyas AIR. 1976 Bom. 82", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.37 of 1979, decision dated: 8-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal for the Commissioner\nH.S. Nigam for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM.S.J. (ENGG. AND CO.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 430 = 2000 SLD 430 = 2000 PTD 3084 = (1999) 237 ITR 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Irregularity in Assessments\nTopic: Validity of assessments corrected after procedural irregularities.\nConclusions:\n•\nAssessments can continue from the stage of procedural irregularity without restarting entirely, provided the defect is rectified.\nReferences:\n•\nGoa Sea Foods v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 431 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=144B ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1994, decision dated: 17-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K. K. USHA AND K.A. MOHAMED SHAFI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Firoz, Dalip Kumar and C. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee\nP.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "A. M. ZAINALABDEEN MUSALIAR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 431 = 2000 SLD 431 = 2000 PTD 3092 = (1999) 237 ITR 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction for Reference to High Court\nTopic: Territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Section 256.\nConclusions:\n•\nA High Court can direct a reference only for cases decided by Appellate Tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.\nReferences:\n•\nCollector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 1124", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No-9 of 1998, decision dated: 18-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthi and K.K. Jhunjhunwala for Applicant\nK.N. Jain, Binod Poddar and Biren Poddar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJUSTICES. B. SINHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 82 = 1994 SLD 82 = 1994 PTD 651 = (1993) 203 ITR 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Goodwill as Property of a Firm\nTopic: Treatment of goodwill and related expenses in firm assessments.\nConclusions:\n•\nGoodwill constitutes the firm's property and rent paid for its use is deductible if substantiated.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1981, decision dated: 23rd July, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " A.P. CHOWDHRI AND N.K SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Mahajan and Ms. Aparna Mahajan for the Assessee\nR.P. Sawhney for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GOLDEN CHEMICAL WORKS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 432 = 2000 SLD 432 = 2000 PTD 3099 = (1999) 237 ITR 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Entertainment and Trade Mark Expenditures\nTopic: Allowability of entertainment expenditure and trade mark payments.\nConclusions:\n•\nHospitality expenditure for employees is deductible, while other entertainment expenses are disallowed.\n•\nPayments for the use of trademarks are revenue expenditures and deductible.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Patel Brothers & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.317 of 1983, decision dated: 17-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R.K. ABICHANDANI ARID KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Nayak with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner\nManish J. Shah for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 83 = 1994 SLD 83 = 1994 PTD 656 = (1993) 203 ITR 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6QlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Recovery of Interest Under Section 220(2)\nTopic: Conditions for imposing interest on delayed tax payment.\nConclusions:\n•\nInterest under Section 220(2) can only be levied if the assessee fails to comply with a demand notice.\nReferences:\n•\nBharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1991) 188 ITR 277 (Delhi)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 1722 of 1983, decision dated: 22-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " M.B. SHAH AND V.H. BHAIRAVIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner\nM.J. Thakore instructed by M/s. R.P. Bhatt & Co. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SHRI AMBICA MILLS LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 433 = 2000 SLD 433 = 2000 PTD 3103 = (1999) 237 ITR 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Deductions and Clubbing of Income\nTopic: Capital gains deductions and inclusion of spouse's income.\nConclusions:\n•\nDeductions under Section 80T are calculated after setting off capital losses.\n•\nSpouse's income from employment requiring professional skills is not clubbed if such skills are proven.\nReferences:\n•\nH.H. Sir Varma v. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 433 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.372 of 1983, 86 of 1985, 90 of 1986 and 101 of 1988; decided on 29-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": " C.K. THAKKER AND M. C. PATEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manish J. Shah for the Assessees\nMihir Joshi with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASHABEN ROHITBIIAI and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 84 = 1994 SLD 84 = 1994 PTD 659 = (1993) 203 ITR 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Revisionary Powers of Commissioner\nTopic: Conditions for revision under Section 263.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Commissioner cannot revise an order merely based on disagreement with conclusions if the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.\nReferences:\n•\nAdditional CIT v. Mukur Corporation (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 145 of 1980, decision dated: 15-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner\nArun Sathe for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGABRIEL INDIA LTD\nSyed NUSRAT JAMAL and another\nvs\nINSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB POLICE, COMPLEX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 434 = 2000 SLD 434 = 2000 PTD 3113 = (1999) 237 ITR 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scientific Research and Depreciation\nTopic: Capital expenditure on scientific research and subsidy treatment.\nConclusions:\n•\nDeduction under Section 35 is allowed if capital expenditure is incurred, irrespective of final ownership registration.\n•\nCentral subsidy is not deductible when computing actual cost for depreciation or investment allowance.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "References Nos. 15 and 16 of 1993, decision dated: 17-06-1997", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K.K. USHA AND K.A. MOHAMED SHAFI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the commissioner\nP. Balachandran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKEEN PESTICIDES (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 51 = 1995 SLD 51 = 1995 PTD 666 = (1995) 71 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Deemed Income\nTopic: Self-assessment, deemed income, and treatment of capital.\nConclusions:\n•\nA case can be set apart from normal assessment under the Self-Assessment Scheme only if evidence of concealment is found.\n•\nIncome-tax officers must consider capital positions at the beginning of the financial year, not retrospectively.\nReferences:\n•\n1988 PTD 987 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,13(1)(aa)(2) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 840/LB/DB-II of 1989-90, decision dated: 29-12-1994.hearing DATE : 9-06-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar- for Appellant\nImtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 435 = 2000 SLD 435 = 2000 PTD 3118 = (1999) 237 ITR 402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additions to Income on Estimated Sales\nTopic: Tribunal's deletion of income additions made by CIT(A).\nConclusions:\n•\nTribunal's deletion of enhanced income additions by CIT(A) without considering facts raised a question of law for High Court reference.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 139 of 1996, decision dated: 14-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": " G.S. SINGHVI AND M.L. SINGHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Barisal for Petitioner\nA.K. Mittal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOLD PAR HOSIERY MILLS AND KNITWEAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 85 = 1994 SLD 85 = 1994 PTD 667 = (1993) 203 ITR 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Penalty and Interest\nTopic: Conditions for waiving penalties and interest.\nConclusions:\n•\nDisclosure of income and full payment of taxes for each assessment year are prerequisites for penalty/interest waiver.\nReferences:\n•\nMillan Bone Mills v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 663 (All.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10345 of 1983, decision dated: 24-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " RAJU, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Parthiban for Messrs N. Thiagarajan and Vijayaraghavan for Petitioner\nN.V. Balasubramaniam for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "S.M. ZIADDIN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 115 = 1996 SLD 115 = 1996 PTD 671 = (1995) 212 ITR 293 = (1995) 73 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Depreciation\nTopic: Classification of expenses and depreciation on assets.\nConclusions:\n•\nExpenditure on copper rolls for cloth printing was treated as capital.\n•\nDevelopment charges for land were capital expenditures, but payments for water-treatment plants were deductible.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Vandana Printers (1993) 203 ITR 165 (Raj.)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 14 of 1987, decision dated: 21st July, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL AND V. G. PALSIKAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vineet Kothari for the Assessee\nD. S. Shisodia, Senior Advocate and S. Bhandawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JASWANT TRADING CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 436 = 2000 SLD 436 = 2000 PTD 3121 = (1999) 237 ITR 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Late Returns\nTopic: Delayed filing of returns and penalty under Section 271(1)(a).\nConclusions:\n•\nA four-year delay in filing returns, unsupported by valid explanations, justified the imposition of penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 25131 of 1998-P, decision dated: 17-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " P. SHANMUGHAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balakrishnan and K.S. Menon for Petitioner\nP.K.R. Menon for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "OUTDOOR PUBLICITY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 52 = 1995 SLD 52 = 1995 PTD 677 = (1995) 71 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Additions on Account of Low Yield and Interest\nTopic: Adjustments for yield and interest on borrowed capital.\nConclusions:\n•\nIncome Tax Officers must account for waste adjustments when making yield-based additions.\n•\nDisallowance of interest solely due to advances to sister concerns is unjustified without proper evidence.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Pakistan Industrial Engineering Agency (1992 PTD 954)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 2680/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 15-12-1994.hearing DATE : 4-12-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Appellant\nMrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 437 = 2000 SLD 437 = 2000 PTD 3123 = (1999) 237 ITR 392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6R1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Determination in Regular Assessments\nTopic: Assessing officer's powers to determine refunds in regular assessments.\nConclusions:\n•\nAssessing officers retain the power to determine and grant refunds in regular assessments post-amendment of Section 143(3).\nReferences:\n•\nLML Ltd. v. M.K. Venkataraman, Asstt. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 585 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.34 of 1998, decision dated: 6-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. MOTILAL B. NAIK AND Y. V. NARAYANA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. V. Prasad for Petitioner\nS. Ravi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBAKELITE HYLAM LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 438 = 2000 SLD 438 = 2000 PTD 3132 = (1999) 237 ITR 488", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital and Business Expenditure\nTopic: Expenditure due to currency fluctuations and surtax payments.\nConclusions:\n•\nAdditional costs from exchange rate fluctuations for capital assets are not deductible.\n•\nSurtax is non-deductible for business income computation.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Elgi Rubber Products Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 109 (Mad.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos.109; 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114 of 1985 (References Nos.34 to 39 of 1985), decision dated: 28-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee\nC. V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SESHASAYEE PAPER AND BOARDS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 86 = 1994 SLD 86 = 1994 PTD 688 = (1994) 69 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nTopic: Principles for imposing penalties under Section 111.\nConclusions:\n•\nPenalty requires explicit findings of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, supported by specific evidence.\nReferences:\n•\n1970 PTD 75\n•\n1994 PTD 232", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,116 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 435/LB, 436/LB, 553/LB and 554/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 17th February 1992", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mashallah Khan, CA. for Appellant/Assessee. Muhammad Aslam, D.R. for Respondent/Department.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISMAIL\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, through Secretary S&GA and others\nMUHAMMAD ISMAIL\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, through Secretary S&GA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 53 = 1995 SLD 53 = 1995 PTD 690 = (1994) 209 ITR 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Taxation of Discretionary Trusts\nTopic: Tax liability for discretionary trust beneficiaries.\nConclusions:\n•\nBeneficiaries can be taxed on amounts received during the accounting year.\nReferences:\n•\nNagappa v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 62.6 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2145 of 1978 with Civil Appeals Nos. 2147, 2148, 2151 to 2153, 2155 and 2156 of 1978, 2099, 2147 and 2148 of 1979, 63 of 1980, 2074 of 1981, 733 and 734 of 1982, 905 of 1989 and 3313 of 1990, decision dated: 9-05-1994", + "Judge Name:": " M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.-I, S. C. AGRAWAL AND S.P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.P. Gupta, Solicitor-General of India (Ranbir Chandra, P. Parameshwaran and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant (Commissioner). Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh and Fazl, Advocates with him) for Respondent (Assessee)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKAMALINI KHATAU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 116 = 1996 SLD 116 = 1996 PTD 693 = (1995) 212 ITR 121 = 1996 PTCL 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment in HUF Income\nTopic: Penalty for HUF's concealed income under a benami name.\nConclusions:\n•\nWhether the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty constitutes a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D. B. Income-tax Reference Petitions Nos.276, 154, 155 and 157 of 1985, decision dated: 13-07-1994", + "Judge Name:": " Y. R. MEENA AND V. K. SINGHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. S. Bapna for the Commissioner\nN. M. Ranka with S. R. Yadav for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nROOP KISHORE GOYAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 439 = 2000 SLD 439 = 2000 PTD 3147 = (1999) 237 ITR 834", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Surtax Assessments\nTopic: Errors in computation of capital and rectification under the Surtax Act.\nConclusions:\n•\nErrors in the omission of proposed dividend deductions from reserves can be rectified under Section 13.\nReferences:\n•\nT.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=256(2) ", + "Case #": "Surtax Reference No.5 of 1981, decision dated: 10-09-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND A.R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.K. Mehta for K.C. Patel for the Assessee\nB.B. Naik for Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SUHRID GEIGY LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SUR TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 440 = 2000 SLD 440 = 2000 PTD 3168 = (1999) 236 ITR 921", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Allowances\nTopic: Disallowances of expenses and classification of expenditures.\nConclusions:\n1.\nReimbursement of medical and telephone expenses: Considered perquisites under Section 40(c)(i), disallowed.\n2.\nInsurance premiums for directors: Premiums paid directly by the company are not treated as perquisites and are allowable.\n3.\nFeasibility study costs: Expenses for a feasibility report on a new steel plant project (unmaterialized) are capital expenditures.\n4.\nRCC Roads: Roads are treated as buildings; only depreciation, not development rebate, is allowed.\n5.\nSection 80-I Deduction: Tribunal's reliance on a previous unrelated decision was erroneous; deduction must be reassessed.\nReferences:\n•\nGujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 358 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 199 of 1983, decision dated: 13-04-1988", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. G. Desai with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner\nMs. Hansa B. Punani for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAMBICA MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 441 = 2000 SLD 441 = 2000 PTD 3179 = (1999) 237 ITR 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision Powers of Commissioner\nTopic: Classification of royalty payments as capital or revenue expenditure.\nConclusions:\n•\nRoyalty payments for technical know-how with enduring benefits are capital expenditures.\n•\nCommissioner was justified in setting aside the assessment for reassessment.\nReferences:\n•\nJonas Woodhed & Sons (Ind.) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 342 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.281 of 1983, decision dated: 17-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Talati for the Assessee\nB. B. Nayak with Mainsh R. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JYOTI ELECTRIC MOTORS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 87 = 1994 SLD 87 = 1994 PTD 706 = (1994) 69 TAX 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appellate Tribunal's Jurisdiction and Agricultural Income\nTopic: Tribunal's powers and inclusion of agricultural income for rate purposes.\nConclusions:\n1.\nThe Tribunal cannot question the constitutionality of statutes or Supreme Court rulings.\n2.\nAgricultural income is included in total income under specific provisions for determining tax rates.\nReferences:\n•\nK.G. Joseph v. I.T.O. (1980) 121 ITR 178", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,SecondSched.,Cl.(1) Finance Act, 1988=2(44),9,11,62 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 1067/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 30-12-1993.hearing DATE : 1st October, 1992.", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, CHAIRMAN AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Sarwar Qazalbash, D.R. for Appellant\nDr. Ilyas War for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 88 = 1994 SLD 88 = 1994 PTD 713 = (1994) 69 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts\nTopic: Validity of rejecting accounts and profit estimation.\nConclusions:\n1.\nAccounts can be rejected when manufacturing expenses are unverifiable, even if sales figures are accepted.\n2.\nProfit rates from previous assessments can be used as benchmarks.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(2) ", + "Case #": "C. Reference No. 24 of 1987, decision dated: 26-01-1993.hearing DATE : 26-01-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMADC.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner.\nShahbaz Butt and Sh. Rashid Ahmad for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHAMPION PAINT INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 89 = 1994 SLD 89 = 1994 PTD 717 = (1994) 69 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6SFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Insurance Companies\nTopic: Taxability of accrued interest and procedural safeguards.\nConclusions:\n1.\nInterest on deposits is taxable for non-life insurance companies.\n2.\nThe guarantee of equal protection does not imply immunity from adverse statutory provisions.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. PLD 1981 SC 293", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=26(a)FourthSched.,R.5(a)(b),134 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,189 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2741/LB to 2743/LB of 1985-86 and 1652/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 18-01-1994.hearing DATE : 7-09-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Ullah Kiyani for Appellant\nAbdul Rauf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 90 = 1994 SLD 90 = 1994 PTD 730 = (1994) 69 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Addition\nTopic: Duplicate accounting of trading discounts.\nConclusions:\n•\nAdding trading discounts as profits after recognizing them as deductions constitutes double addition, which is improper", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 10 of 1983, decision dated: 17-11-1992.hearing DATE : 17-11-1992.", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMADC.J. AND CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Petitioner. Ahmad Shuja Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD\nVs\nNEW CHINA SHOE CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "3961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 91 = 1994 SLD 91 = 1994 PTD 733 = (1994) 69 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Returns and Penalties\nTopic: Filing voluntary returns and associated penalties.\nConclusions:\n1.\nVoluntary returns are required only if income exceeds the taxable limit or if taxed in the prior four years.\n2.\nFailure to file a return warrants penalty only when the explanation is deemed unreasonable.\n3.\nDeclaring losses and not filing returns results in the forfeiture of rights to set off losses.\nReferences:\n•\n1989 PTD 617 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55(1)(a)(b),108,5655 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 461/KB and 465/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 23rd May, 1993.hearing DATE : 19-05-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raisul Hasan for the Assessee\nKhalid Siddiqui, D.R. for the Department", + "Party Name:": "ZAKA ULLAH BAJWA\nvs\nCHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others\nZAKA ULLAH BAJWA\nvs\nCHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 92 = 1994 SLD 92 = 1994 PTD 739 = (1994) 69 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Co-ownership and Property Income\nTopic: Tax treatment of co-owned property and Section 21 application.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSection 21 does not require physical partitioning or divisibility of property; definite and ascertainable shares are sufficient.\n2.\nAgreements between co-owners stating equal shares (e.g., 1/7th) are binding and cannot be modified by tax authorities.\n3.\nThe refusal to extend Section 21 benefits was incorrect as the co-owners' shares were definite and ascertainable.\nReferences:\n•\nShaikh Abdul Rehman v. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 302", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,21 Transfer of Property Act, 1882=7,8,44 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 7663/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 17-04-1993.hearing DATE : 17-04-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Appellant.\nMuhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 54 = 1995 SLD 54 = 1995 PTD 741 = (1994) 208 ITR 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Employee Perquisites and Statutory Ceilings\nTopic: Ceiling on perquisites and their applicability.\nConclusions:\n1.\nCeilings under Section 40(a)(v) apply to depreciation of employer-owned assets used by employees.\n2.\nLiteral interpretation of statutes should not lead to absurd outcomes; the language may be adjusted to reflect legislative intent.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Forbes, Ewart and Figgis (P.) Ltd. (1982) 138 ITR", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 677 to 682 of 1987, 487 to 492 to 498 of 1984, 5018 to 5021 of 1991, 4614 to 4616 of 1993, decision dated: 1st March, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.B. Pai, Senior Advocate (Mrs. A.K. Verma and D.N. Misra, Advocates of Messrs J.B. Dadachanjee & Co. for the Appellants (in CAS. Nos.677 to 682 of 1987 and 487 to 498 of 1984).\nS. Balakrishnan and M.K.D. Namboodiri, Advocates for Appellant in C.As. Nos. 5018 to 5021 of 1991).\nR.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate (Joseph Kurien and K.J. John, Advocates with him) for Appellant in C.A. Nos. 4614 to 4616 of 1993).\nK.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate with K.P. Bhatnagar, T.V. Ratnam and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates for Respondents (in all the Appeals).", + "Party Name:": "C.W.S. (INDIA) LTD. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 55 = 1995 SLD 55 = 1995 PTD 749 = (1995) 71 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Refunds and Withholding by Tax Authorities\nTopic: Validity of withholding refund vouchers.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSection 100 mandates issuance of refund vouchers with demand notices.\n2.\nWithholding is permissible only with documented reasons and prior approval from the Commissioner under Section 103.\nAction: Refund voucher issuance ordered by the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=100,103,59,59A,6263 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 217 of 1995, decision dated: 24-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem Shah for Petitioner.\nShahbaz Butt for the Department.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNIQUE ENTERPRISES through Proprietor\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CIRCLEII, ZONEB, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 93 = 1994 SLD 93 = 1994 PTD 758 = (1994) 69 TAX 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Turnover for Travel Agents\nTopic: Definition of turnover for tax purposes.\nConclusions:\n1.\nTravel agents' turnover under Section 80-D includes only commission income, not gross receipts passed to principals.\n2.\nDeeming provisions in tax statutes must be strictly construed, favoring the assessee in case of doubt.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 557", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 263/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 28-02-1993.hearing DATE : 28-02-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Appellant.\nMazhar-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 117 = 1996 SLD 117 = 1996 PTD 759 = (1995) 73 TAX 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revised Returns\nTopic: Filing revised returns and procedural implications.\nConclusions:\n1.\nRevised returns can be filed anytime before assessment finalization.\n2.\nFailure to consider a revised return invalidates subsequent proceedings.\nReferences:\n•\nCannon Products Ltd. v. ITO (1985) 51 Tax 114", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=57 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 254/LB of 1995, decision dated: 30-03-1995.hearing DATE : 13-02-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, KHALID MAHMOOD AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Hussain Naqvi for Appellant\nQaiser M. Yahya, D.R. and Shebaz Butt, L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 94 = 1994 SLD 94 = 1994 PTD 763 = (1993) 203 ITR 349", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trusts and Exemption\nTopic: Exemption for charitable trusts receiving shares as donations.\nConclusions:\n1.\nDonations of shares do not constitute trust fund investments under Section 13(2)(h); exemptions cannot be denied.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Insaniyat Trust (1988) 173 ITR 248", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 203 of 1980, decision dated: 29-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " G. T. NANAVATI AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore instructed by M.R. Bhatt of R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner. DA. Mehta for K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSAHITYA TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 56 = 1995 SLD 56 = 1995 PTD 770 = (1995) 71 TAX 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Appeals\nTopic: Jurisdictional challenges in rectification and appeal rights.\nConclusions:\n1.\nRectification is limited to apparent mistakes; contentious issues require separate proceedings.\n2.\nOrders made by appellate authorities without jurisdiction can be appealed.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT, Companies-II, Karachi v. National Food Laboratories (1992)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 45/LB, to 47/LB of 1994, decision dated: 19-02-1995, hearing DATE : 1st February, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. and Shahbaz Butt, LA. for Applicant. M. Nawaz Khan, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 442 = 2000 SLD 442 = 2000 PTD 3183 = (1999) 237 ITR 676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Accrual and Employee Benefits\nTopic: Accrual of income and limits on employee-related expenditures.\nConclusions:\n1.\nInterest credited to suspense accounts or not recorded is taxable under mercantile accounting.\n2.\nExpenditure on employee benefits like accommodation maintenance must comply with Section 40-A(5) limits.\nReferences:\n•\nState Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 25 of 1987, decision dated: 9-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with B. M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner. R. Murlidharan instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMERCANTILE BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 95 = 1994 SLD 95 = 1994 PTD 771 = (1993) 203 ITR 358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Grounds in Appeals\nTopic: Admissibility of new grounds at appellate stages.\nConclusions:\n1.\nAACs can consider new grounds raised in appeals.\n2.\nNon-resident capital gains are computed in Indian currency, regardless of foreign transactions.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Pfizer Corporation (1993) 202 ITR 115", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 500 of 1979, decision dated: 8-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Soly Dastur with P.J. Pardiwala for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramaniam with J.P. Devadhar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASBESTOS CEMENT LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 57 = 1995 SLD 57 = 1995 PTD 774 = (1995) 71 TAX 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Timelines and Condonation\nTopic: Timeliness of appeals and condonation processes.\nConclusions:\n1.\nAppeals dismissed as time-barred under Section 132 can be appealed to higher authorities.\n2.\nFiling and condonation applications are interdependent but distinct processes.\nReferences:\n•\nMela Ram and Sons v. CIT Punjab (1956) 29 ITR 607", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=31 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130,131,132,133,134,129,130(2),130(3) ", + "Case #": "I.TAS Nos. 9712/LB, 9713/LB of 1991-92; 5762/LB, 5745/LB to 5761/LB, 2531/LB of 1986-87; 2184/LB, 2183/LB of 1987-88 and 9486/LB to 9490/LB of 1992-93 decided on 6th December,1994, hearing DATE : 25-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Shahbaz Butt, Legal Adviser and Siddique Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Dr. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE\nvs\nSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB HEALTH DEPARTMENT and others\nDr. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE\nvs\nSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB HEALTH DEPARTMENT and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 96 = 1994 SLD 96 = 1994 PTD 776 = (1993) 203 ITR 363", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nTopic: Expenditure categorization for engine replacement.\nConclusions:\n1.\nReplacement of a petrol engine with a diesel engine may be capital or revenue expenditure depending on whether the replaced engine was worn out or unserviceable.\n2.\nTribunal directed to evaluate the specifics of the case before deciding.\nReferences:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Mir Muhammad Ali (1964) 53 ITR 165 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 35 of 1982, decision dated: 13-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K.C. AGRAWAL, C.J. AND V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.S. Shishodia for the Commissioner. B.C. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nWESTERN INDIA STATE MOTORS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 443 = 2000 SLD 443 = 2000 PTD 3191 = (1999) 237 ITR 606", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bonus Payment as Business Expenditure\nTopic: Deductibility of bonus exceeding statutory limits.\nConclusions:\n1.\nBonus exceeding 20% of wages is deductible if paid for commercial expediency (e.g., preventing labor unrest).\n2.\nLiability arises from agreements with employees rather than statutory mandates.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Bisra Stone Lime Co. Ltd. (1987) 164 ITR 693 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.178 of 1985 (Reference No.86 of 1985), decision dated: 17-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND F. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nEGMORE BENEFIT SOCIETY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 97 = 1994 SLD 97 = 1994 PTD 779 = (1993) 203 ITR 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Understatement of Consideration\nTopic: Application of Section 52 for understated capital gains.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSection 52 applies only when consideration is demonstrably understated.\n2.\nRevenue must prove conditions of taxability.\nReferences:\n•\nVarghese (K.P.) v. I.T.O. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 210 of 1980, decision dated: 29-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " G. T. NANAVATI AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore instructed by M.R. Bhatt of R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner. DA. Mehta for K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANA G. SARABHAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 98 = 1994 SLD 98 = 1994 PTD 780 = (1993) 203 ITR 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Material Disclosure\nTopic: Validity of reassessment based on creditor's confession.\nConclusions:\n1.\nReassessment invalid if there is no omission or failure to disclose material facts by the assessee.\n2.\nConfessions by creditors must directly relate to the transactions in question.\nReferences:\n•\nI.T.O. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 63 of 1988, decision dated: 6-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sunil Mukherjee led by A.C. Moitra for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHANDBALL RICE MILLS (P.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 99 = 1994 SLD 99 = 1994 PTD 786 = (1994) 69 TAX 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Authority of Income Tax Officers\nTopic: Jurisdiction to assess contractors and penalties for non-compliance.\nConclusions:\n1.\nJurisdiction to assess contractors rests primarily with the I.T.O., with additional authority possible through subordinate legislation.\n2.\nPenalties for failure to file statements under Section 143 are valid under Section 108.\nReferences:\n•\nSalehon v. The State PLD 1969 SC 267", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=143108,5,117 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1596/LB to 1598/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 22-01-1994, hearing DATE : 12-10-1993", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAWAJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zia Ullah, D.R. for Appellant. Ali Bin Abdul Qadir for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 58 = 1995 SLD 58 = 1995 PTD 794 = (1995) 71 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and Revisions\nTopic: Choice between appeal and revision under Income Tax Ordinance.\nConclusions:\n1.\nTaxpayers can appeal to the Tribunal or file revisions with the Member (Judicial), but Tribunal decisions bind subsequent revisions.\nReferences:\n•\nHindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 461", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134138 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14165 of 1994, decision dated: 24-01-1995, hearing DATE : 11-01-1995", + "Judge Name:": " M. ALTAF HUSSAIN, JAMAL FOR PETITIONER. SHAHBAZ AHMAD BUTT FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Altaf Hussain Jamal for Petitioner. Shahbaz Ahmad Butt for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs VENUS STATIONERY MART, URDU BAZAR, LAHORE\nVs\nMEMBER, Income Tax (JUDICIAL), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, SUB-OFFICE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 59 = 1995 SLD 59 = 1995 PTD 797 = (1995) 71 TAX 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "C.B.R. Powers and Perquisites\nTopic: Exemption and interpretation of perquisites by the C.B.R.\nConclusions:\n1.\nC.B.R. lacks authority to amend statutory provisions or create exemptions.\n2.\nPresumptions in law regarding perquisites must align with statutory definitions.\nReferences:\n•\nProvince of West Pakistan v. Din Muhammad PLD 1964 SC 21", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14(2),16(2)(b)(iv)SecondSched.,PartIV ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1129/LB and 1130/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 23rd January, 1995, hearing DATE : 11-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jamil Hussain and Sheikh Bashir Ahmad for Appellant. Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 444 = 2000 SLD 444 = 2000 PTD 3199 = (1999) 237 ITR 278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6RlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Business Expenditure and Perquisites\nTopic: Benefits provided to employees as business expenditure.\nConclusions:\n1.\nExpenditures on employee housing maintenance qualify as perquisites under Section 40-A(5).\n2.\nAdvance tax interest is payable up to the date of regular assessment.\nReferences:\n•\nLubrizol India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 25 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 371 of 1984, decision dated: 8-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. V. Desai with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner. J. D. Mistry instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBANQUE NATIONAL DE PARIS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 445 = 2000 SLD 445 = 2000 PTD 3202 = (1999) 237 ITR 405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": ": Waiver of Interest and Discretionary Power\nTopic: Waiver of interest and penalties under Section 273-A.\nConclusions:\n1.\nDiscretionary power of the Commissioner must follow judicial principles.\n2.\nRevised returns filed under investigation lack voluntary character.\nReferences:\n•\nBrij Mohan Bhargava v. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 300 (P & H)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2248 of 1991, decision dated: 21st November, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " M.A. A. KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anant Kasliwal for Petitioner. P.C. Jain for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "YOGENDRA KUMAR DURLABHJI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 100 = 1994 SLD 100 = 1994 PTD 803 = (1993) 203 ITR 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Industrial Undertakings\nTopic: Depreciation for scientific research and Section 80-J benefits.\nConclusions:\n1.\nDepreciation disallowed for assets written off under Section 35.\n2.\nBorrowed funds must be excluded when computing Section 80-J benefits.\nReferences:\n•\nEscorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,35 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.264 of 1980, decision dated: 29-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " G. T. NANAVATI AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for the Assessee. M. J. Thakore instructed by M.R. Bhatt of Messrs R.P. Bhatt and Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ANIL STARCH PRODUCTS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nNAJAM ABBAS and others\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CITY DIVISION, GUJRANWALA and others\nNAJAM ABBAS and others\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CITY DIVISION, GUJRANWALA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 446 = 2000 SLD 446 = 2000 PTD 2652 = (1999) 236 ITR 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Expenditure and Perquisites\nTopic: Inclusion of car provision in perquisites and depreciation claims.\nConclusions:\n1.\nCar expenses for employees' personal use are perquisites.\n2.\nDepreciation not allowed unless explicitly claimed by the assessee.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1988) 173 ITR 374 (Kar.)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 13 and 14 of 1984, decision dated: 14-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": " ASHOK BHAN AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. S. Jain, Senior Advocate with Adarsh Jain and S.K. Hiraji for the Assessee. R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with S. K. Shrama for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BECO ENGINEERING CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 101 = 1994 SLD 101 = 1994 PTD 805 = (1993) 203 ITR 389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Purposes\nTopic: Dominant purpose test for charitable institutions.\nConclusions:\n1.\nRelief of the poor as the dominant object ensures exemption under Section 11.\nReferences:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R.C. Nos. 88 and 92 of 1990, decision dated: 27-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Raghavendra Rao and M. V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. K.S. Ramabhadran and K. Gajendra Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER ORIncomE tax\nVs\nGAYATHRI WOMEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 102 = 1994 SLD 102 = 1994 PTCL 243 = 1995 PTD 807", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue Gain for Banking Companies\nTopic: Taxability of profits from securities.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSecurities held under statutory obligations are part of circulating capital; profits are taxable.\nReferences:\n•\nMalabar Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 87", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=922 Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=29 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1752/KB to 1756/KB of 1983-84 and 1284/KB to 1286/KB of 1985-86, decision dated: 15-03-1990, hearing DATE : 25-10-1989", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Appellant. A.R. Memon, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 103 = 1994 SLD 103 = 1994 PTD 810 = (1993) 203 ITR 403", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains and Right Shares\nTopic: Valuation of rights in capital gains computation.\nConclusions:\n1.\nDepreciation in original shares' value must offset rights' sale proceeds.\nReferences:\n•\nMiss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.73 of 1991, decision dated: 30-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Bagchi for the Commissioner. Dr. Pal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nOBEROI BUILDING AND INVESTMENT (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 60 = 1995 SLD 60 = 1995 PTD 813 = (1995) 71 TAX 89 = (1994) 206 ITR 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Blending and Manufacturing\nTopic: Eligibility for relief under Section 80-J.\nConclusions:\n1.\nBlending tea constitutes processing, not manufacturing; Section 80-J relief denied.\nReferences:\n•\nBrooke Bond India Ltd. v. Union of India (1984) Tax LR 2593 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.171 of 1987, decision dated: 10-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "APPEEJAY (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 104 = 1994 SLD 104 = 1994 PTD 816 = (1993) 203 ITR 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Penalty and Interest\nTopic: Discretion in penalty and interest waivers.\nConclusions:\n1.\nCommissioner must focus on voluntary disclosures, not habitual defaults.\nReferences:\n•\nParamjit Singh Grewal v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 549 (P & H)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 1364 of 1980, decision dated: 25-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " N.K KAPOOR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansul for the Assessee. R.P. Sawhney for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TARLOKI NATH AVINASH CHANDER (HUF)\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 447 = 2000 SLD 447 = 2000 PTD 3212 = (1999) 237 ITR 614", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Notices\nTopic: Validity of Section 147 notices.\nConclusions:\n1.\nNotices under Section 147(a) invalid without recorded reasons linked to income escapement.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian Oil Corporation v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 959 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.P. No. 704-of 1989, decision dated: 4-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " B. A. KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Choudhry for Petitioner. V, K. Dubey for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BOMBAY PHARMA PRODUCTS\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 105 = 1994 SLD 105 = 1994 PTD 823 = (1993) 203 ITR 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6S1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rental Income Classification\nTopic: Business income vs. income from property.\nConclusions:\n1.\nRental income derived from letting out building space to managed companies is business income if it is incidental to the core business activities.\n2.\nLetting out was subservient to the assessee’s business of managing companies, making associated expenses deductible against business income.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (1966) 59 ITR 152 (Punj.)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,28 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 98 of 1978, decision dated: 30-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND KM. YUSUF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMCLEOD & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 448 = 2000 SLD 448 = 2000 PTD 3216 = (1999) 237 ITR 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Penalty and Interest\nTopic: Relief under Section 273A for delayed returns and penalties.\nConclusions:\n1.\nPetitioner, not a regular assessee, filed delayed returns due to unforeseen receipt of compensation and interest.\n2.\nPenalty for failure to file returns was unjustified; interest was limited to one year.\n3.\nCommissioner’s discretion was improperly exercised.\nReferences:\n•\nHarbans Kaur (Smt.) v. CWT (1997) 224 ITR 418 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 6879 of 1997, decision dated: 1st December; 1998", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. GARG AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Mittal for Petitioner. R. P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate (Rajesh Bindal, Advocate with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SHANTI SARUP SHARMA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 449 = 2000 SLD 449 = 2000 PTD 3223 = (1999) 237 ITR 358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Treatment of Retirement Proceeds\nTopic: Taxability of retirement proceeds from a partnership.\nConclusions:\n1.\nAmount received upon retirement from a partnership firm is not taxable as business income or under Section 28(iv).\n2.\nNo transfer of capital assets occurs, so the amount is not taxable as capital gains.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.318 of 1983, decision dated: 18-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R.K. ABICHANDANI AND KUNDAN SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. B. Nayak with Manish R. Bhatt for the Commissioner. J. P. Shah with Manish Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHREYAS CHINUBHAI\nRAJA FARRUKH YOUNUS\nvs\nINSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE OFFICE (CPO), AT KARACHI and 2 others\nRAJA FARRUKH YOUNUS\nvs\nINSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE OFFICE (CPO), AT KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 106 = 1994 SLD 106 = 1994 PTD 832 = (1993) 203 ITR 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Carry Forward of Depreciation\nTopic: Unabsorbed depreciation in partnerships.\nConclusions:\n1.\nUnabsorbed depreciation allocated to partners can be carried forward and set off against the firm’s profits.\nReferences:\n•\nGarden Silk Weaving Factory v. C.I.T. (1991) 189 ITR 512 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income Tax References Nos. 2 and 25 of 1984 and 152 of 1981, decision dated: 20-08-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K.C. AGRAWAL, C.J. AND V.K SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Bafna for the Commissioner. J.K. Ranka for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHREYAS CHINUBHAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 450 = 2000 SLD 450 = 2000 PTD 3227 = (1999) 237 ITR 518", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Circulars, Interest, and Expenditures\nTopic: Powers of CBDT and treatment of income/expenditures.\nConclusions:\n1.\nCBDT circulars cannot override statutory provisions.\n2.\nInterest on sticky advances is taxable under the mercantile system.\n3.\nExpenditures for employee housing repairs are considered perquisites under Section 40A(5).\nReferences:\n•\nState Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 83 of 1986, decision dated: 18-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Muralidharan with S.E. Dastur, Senior Counsel instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee. R.V. Desai and B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 107 = 1994 SLD 107 = 1994 PTD 848", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Contractors and Taxation\nTopic: Sales tax treatment for contractors.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSales tax paid by contractors cannot be deemed as income and is excluded from taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16758 of 1993, heard on 15-02-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. RAMMA PIPE AND GENERAL MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through its Director\nVs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 108 = 1994 SLD 108 = 1994 PTD 849 = (1994) 69 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income and Intangible Additions\nTopic: Tax treatment of unexplained credits and additions.\nConclusions:\n1.\nDeemed income under Section 13(1)(c) applies to amounts not disclosed in account books.\n2.\nIntangible additions in trading accounts are eligible for credit if substantiated.\n3.\nUnexplained credits incurred early in the financial year cannot be attributed to prior earnings.\nReferences:\n•\nKale Khan Muhammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 8 Tax 363 (SC Ind.)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(c),13 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1027/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 4-01-1994, hearing DATE : 20-12-1993", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saeed Ch. and Muhammad Shahid Abbas for Appellant. Mian Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 109 = 1994 SLD 109 = 1994 PTD 856", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cost of Construction - Nominal Discrepancies\nTopic: Provisions under Section 13(2), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n1.\nWhen the difference between the declared value of construction and the assessed value is nominal, Section 13(2) does not apply.\nReferences:\n•\n1991 PTD (Trib.) 294", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(2) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 884/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 30-01-1994, hearing DATE : 29-01-1994", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Haji Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 110 = 1994 SLD 110 = 1994 PTD 858 = (1994) 69 TAX 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Remand Practices\nTopic: Reopening of assessments and remand procedures.\nConclusions:\n1.\nReopening Assessments: Reopening requires definite information or new evidence. Mere changes in the opinion of the Assessing Officer are insufficient.\n2.\nRemand Practices: Avoid vague remand orders with generic de novo directions. The scope of inquiry must be clearly defined to benefit both the assessee and the Revenue.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT, Karachi v. Jennings Private School 1993 SCMR 96", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59,13,129 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 8953/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 3rd February, 1994, hearing DATE ; 3rd November, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND INAM ELLAHI SHAIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal Khan, F.C.A. for Appellant. Agha Sarwar Qazalbash, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 451 = 2000 SLD 451 = 2000 PTD 2624 = (1999) 236 ITR 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure and Reference Questions\nTopic: Allowability of business expenses and High Court references.\nConclusions:\n1.\nSales Promotion: Payments to Karnataka Lawn Tennis Association for promotional purposes were allowable as business expenditure.\n2.\nService Charges: Deduction of service charges paid to McDowell & Co. Ltd. was a mixed question of law and fact, requiring reference to the High Court.\n3.\nNew Evidence: Tribunal's reliance on documents not presented earlier also required High Court adjudication.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. (1987) 167 ITR 637 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T. C. P. No. 345 of 1996, decision dated: 31st March, 1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for Petitioner. V. Ramachandran for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBALAJI ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "3999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 111 = 1994 SLD 111 = 1994 PTD 867 = (1994) 69 TAX 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cjB6TFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit for Investments\nTopic: Tax credit for balancing, modernization, and replacement of machinery.\nConclusions:\n1.\nInvestments made within the stipulated time qualified for full tax credit under Section 107.\n2.\nNo restrictions applied to locally purchased machinery for tax credit claims.\nReferences:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 730/HQ and 900/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 28-10-1993", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, CHAIRMAN AND ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saeed, D.R. for Appellant. Muqtada Karim, A.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 452 = 2000 SLD 452 = 2000 PTD 3645 = (1999) 238 ITR 905", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nTopic: Application of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) for penalty proceedings.\nConclusions:\n1.\nPresumption of concealment arises only if the assessee's explanation is unsatisfactory or absent.\n2.\nTribunal’s acceptance of the assessee's explanation for various additions (toddy business, jewelry business, minors' income) justified deletion of penalties.\nReferences:\n•\nExplanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c), Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.56 and 57 of 1996, decision dated: 27-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C, J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. S. Ananthakrishnan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nP.K. NARAYANAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1957 1 = 1957 SLD 1 = 1957 PLD 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Special Leave to Appeal\nTopic: Special Leave to Appeal—Plea of Guilty and Constitutional Interpretation\nConclusion: The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal in a case involving a plea of guilty by the accused. The case concerned the interpretation of the Constitution of Pakistan, specifically Article 157, related to the constitutional questions in criminal cases.\nReference: No case citation provided for this part.\n________________________________________\n(b) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947) – Delegation of Legislative Power\nTopic: Constitutionality of Delegation in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act\nConclusion: The court held that Section 22A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), inserted by the Foreign Exchange Regulation (Amendment) Act (XXXII of 1956), which delegated powers to the Central Government or the State Bank to determine how an offender under the Act would be tried, was not unconstitutional. The delegation of powers did not exceed the limits of legislative authority and did not amount to an improper delegation.\nReference: King Emperor v. Benoari Lal Sharma 72 I.A. 57.\n________________________________________\n(c) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947) – Discriminatory Nature\nTopic: Discriminatory Provisions in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act\nConclusion: The court found that the amendment introducing Sections 22A, 23A, and 23B was discriminatory and violated Article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The three provisions created unequal treatment of offenders, subjecting them to different forums and varying punishments without a clear guiding principle. This led to an arbitrary application of the law, thus infringing the fundamental right to equality.\nReferences:\n•\nThe State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952 SCR 284)\n•\nLachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay (1952 SCR 710)\n•\nSuraj Mall Mehta & Co. v. A.V. Visvanatha Sastri (1955 SCR 448)\n•\nShree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai v. Sri A.V. Visvanatha Sastri (1955 SCR 787)\n•\nJibendra Kishore Achharya Chowdury v. The Province of East Pakistan P.L.D. 1957 SC (Pak.) 9.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=157 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947=22A,23A,23B,23.13 ", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 of 1956, decision dated: 2nd April 1957. dates of hearing : 14th, 15th and 18th March 1957", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C, J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Nazir-ud-Din Attorney for Appellants.\nFaiyaz Ali, Attorney General for Pakistan (Maksumul Hakim, Advocate Supreme Court, with him) instructed by M. Siddiq Attorney for Respondent No. 1.\nA. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (B. A. Siddiq and Sh. Zahur Ahmad, Advocates, Supreme Court, with him) instructed by M. Siddlq, Attorney for Respondent No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "WARIS MEAN\nVs\nTHE STATE (2) THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 112 = 1994 SLD 112 = 1994 PTD 872 = (1994) 69 TAX 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Exemption from Tax\nTopic: Tax Exemption for Capital Gain\nConclusion: The court held that the assessee's claim for capital gain exemption was valid, as the public company whose shares were sold was listed (including provisional listing) with the Karachi Stock Exchange, meeting the requirements for exemption under the Income Tax Ordinance. The Income Tax Officer and Commissioner had ignored documentary evidence and misinterpreted the law, leading the tribunal to direct that the capital gain be exempted from tax.\nReference: No specific case cited.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax – Depreciation\nTopic: Correctness of Depreciation Calculation\nConclusion: The court found that the Income Tax Officer did not make a clear determination on whether depreciation had been correctly calculated for the relevant assessment year. The assessee had pending rectification requests for earlier assessments. The tribunal ordered the modification of the assessment to reflect the correct depreciation in accordance with the law.\nReference: No specific case cited.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax – Add Backs in Profit and Loss Account\nTopic: Ad-hoc Add Backs in Profit and Loss Account\nConclusion: The tribunal ruled that the add backs made to the profit and loss account by the Income Tax Officer lacked substantiation. It ordered a re-examination of the expenses and directed that the Income Tax Officer confront the assessee about the add backs during assessment proceedings.\nReference: No specific case cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,CI.(116)FirstShed.,PartIV ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1818/LB and 2414/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 18-11-1993, hearing DATE : 17-11-1993", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, CHAIRMAN AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sarfraz Mahmood, FCA for Appellant. Mazhar F. Sherazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 453 = 2000 SLD 453 = 2000 PTD 3234 = (1999) 237 ITR 348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Appeal to Appellate Tribunal\nTopic: Procedure for Raising Additional Grounds in Appeal\nConclusion: The court upheld the tribunal’s refusal to consider additional grounds of appeal as the applicant failed to ensure that the application for raising these grounds was registered and heard on time. The applicant’s neglect to have the application properly registered from 1992 to 1998 led to the tribunal’s decision.\nReference: Indian Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, Rule 11.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Indian Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963=R-11 ", + "Case #": "O.P. No.24873 of 1998-J, decision dated: 17-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": " PSHANMUGAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Joseph Markos and Joseph Kodianthara for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ASIAN TECHS LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 113 = 1994 SLD 113 = 1994 PTD 877 = (1993) 203 ITR 374", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Reassessment Notice\nTopic: Challenging Reassessment Notices in Writ Petitions\nConclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking clarification regarding the return submitted by the appellant. The notice to show cause regarding the escaped income assessment was also not subject to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.\nReference: S.S.V. Kumar v. CIT (1993) 199 ITR 416 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "WA. No. 668 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd February, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " VARGHESE KALLIATH AND P.K. SHAMSUDDIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.C. Sasidharan for Appellant. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "S.S. V. KUMAR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 114 = 1994 SLD 114 = 1994 PTD 878 = (1993) 203 ITR 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Business Expenditure – Year of Allowability – Market Fees\nConclusion: In this case, the issue was whether the market fee levied by the Haryana Government in 1980 was deductible in the assessment year 1983-84. The market fee liability became real and enforceable when the Collector demanded payment in March 1983. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, acknowledging that although the fee was levied in 1980, the liability was enforceable in 1983 when the demand was made. Therefore, the market fee was deductible in the 1983-84 assessment year.\nReference Cases:\n•\nCIT v. Orient Supply Syndicate (1982) 134 ITR 12 (Cal.)\n•\nShalimar Chemical Works (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 13; (1987) 71 FJR 67 (Cal.)\n•\nKedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 44 of 1990, decision dated: 7-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPADMAVATIRAJE COTTON MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 115 = 1994 SLD 115 = 1994 PTD 885 = (1993) 203 ITR 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Appeal – Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusion: The case concerns the Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal regarding a penalty for concealment of income. The High Court had confirmed that the Tribunal's reduction of the penalty was erroneous, and since the finding of concealment was undisputed, the Supreme Court found no grounds to overturn the High Court's decision. Therefore, leave to appeal was not granted.\nReference Cases:\n•\nCIT v. Shri Pawan Kumar Dalmia (1987) 168 ITR 1 (Ker.)\n•\nCIT v. Saraf Trading Corporation (1987) 167 ITR 909 (Ker.)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.M.P. No.4037 of 1991 in Income Tax Reference No.287 of 1982, decision dated: 18-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " K.T. THOMAS AND MRS. K.K. USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Sivarajan for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BHARATH SEA FOODS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 116 = 1994 SLD 116 = 1994 PTD 886 = (1993) 203 ITR 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Diversion of Income by Overriding Title – Partnership Agreements\nConclusion: This case addresses the issue of whether payments made by a partnership to the widows of deceased partners were deductible as they were argued to be diversion of income by overriding title. The court held that the payments were not a diversion but rather an application of income. The amounts were to be paid only if the surviving partners decided to continue the partnership, and thus, these payments did not constitute an overriding title to income. Additionally, the payments related to earlier years and were not deductible in the current year.\nReference Cases:\n•\nCIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC)\n•\nAddl. CIT v. Rattan Chand Kapoor (1984) 149 ITR 1 (Delhi)\n•\nBose (K.C.) & Co. v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 701 (Cal.)\n•\nCIT v. Crawford Bayley & Co, (1977) 106 ITR 884 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (P.) Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 17 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Mulla and Mulla and Craigie, Blunt and Caroe (1991) 190 ITR 198 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Orient Supply Syndicate (1982) 134 ITR 12 (Cal.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 113 of 1979, decision dated: 30-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P. SARAF AND U.T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley (P.S. Jetley with him) for the Commissioner. S.E. Dastur and S.J. Mehta with I.M. Munim for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nV.G. BHUTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 61 = 1995 SLD 61 = 1995 PTD 888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Deduction: Allowance for Purchase of Newspapers and Magazines by Journalists\nBackground: The case involved several journalists employed by Associated Newspapers Ltd. who each received allowances from their employer to reimburse some of the expenses incurred for purchasing newspapers and periodicals. These taxpayers appealed against their income-tax assessments, arguing that these allowances should be deductible under section 189(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970. The key issue was whether the expenditure was incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of their duties.\nFacts and Findings:\n•\nThe taxpayers included a range of journalistic positions such as a news layout journalist, staff photographer, sports reporter, assistant chief sub-editor, and picture editor.\n•\nIn the second to fifth cases, the General Commissioners concluded that the reading of newspapers and periodicals was a necessary part of their duties, not just a qualification requirement.\n•\nIn the first case, there was no such finding, and the Judge initially allowed the Crown’s appeal, stating there was no evidence that the reading was part of the performance of the taxpayer’s duties.\nRuling:\n•\nThe appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the taxpayers' appeal was allowed. The court held that the General Commissioners correctly assessed that the expenditure on newspapers was wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the journalists' duties.\n•\nThe expenditure was necessary if it was dictated by the nature of the employment, which was to be determined by the employee’s actual work requirements, not just legal obligations. Since the General Commissioners found that reading the publications was an essential aspect of their duties, the expenditures were deductible under section 189(1).\nLegal Precedents Cited:\n•\nEdwards v. Bairstow (1956)\n•\nHumbles v. Brooks (1962)\n•\nBentleys, Stokes and Lowless v. Beeson (1952)\n•\nBrown v. Bullock (1961) was distinguished", + "Court Name:": "Court of Appeal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970=189(1) ", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": " RALPH GIBSON, MANN AND NOLAN L., Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Alan Moses Q.C. and Nicholas Warren for the Crown. Peter Whiteman Q.C. and Marion Simmons for the Taxpayers.", + "Party Name:": "SMITH (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nVs\nABOTT and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 117 = 1994 SLD 117 = 1994 PTD 899 = (1993) 203 ITR 729", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Income-Tax: Revision of Assessment under Section 263 and Pending Appeal\nBackground: The petitioner challenged the Commissioner of Income Tax's (CIT) power to revise an assessment under section 263 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, while an appeal was pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, who had offered additional income for taxation and filed revised returns for the years 1976-77 to 1979-80, contested the jurisdiction of the CIT to proceed under section 263, as the appeal process was ongoing.\nFacts:\n•\nThe petitioner had filed revised returns after offering additional income for taxation. However, these assessments were under appeal.\n•\nNotices under section 263 were issued to revise the assessments, and the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging these notices.\nRuling:\n•\nThe court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the CIT had the authority to revise the order under section 263, even if an appeal was pending. The court clarified that section 263 does not impose restrictions on revising assessments while an appeal is in progress.\n•\nThe Commissioner’s power is not contingent on the outcome of an appeal, and the CIT can review an assessment if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.\n•\nThe proper forum for raising any objections to the revision of the assessment would be in an appeal before the Tribunal, not through a writ petition.\nLegal Precedents Cited:\n•\nCIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (1958)\n•\nCIT v. Electro House (1971)\n•\nRampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (1968)\n•\nTara Devi Aggarwal (Smt.) v. CIT (1973)", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.J.C. Nos. 2016 to2019 of 1993, decision dated: 22-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " A. PASAYAT AND D.M. PATNAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Mahanti, Bibek Mahanti, G.N. Padhi, H.K. Mohanty, S.S. Baral and B.K. Sahoo for Petitioners\nA.K. Ray for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 454 = 2000 SLD 454 = 2000 PTD 3236 = (1999) 237 ITR 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome-tax: Solatium Taxability\no\nRuling: The solatium amount of Rs. 2,20,000 received by the assessee is taxable as income.\no\nReference: Akola Electric Supply Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 265 (Bom.)\n2.\nProfits Chargeable to Tax\no\nRuling: The taking over of the assessee's undertaking was not a slump sale but the sale of individual assets. The sale of assets triggers taxability under section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act.\no\nReference: CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 93 of 1985, decision dated: 5-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. V.B. Patel with U.I. Dalai for the Assessee. R.V. Desai with B.M. Chattarjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ANAND ELECTIRC C0. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 118 = 1994 SLD 118 = 1994 PTD 915 = (1993) 203 ITR 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment: Notice of Reassessment and Limitations\n•\nRuling: A reassessment notice under section 148 is not valid if issued to a third party (partner) without giving the partner an opportunity to be heard. The conditions under section 150(1) must be satisfied, including giving the concerned party an opportunity to contest the matter.\n•\nReference: Gupta Traders v. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 504 (All.), CIT v. Dhanpatram Chhotelal (1985) 156 ITR 682 (Pat.)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 31 of 1993, decision dated: 27-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " S. NAINAR SUNDARAM C.J. AND S.D. DAVE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Shah for Petitioner. M.R. Bhatt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "A.B. PARIKH\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 455 = 2000 SLD 455 = 2000 PTD 3238 = (1999) 237 ITR 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment: Limitation and Effect of Appellate Orders\n•\nRuling: If the reassessment was barred by limitation at the time of the appellate authority's order, the jurisdiction for reassessment cannot be conferred under section 150. This limits the ability to issue reassessment notices when time bars have expired.\n•\nReference: CIT v. G. Viswanatham (1988) 172 ITR 401 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.P. Nos. 18644 and 18676 of 1997, decision dated: 1st December, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. GARG AND N.K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Mittal for Petitioner. R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Bindal for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "PARVEEN KUMARI and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 62 = 1995 SLD 62 = 1995 PTD 920 = (1994) 210 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Business vs. House Property\n•\nRuling: A property used by employees or directors of a company, if occupied to facilitate business operations, should be classified as income from business rather than income from house property. The company can also claim deductions for repairs and depreciation on such property.\n•\nReference: Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 152 (Delhi), New Bank of India Ltd. v. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 132 (Delhi), CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988) 173 ITR 290 (AP)", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Nos.67 and 70 of 1982, decided 18-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " D.P. WADHWA, P.K BAHRI AND D.K, JAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta Rajendra, D.N. Malhotra and D.C. Taneja, Advocates for the Commissioners. G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (Anoop Sharma and Deepak Chopra, Advocates with him) for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMODI INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 456 = 2000 SLD 456 = 2000 PTD 3248 = (1999) 237 ITR 795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Reference - Depreciation - Extra-shift allowance\nThis case pertains to the question of whether extra-shift allowance can be granted for transformers, electric substations, and electric motors, which are stationary installations. The issue was framed as a question of law. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had allowed the extra-shift allowance on these installations, and the High Court held that this was a legal issue worthy of reference, under Sections 32 and 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n(b) Income-tax - Business expenditure - Expenditure on guest house\nThe question regarding the deductibility of guest house expenses was not deemed a valid referable question of law. The Revenue had either accepted similar expenses for the same assessee in past assessment years or had declined to refer such questions previously. Therefore, the High Court could not direct the reference of the issue. The case referenced several decisions, including CIT v. Kshma Tandon (Smt.) and Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 18 of 1998, decision dated: 3rd December, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. GARG AND N. K. AGGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Bindal for the Commissioner. B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nARDHMAN SPINNING AND GENERAL MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 457 = 2000 SLD 457 = 2000 PTD 3252 = (1999) 237 ITR 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Reassessment - Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment\nThe case concerns reassessment proceedings initiated after it was found that an amount of Rs.1,40,552, which had been shown as a secured advance from CPWD in the assessment year 1986-87, had already been recovered in 1986. The subsequent letters from CPWD supported this finding, and the High Court upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The notice under section 148 was issued within the seven-year limitation period specified by Section 149(1)(a)(ii). The case cited precedents such as CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2853 of 1993, decision dated: 31st August 1998", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A Moitra for Petitioner. K.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "P.K. HALDAR & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 119 = 1994 SLD 119 = 1994 PTD 923 = (1993) 203 ITR 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Additions to income - Film artiste's income\nIn this case, the assessee, a film artiste, entered into an agreement with a company that facilitated the provision of artistes to film producers. The company received payments for the services rendered by the assessee but paid the latter a fixed remuneration of Rs.80,000 per annum. The Income Tax Officer made additions to the assessee’s income, arguing that the arrangement was designed to evade taxes. However, the Tribunal found no material to support this claim and upheld the deletion of the additions. The case referred to McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO for tax evasion principles.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 87 and 415 of 1978, decision dated: 18-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND U. T. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner. S.J. Mehta with I.M. Munim for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSmt. SAIRABANU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 120 = 1994 SLD 120 = 1994 PTD 927", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Act (1922) - Section 66(1) - Reference - Question of fact\nThe issue here was whether the Tribunal had considered all the material submitted during the hearing. The High Court noted that no proof was presented to show that the Tribunal had relied on material not disclosed to the assessee. The decision referenced the case S.M. Chitnavis v. CIT.\n(b) Income Tax Act (1922) - Section 66(1) - Reference - Failure to submit material\nThis section addresses whether the Tribunal had failed to consider material provided after the order was passed. Since no proof existed to show the Tribunal's failure to consider such material, the question was not deemed valid for reference. The case distinguished Superior Furniture Company v. CIT.\n(c) Income Tax Act (1922) - Section 13 - Estimation of Income\nHere, the Income Tax Officer estimated the income after discarding the declared version. The court held that although the officer had wide powers, his estimate should be based on some evidence and not mere guesswork. The case referred to Rajput Metal Works v. CIT for the principle of estimating income based on averages.\n(d) Income Tax Act (1922) - Section 10 - Overhead expenses and depreciation\nThe court ruled that statutory allowances like overhead expenses and depreciation, if applicable to an assessee, must be granted. The Income Tax Officer’s decision to deny these allowances without a proper speaking order was deemed improper. This was based on precedents like Allahabad Glass Works v. CIT.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),13,10 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No-122 of 1974 (P.T.R. No.179 of 1974), decision dated: 15-11-1978, hearing DATE : 5-07-1978", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javaid Hashmi for Applicant.\nSh. Abdul Haq for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "M.S. HAMEED MASOOD AND ASSOCIATES, MULTAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 458 = 2000 SLD 458 = 2000 PTD 3260 = (1999) 237 ITR 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "- Reassessment for Failure to Disclose Material Facts:\n•\nKey Facts: The petitioner had constructed a house, disclosed the cost of construction, and provided contractors' bills and a valuation certificate in accordance with Wealth Tax Rules. Despite this, reassessment was initiated based on a later valuation report from an LT valuer, which suggested a higher property value.\n•\nLegal Outcome: The reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid, as the petitioner had disclosed all material facts at the time. The report from the LT valuer was considered a mere reason, not enough to trigger reassessment unless there was failure to disclose material facts.\n•\nRelevant Sections: S.147 & 148 (Reassessment), S.55-A (Wealth Tax), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.9339 of 1988, decision dated: 24-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " P. D. DINAKARAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Petitioner\nC. V. Rjan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KAMALAM RAJENDRAN\nVs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ASSESSMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 63 = 1995 SLD 63 = 1995 PTD 931 = (1994) 210 ITR 830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Government Subsidy:\n•\nKey Facts: A government subsidy was provided to an industrial undertaking as an incentive for setting up in backward areas. The issue was whether the subsidy should be deducted from the actual cost of the capital assets for depreciation calculation.\n•\nLegal Outcome: The court held that the subsidy did not reduce the actual cost of the assets, as it was not a payment for the capital cost but a financial aid. Hence, it should not be deducted for calculating depreciation under S.43(1).\n•\nRelevant Sections: S.43(1) (Depreciation), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=43 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2474, 2475, 2476, 2851, 3699 and 3700 of 1990, decision dated: 14-09-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.-I AND S.C. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar and B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocates (Manaj Arora, S. Rajappa, Ranbir Chandra, M.B. Rao, D.S. Mahra and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with them) for the Department.\nG.P, Pai, Senior Advocate (Mrs. A.K. Verma of Messrs J.B. Dadachanji & Co. Advocate with him) for the Assessee.\nG. Saranagan, Senior Advocate (Mukul Mudgal, Advocate with him) for the Assessee, in Civil Appeals Nos.3431 and 3432 of 1991.\nA. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao, Advocates for the Assessee (in Civil Appeals Nos.3699 and 3700 of 1990.\nK.T. Anantharaman and R. Vasudevan, Advocates for the Assessee in Civil Anneal No 1660 of 1992.\nP.R. Ramasesh, Advocate for the Assessee (in Civil Appeals Nos.3408 and 3409 of 1991.\nV. Balachandran, Advocate for the Assessee (in Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 1991\nM.N. Shroff, Advocate for the Assessee (in Civil Appeal No. 6131 of 1994.\nMukul Mudgal, Advocate for the Assessee (in Civil Appeal No. 6147 of 1994.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nP.J. CHEMICALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 121 = 1994 SLD 121 = 1994 PTD 934 = (1993) 203 ITR 696", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Attachment of Property:\n•\nKey Facts: The taxpayer objected to the attachment of property for tax recovery, citing it was not liable for attachment.\n•\nLegal Outcome: Rule 11 of the Second Schedule requires that a person objecting to the attachment of property must be given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The taxpayer’s objections should be investigated by the Tax Recovery Officer.\n•\nRelevant Rule: Rule 11, Second Schedule, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1250 of 1987, decision dated: 28-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Soli Dastur with NA. Dalvi instructed by Messrs Kanga & Co. for Petitioner.\nDr. V. Balasubramaniam with Mrs. Manjula Singh for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2\nY.T. John with Miss M. John for Respondent No. 3", + "Party Name:": "TUSHAR TULSIDAS TANNA\nVs\nJ. RAM and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 122 = 1994 SLD 122 = 1994 PTD 937 = (1993) 203 ITR 691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Advance Tax Estimate:\n•\nKey Facts: The assessee filed an incorrect estimate of advance tax due to not accounting for a marginal increase in turnover. The issue was whether this amounted to a false estimate warranting penalty.\n•\nLegal Outcome: The tribunal held that there was no penalty, as the error was unintentional. The assessee had provided a reasonable explanation, and the burden shifted to the Revenue to prove it was untrue.\n•\nRelevant Sections: S.209-A, S.212, S.273-A, Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.J.C. No-103 of 1991, decision dated: 30th March 1993", + "Judge Name:": " A. PASAYAT AND D.M. PATNAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Ray for the Commissioner\nArjun Agrawalla and S.C. Lal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nORISSA FLOUR MILLS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 459 = 2000 SLD 459 = 2000 PTD 3278 = (1999) 237 ITR 814", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Currency Reserve and Taxation:\n•\nKey Facts: The assessee, working on contracts abroad, received advances which were to be adjusted against future bills. The foreign currency reserve was converted into Indian Rupees at the end of the accounting year, and the tax authorities considered this as income.\n•\nLegal Outcome: The court ruled that the amount in the foreign currency reserve was not the assessee's income until it was adjusted against the bills. Thus, it was not taxable at that time.\n•\nRelevant Sections: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 82 of 1988, decision dated: 25-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai with B.M. Chatterjee for the Commissioner\nS.J. Mehta with I.M. Munim for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHAH CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 123 = 1994 SLD 123 = 1994 PTD 942 = (1994) 69 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 65, 62, 116, & 132\no\nKey Issue: Concealment of income and imposition of penalty.\no\nDecision: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reassessed the income of the assessee after discovering unreported dividend income. The Commissioner or Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) can only confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment, and directing the ITO to refrain from acting under Section 116 was deemed beyond jurisdiction.\n•\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 111 & 12(11)\no\nKey Issue: Penalty for concealment of income (dividend income).\no\nDecision: The assessee filed a return after the concealment was discovered. The imposition of penalty under Section 111 was upheld, as the return was filed deliberately in violation of the law, and the concealment was intentional.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,62,116132,111,12(11),59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1720/KB, 1721/KB and 1951/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 4-11-1993.hearing DATE : 18th October 1993.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASSAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Naubehar Kiyani, D.R. for Appellant\nSalman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 124 = 1994 SLD 124 = 1994 PTD 951 = (1994) 69 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 96 & 99\no\nKey Issue: Procedure for claiming a tax refund.\no\nDecision: Refunds arise when tax paid exceeds tax liability. The assessee must apply within one year of the relevant year, and failure to act on the refund application by June 30th, the refund becomes due, unless a notice is issued to the Commissioner by May 31st.\n•\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 100, 102 & 99\no\nKey Issue: Refund procedure and the impact of amendments under the Finance Act, 1985.\no\nDecision: The amendment to Section 100 in 1985 allowed for automatic refunds without requiring an application from the assessee. However, no refund is deemed due unless an order is passed. This amendment applies prospectively from the assessment year 1985-86.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,99,100 Finance Act, 1985=59,59A,62or63 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 236/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 16-10-1993.hearing DATE : 3rd October, 1993.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazharul Hasan for Appellant.\nKhalid Siddiqui, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 125 = 1994 SLD 125 = 1994 PTD 958 = (1994) 69 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 136 & Civil Procedure Code (CPC)\no\nKey Issue: Reference to the High Court under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\no\nDecision: The High Court's role in references is advisory and not part of its original or appellate jurisdiction. The review of decisions in reference matters is not allowed under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The power to review, amend, or alter a reference is not vested in the High Court under Section 136 of the Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=114,152,153 ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Application No.13 of 1993 and Income Tax Reference No.150 of 1991, decision dated: 6th December 1993.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque Memon for Applicant.\nNasrullah Awan for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "NAZIR ALI M.H. GANGJI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-1, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 460 = 2000 SLD 460 = 2000 PTD 3281 = (1999) 237 ITR 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Income Tax - Business Expenditure (Bonus)\no\nKey Issue: Deductibility of incentive bonus above the amount payable under the Payment of Bonus Act.\no\nDecision: The excess incentive bonus paid beyond the statutory requirement is allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\n(b) Income Tax - Depreciation (Subsidy on Assets)\no\nKey Issue: Impact of government subsidies on the actual cost of assets for depreciation.\no\nDecision: Government subsidies received for capital assets should not be deducted from the actual cost while calculating depreciation or investment allowance.\n•\n(c) Income Tax - Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure (Guarantee Commission)\no\nKey Issue: Deductibility of guarantee commission paid to a bank for purchasing a capital asset.\no\nDecision: Guarantee commission paid to a bank is allowable as a revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. No. 1059 of 1985 (Reference No. 566 of 1985), decision dated: 5-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nP.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTHIAGARAJAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 461 = 2000 SLD 461 = 2000 PTD 3284 = (1999) 237 ITR 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reassessment-Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment\nThe assessee was a firm engaged in civil construction work. For the assessment year 1979-80, it was assessed on an income of Rs.20,690. At that time, the assessee had certain claims pending against BCCL for which it had undertaken construction of some quarters under a contract. According to the case of the assessee, although the construction work was completed and information in that regard was given to the concerned officials of BCCL, no payment was made. The assessee finally filed a suit. The arbitrator allowed the claim of the assessee for a sum of Rs.10,48,500 with interest. The award was made a rule of the Court. However, BCCL challenged the decree. The Court by an interim order stayed the execution proceedings instituted at the instance of the assessee on the condition that BCCL should deposit the decretal amount in the executing Court. The assessee was given the liberty to withdraw the deposited amount on furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the executing Court. By virtue of that order, the assessee withdrew the decretal amount deposited in the Court and put the entire amount in fixed deposit in a bank. The fixed deposit yielded interest amounting to Rs.1,61,363.29 which was duly shown by the assessee in the return of its income for the assessment year 1987-88. The income-tax authorities made inquiries about the aforesaid interest amount and came to learn about the title suit filed by the assessee in which the Court had given it a decree for the amount as mentioned above. The Income-tax Officer then issued notice to the assessee on February 20, 1998, asking it to show cause why a proceeding under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should not be taken for the assessment year 1979-80 on the presumption that income during that assessment year had escaped assessment. The assessee in its reply pointed out that its claim had been disputed by BCCL and so no income accrued to it at any time till the award was made. Rejecting this explanation, notice of reassessment was issued. On a writ petition:\nHeld: The assessee could not reckon the amount or any part of it as income accrued in the year of assessment, as it was merely a claim at the time of original assessment. The reassessment notice was invalid and liable to be quashed.\nCIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.J.C. No. 709 of 1990, decision dated: August 25, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " S. N, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Moitra and S.K. Dutta for Petitioner\nK.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTHIAGARAJAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 126 = 1994 SLD 126 = 1994 PTD 966 = (1993) 203 ITR 685", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Powers and duties of Tribunal\nThe Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. However, it must discharge its functions in accordance with the law. If the finding of fact is entered in a wrong way, it will be unfair and unreasonable.\n(b) Income-Tax-Appellate Tribunal-Jurisdiction of\nThe Tribunal considered fresh documents without admitting them as additional evidence in accordance with law, which was improper. The matter was remanded.\nHeld: The Tribunal must dispose of the appeal only on the basis of materials available before it and in a manner consistent with the law. The procedure followed by the Tribunal was unfair and illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 61 of 1988, decision dated: 5-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.P. BALANARAYANA MARAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD. (NO.1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 127 = 1994 SLD 127 = 1994 PTD 972 = (1993) 203 ITR 678", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Property-Other sources\nIncome derived by the assessee from letting out part of its factory building was assessable under the head Income from house property .\nCIT v. New India Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 208 (Guj.) fol.\n(b) Income-tax-Business expenditure-Disallowance\nExpenditure on tea and messing was not considered entertainment expenditure, as it was not lavish, extravagant, or unreasonable. Thus, it could not be disallowed under section 37(2B).\nCIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. and Gautamkumar Rejendrakumar (1977) 106 ITR 424 (Guj.) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 178, 178A to 178C of 1978, decision dated: 25-08-1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.B. MAJMUDAR AND S.D. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.J. Shelat, instructed by M.R. Bhatt for R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner\nD.A. Mehta, R.K. Patel and K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nNEW BHARAT ENGINEERING (JAM) P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 128 = 1994 SLD 128 = 1994 PTD 976 = (1993) 203 ITR 675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Penalty-Concealment of income\nThe assessee disclosed interest received under section 214 in returns for the assessment year 1974-75 but claimed it was assessed in an earlier year without providing evidence. The penalty was levied.\nHeld: The finding of the Tribunal that the interest was assessable in 1972-73, and not in the assessment year 1974-75, rendered the penalty for concealment of income invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 88 of 1989, decision dated: 14-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKUSUM PRODUCTS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 129 = 1994 SLD 129 = 1994 PTD 980 = (1993) 203 ITR 666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Income from house property-Deductions\nInterest on loan taken on the security of the house property for paying estate duty was not deductible under section 24(1)(iv).\nHeld: Only voluntary charges created by the assessee can be deducted from income from house property under section 24(1)(iv), and not charges thrust upon the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 138 of 1977, decision dated: 23rd October, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetly, Senior Advocate and P.S. Jetly for the Commissioner\nP.J. Pardiwala for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCENTRAL BANK EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 130 = 1994 SLD 130 = 1994 PTD 986 = (1993) 203 ITR 663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reference-Capital gains\nIn the case of transfer of shares, the transaction is considered complete when the share certificates are handed over, regardless of whether the company has registered the transfer.\nHeld: The transfer of shares was complete in the assessment year 1978-79 when the share certificates were handed over, making the question of the date of transfer merely academic.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 124 of 1988-S, decision dated: 23rd February, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " KS. PARIPOORNAN AND K. P. BALANARAYANA MARAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.N. Ramachandran Nair for Petitioner\nP.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RAJAGIRI RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 131 = 1994 SLD 131 = 1994 PTD 989 = (1993) 203 ITR 641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Penalty-Concealment of income\nCredits found in the accounts without proper explanation were presumed to represent concealed income. The penalty was valid under section 271(1)(c).\nHeld: The assessee failed to offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the credit entries, and thus, the penalty for concealment of income was justified.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.J.C. No. 85 of 1990, decision dated: 8-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " A. PASAYAT AND D.M. PATNAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Ray for the Commissioner\nS.N. Ratho for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPRATHI HARDWARE STORES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 132 = 1994 SLD 132 = 1994 PTD 997 = (1993) 203 ITR 661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Reference-Firm-Registration-Assessment\nTwo firms alleged to be controlled by the same persons were determined by the High Court as separate entities. Therefore, the same question could not be raised by the other firm.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that an identical question could not be referred in the case of the applicant firm.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference Application No. 9 of 1989, decision dated: 19-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " V.S. DAVE AND FAROOQ HASAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner\nP.K. Kasliwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAIPUR OIL COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 133 = 1994 SLD 133 = 1994 PTD 1012 = (1993) 203 ITR 820", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Capital or revenue expenditure—General principles—Test of enduring benefit is not always conclusive—Lease—Premium on lease—Finding that premium was actually advance rent—Premium allowable as revenue expenditure—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 37.\nIt would be misleading to suppose that, in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all . There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, nonetheless, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to be considered is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future. The test of enduring benefit is, therefore, not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given case.\n(b) Income-tax—Depreciation—Extra shift depreciation allowance—Extra shift depreciation allowance available on capitalized technical documentation fees—Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 32.\nThe assessee had entered into a lease agreement with M.I.D.C. on November 24, 1980, granting lease of a plot of land. Under the terms of the agreement, the assessee was required to construct a building thereon within a period of two years. Thereafter, the assessee was entitled to use and occupy the property with the building thereon for a period of 95 years upon payment of rent of Re. 1 per annum. After the expiry of the lease period, the plot together with the building thereon had to be surrendered to the M.I.D.C. Under the said agreement, the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 12,09,200 as premium for acquiring the leasehold. The assessee claimed that the said amount, although stated as premium, was nothing but rent paid in advance. Both the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that this was a capital expenditure. In second appeal, the Tribunal held that the expenditure was for the sole purpose of the assessee’s business and, as such, eligible for deduction. The assessee also claimed extra shift depreciation allowance in respect of capitalized technical documentation fees. On a reference:\nHeld: (i) that the assessee was entitled to extra shift depreciation on capitalized technical documentation fees;\nCIT v. H.M.T. Ltd. (No. 2) (1993) 203 ITR 818 (Appex.) fol.\nThat, in the instant case, the Tribunal had found as a fact that what was paid by the assessee in a lump sum to M.I.D.C. was the future rent payable by it and which the assessee had to pay periodically. This was evident from the fact that the assessee was paying Re. 1 per annum which was obviously for the purpose of retaining the character of the transfer of property as a lease and not for any other purpose. The Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,09,200 representing lease premium should be allowed as business expenditure.\nRamakrishna & Co. v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 406 (Mad.) and Uttar Bharat Exchange Ltd. v. CIT (1965) 55 ITR 550 (Punj.) distinguished.\nCIT v. Associated Cement Cos. Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); CIT v. Madras Auto Service Ltd. (1985) 156 ITR 740 (Mad.); CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 422 (SC); CIT v. Project Automobiles (1984) 150 ITR 266 (Bom.); Commissioner of Taxes v. Nehanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. (1965) 58 ITR 241 (PC) and Empire Jute Co, Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "IT.R.C. No. 106 of 1989, decision dated: 26th November 1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.A. HAKEEM AND KEDAMBADY, JAGANNATHA SHETTY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Raghavendra Rao for the Commissioner\nK.P. Kumar for Messrs King and Partridge for the Assessee.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nH.M.T. LTD. (No. 3)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 134 = 1994 SLD 134 = 1994 PTD 1024 = (1994) 69 TAX 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—Ss. 136(1) & 135—Income Tax Appellate Tribunals Rules, 1981, R. 20(2)—Reference—Only a question of law arising out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed on appeal can be referred to the High Court and none other—Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on miscellaneous application recalling and setting aside the earlier order being not an order disposing of an appeal under S. 135, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and question of law to be referred having neither been raised nor argued, objection against maintainability of reference was justified in circumstances.\nM/s. Ahmad Karachi Halwa Merchants and Ahmad Food Products v. CIT, South Zone, Karachi 1982 SCMR -489; CIT, Madras v. MTT AR. S.AR. Arunachalam Chetti AR (1953) 23 ITR 180; National Engineering Metal Industries v. CIT, Patiala II (1979) 120 ITR 574; Re: CIT, Madras v. O.R.M. MSM. SV. Sevugan (1948) 16 ITR 59; 1973 PTD 544; 1973 PTD 530; CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589; 1994 PTD (Trib.) 565; CIT, Bombay v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 892; Vendantham Ranghaviah v. Third Additional Income Tax Officer. Madras (1963) 49 ITR 314; Muhammad Amjad v. CIT and others 1992 PTD 513 and Shanti Vijay & Company v. CIT 1983 ITR 154 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=136(1),135 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=R.20(2) ", + "Case #": "R.A. Nos. 27/LB/1992-93 to 29/LB of, decision dated: 10-03-1994.hearing DATE : 21st December 1993,", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Javeed-ur-Rehman, D.R. for Applicant\nShahbaz Butt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 135 = 1994 SLD 135 = 1994 PTD 1034 = (1994) 69 TAX 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Venture in the nature of trade—Assessee, a company—Unless a concrete shape is given to the subsidiary objects of Memorandum of Association of the company, a company cannot be regarded as having ventured in business other than the main business—To have intention of doing a business and being in a business are different matters—Mere mention of an activity in the Memorandum of Association of the company, at best, raised a reputable presumption which can be dispelled by showing that the company actually did not carry out that business.\n1980 PTD 322 and 1990 PTD (Trib.) 671 ref.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S. 27(2)(a)(ii)—Capital gain—Exemption—Adventure in the nature of trade—Assessee, a company deriving income from a restaurant—Assessee had purchased property for setting up of a Five Star Hotel—Balance-sheets of the assessee showed the payment as work in progress under the head fixed assets—Record showed that detailed feasibility studies were prepared for the purpose of obtaining loan from Bank and assessee had applied for a loan from the Bank for setting up of such hotel—Assessee's request for loan was refused by the Bank after detailed negotiations—Available evidence thus clearly showed that property in question had been purchased by assessee for setting up of a hotel—Gain on sale of such property being not a profit in the ordinary course of business, assessee's claim for exemption under S. 27(2)(a)(ii) on such gain was justified in circumstances.\n1980 PTD 322 and 1990 PTD (Trib.) 671 ref.\n(c) Income-tax—Addition—Assessee had entered into an agreement with a contractor for demolition of building and levelling of the plot of land and it was agreed upon that in lieu of any consideration for the job of demolition and levelling the plot contractor will take away the scrap material—Agreement in question was prepared by a prestigious law firm and witnessed by two responsible persons—No evidence to the contrary was brought on record by the Assessing Officer—Estimate of income of assessee on account of income from sale of scrapped building material by the Assessing Officer, without any basis, was not justified in circumstances.\nPer Nasim Sikandar, Judicial Member—\n(d) Income-tax—Adventure in the nature of trade—Determining factors—Principles.\nWhere transaction was not in line of business of the assessee but was an isolated or single, instance of a transaction, the onus was on the department to prove that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade.\nThere can be no definition of the words exercising a trade . It is only another mode of expressing carrying on a business ; but it certainly carries with it the meaning that business or trade must be habitually or systematically exercised, and that it cannot apply to isolated transaction.\nIf the purpose is investment, the fact that in varying the investment, sale of shares results in profits will not make such profits revenue income unless it is shown that variation amounts to dealing in investments. If it is a case of numerous purchases and sales and the sales being within a short time of the purchase, the conclusion may be that it was a case of trading for then the inference would be that the purchases were made with the sole object of turning it over and selling it at a profit. If on the other hand there are a few sales although a number of purchases and when sales are made at long intervals after the purchase, the conclusion more appropriately will be investment, notwithstanding the fact that there was no intention of holding over the shares purchased and the purchase was in expectation of being able to sell it off at profit when the shares appreciate in value.\nIn all such cases, the prime factor to be examined is the whole of the transaction in its totality coupled with the intention of those engaged in the transaction not only at the relevant time but also before and after the transaction has been completed.\nThe question whether a transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade is essentially a question of fact and that fact has to be determined from the entire surrounding circumstances as disclosed in the case, and no one particular circumstance could be relied upon to hold it so.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27(2)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1950/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 16-02-1994.hearing DATE : 15th February 1994", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMED BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sarfraz Mehmood, FCA, Rizwan Bashir, ITP and Saved Farooq for Appellant\nMirza Ghazanfar Beig, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 462 = 2000 SLD 462 = 2000 PTD 3290 = (1999) 237 ITR 472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gratuity Exemption Under Income Tax Act, 1961:\nThis case discusses the treatment of gratuity received by employees and the tax exemption under Section 10(10) of the Income Tax Act. The following points are notable:\n•\nPre-1974 Provisions: Before the Finance Act of 1974, gratuity paid to employees of the Government, local authorities, or statutory corporations was fully exempt from tax. However, gratuity from other employers had a cap on exemption, either 15 days' salary for each year of service or a maximum of Rs. 24,000 or 15 months' salary, whichever was lower.\n•\nPost-1974 Amendments: The Finance Act of 1974 amended Section 10(10), dividing the exemption into three sub-clauses, each with different ceilings and exemptions for government employees versus private-sector employees. For employees of statutory corporations or private employers, the new ceiling limit was Rs. 30,000.\n•\nProvisos on Multiple Employers: If an employee receives gratuity from more than one employer, the exemptions are aggregated, and if the employee has received gratuity from a previous employer, that amount will be deducted from the ceiling limit.\n•\nCase Outcome: The assessee had already availed of the exemption under Section 10(10) when retiring from Air India. Therefore, the entire gratuity received later from another employer was subject to tax.\nSLD #4039 - Charitable Trusts: Accumulation of Income and Exemption:\nThis section deals with the exemption of accumulated income for charitable trusts under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nSection 11(1)(a): This provision allows trusts to accumulate income up to 25% of the income or Rs. 10,000 (whichever is higher) for charitable or religious purposes, exempt from tax.\n•\nSection 11(2): This provision allows exemption for accumulated income exceeding 25% or Rs. 10,000 if the income is invested in government securities or other prescribed assets, provided the procedure in Section 11(2) is followed.\n•\nClarification: The exemption under Section 11(1)(a) applies without conditions and is not restricted by Section 11(2), meaning the first portion of accumulated income can be exempted even without being invested in prescribed securities. Section 11(2) applies only to the balance of income beyond the 25% or Rs. 10,000.\n•\nCourt Rulings: Previous rulings affirmed that Section 11(1)(a) operates independently of Section 11(2), and both can apply to different portions of the accumulated income.\nSLD #4040 - Tax on Imported Goods:\n•\nTax Payment at Import Stage: According to Circular No. 12 of 1991, tax paid by an importer at the import stage constitutes a final discharge of their tax liability, and no further taxes are required from such an importer.\n•\nExemption from Filing Returns: If an individual’s only income is from the sale of imported goods, they may not need to file an income-tax return.\nSLD #4041 - Appeal Procedures and Limitation under Income Tax Ordinance:\nThis section addresses various legal points on appeals, limitations, and delay condonation under the Income Tax Ordinance (1979):\n•\nCondonation of Delay (Sections 134(4) & 130(3)): The power to condone delay is broader for tax authorities (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Commissioner of Income Tax, Appellate Assistant Commissioner) than under the Limitation Act, as revenue matters do not entail the same finality and valuable rights as in civil matters. The courts recognize the state's interest in tax recovery and allow more flexibility for delay condonation.\n•\nJudicial Discretion: The delay can be condoned based on the facts and circumstances of each case, with consideration of the public interest and the nature of tax proceedings.\n•\nLegal Representation: Tax proceedings allow for representation not just by lawyers but also by authorized individuals like accountants or tax practitioners. These representatives may not have the same legal training, which can affect the handling of intricate legal issues.\n•\nSpecific Appeals and Condonation:\no\nThe rejection of an application for delay condonation must be done with proper reasons recorded.\no\nA time-barred appeal cannot be disturbed once the order is made, and any condonation request must be considered within the limits of the statutory framework.\nGeneral Analysis:\n•\nThe gratuity exemptions illustrate how changes in tax laws aim to remove disparities between government employees and employees of private/statutory corporations while ensuring that employees do not receive excessive exemptions.\n•\nThe charitable trust exemptions reflect an attempt to balance the tax exemptions available to trusts with the practical need for proper management and investment of accumulated income to ensure its use for charitable purposes.\n•\nTax on imported goods highlights a simplified tax framework for importers who do not engage in other taxable activities.\n•\nThe limitation and appeal procedures illustrate how income tax matters allow for greater flexibility, given the public interest in recovering taxes owed, and that the authorities have wider discretion compared to civil law proceedings.\nEach of these rulings underlines the intricacies and balances inherent in tax law, designed to ensure fairness while also promoting compliance with legal and procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 158 of 1985, decision dated: 4th February 1999", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND S. H. KAPADIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.M. Chatterjee with R. V. Desai instructed by L.S. Sherry for the Commissioner\nJ.D. Mistry instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nN. J. PAVRI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 118 = 1996 SLD 118 = 1996 PTD 1042 = (1995) 216 ITR 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Charitable trust-Exemption-Accumulation of income-Scope of S.11(1)(a)-Out of accumulated income Rs.10,000 or 25 per cent of income whichever is higher is exempt under S.11(1)(a)-Section 11(2) does not, restrict operation of S.11(1)(a)-Accumulated income exempt under S.11(1)(a) need not be invested in Government securities-Additional accumulated income beyond 25 percent. or Rs.10,000 whichever is higher can also get exemption if invested as laid down in S.11(2) after following the procedure laid down therein-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 11.\n \nAccording to section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood in the Assessment year 1969-70, two types of income earned by the trust during the previous year from its properties are given exemption from income-tax: (i) that part of the income of the previous year which is actually spent for charitable or religious purposes in that year; and (ii) out of the unspent accumulated income of the previous year 25 percent. of such total property income or Rs.10,000, whichever is higher, can be permitted to be accumulated by the trust, earmarked for such charitable or religious purposes. Such 25 percent. of the income or Rs.10,000, whichever is higher, will also get exempted from income ¬tax. That exhausts the operation of section 11(1)(a). Then follows subsection (2) which deals with the question of investment of the balance of accumulated income which has still not earned exemption under subsection (1)(a). So far as that balance of accumulated income is concerned, that also can earn exemption from income-tax meaning thereby the ceiling or the limit of exemption of accumulated income from income-tax as imposed by subsection (1)(a) of section 11 would get lifted if the additional accumulated income beyond 25 percent. or Rs.10,000, whichever is higher, as the case may be, is invested as laid down by section 11(2) after following the procedure laid down therein. Therefore, subsection (2) will operate qua the balance of 75 percent. of the total income of the previous year or income beyond Rs.10,000, whichever is higher, which has not got the benefit of tax exemption under subsection (1)(a) of section 11. It has to be kept in view that out of the accumulated income of the previous year an amount of Rs.10,000 or 25 percent. of the total income from property, whichever is higher, is given exemption from income-tax by section 11(1)(a) itself. That exemption- is unfettered and not subject to any conditions. Section 11(2) does not operate to whittle down or to cut across the exemption provision contained in section 11(1)(a) so far as such accumulated income of the previous year is concerned. It has also to be appreciated that subsection (2) of section 11 does not contain any non obstante clause like \"\"notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1)\"\". Consequently it must be held that after section 11(l)(a) has had full play and if still any accumulated income of the previous year is left to be dealt with and to be considered for the purpose of income-tax exemption, subsection (2) of section 11 can be pressed into service and if it is complied with, then such additional accumulated income beyond 25 percent. or Rs.10,000 whichever is higher, can also earn exemption from income-tax on compliance with the conditions laid down by subsection (2) of section 11 CIT v. C.M. Kothari Charitable Trust (1984) 149 ITR 573 (Mad.); CIT v. H. H. Marthanda Verma Elayaraja of Travancore Trust (1981) 129 ITR 191 (Ker.); Mohanlal Hargovinddas Public Charitable Trust v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 130 (MP); CIT v. Shri Krishen Chand Charitable Trust (1975) 98 ITR 387 (J & K) and CIT v. Trustees of Bhat Family Research Foundation (1990) 185 ITR 532 (Bom.) approved.\n \nAddl. CIT v. A. L. N. Rao Charitable Trust (1976) 103 ITR 44 affirmed.\n \nCIT (Addl.) v. A.L. N. Rao Charitable Trust (1976) 102 ITR 474 (Kar.); CIT v. Anjuman Moinia Fakharia (1994) 208 ITR 568 (Raj.); CIT v. Shree Padmanabhaswami Temple Trust (1979) 120 ITR 42 (Ker.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=11 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.958 of 1977, decision dated: 13-10-1995(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 4,1975, of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 864 of 1974)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (R. Sathish and S. N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellants\nGopal Jain and Mukul Mudgal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another\nVs\nA.L.N. RAO CHARITABLE TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 65 = 1995 SLD 65 = 1995 PTD 1050", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 80-C-C.B.R. Circular No. 12 of 1991, dated 30-6-1991-Tax on importer-Tax paid by assessee at import stage constitutes a final discharge of his tax liability and no further tax is required to be paid by such an assessee-¬Persons who do not have any other income except from sale of imported goods are not even required to file any income-tax return.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 866/LB/1992-93, decision dated: 10-04-1994.hearing DATE : 9-04-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar Mehdi for Appellant\nSaadat Saeed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 66 = 1995 SLD 66 = 1995 PTD 1053", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.134 (4) & 130(3)-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal -Limitation-Condonation of delay-Power to condone delay conferred upon Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under S.134 (4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as also the First Appellate Authority viz. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and Appellate Assistant Commissioner under S.130 (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is wider than the power contained in S.5, Limitation Act, 1908-Reasons stated.\n \nThe power to condone delay conferred upon Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 134(4) of the Ordinance (as also the First Appellate Authority under section 130(3), is wider than the one contained in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. One reason for this can be stated to be the in application of the notion of accrual of valuable right to an adversary after the lapse of limitation in ordinary cases of civil nature. In Revenue matters, undoubtedly since it is always the State against a citizen or assessee, the interest of immediate recovery cannot be described as accrual of valuable right. Even otherwise the kind of right coming into being by reason of default of a party to approach a particular forum within a specified time is not an absolute right nor does it frustrate exercise of judicial discretion wherever a condonation is provided for in a statute. Tax in whatever form is an exaction for money from the subject. Its recovery or payment when it has become due does contain an element of public interest. However, such interest cannot be equated with the accrual of a valuable right which an individual may normally acquire against another.\n \nThe second reason for a liberal interpretation of section 134(4) is the distinctive nature of the proceedings under the Ordinance. In matters of civil nature primary purpose behind prescribing limitation for an action is to bring the proceedings to an end and to clothe them with finality so that people may feel secure in rights to their person and property when the prescribed limitation has run out. In revenue matters on the other hand, a demand once created is not subject to a fixed period nor would it lapse if not recovered in a certain period. A demand when created is a Sword of Damocles hanging on the head of an assessee till the liability is discharged. This advantage being available with the revenue in spite of its being an equal party before this Tribunal, it becomes all the more necessary that limitation prescribed under the statute and the discretion given in condoning the delay is liberally exercised. It should not, however, be understood to mean a permission amounting to licence in excusing delays as a matter of course. In case of every such request, it is the facts and circumstances of each case which should be considered for exercise of discretion. A request for condonation, be it from the assessee or the revenue, if it is contumacious and frivolous, though for one day, may not be accorded acceptance. For, exercise of discretion in favour of an indolent appellant would at least be allowing an undue advantage to the appellant. A Court may refuse to extend time even if there be sufficient cause for delay.\n \nThe third reason for lenient view of the delay is also peculiar to the income-tax proceedings when juxtaposed with those before civil or criminal Courts or the Tribunal of special jurisdiction. This lies in the representation on behalf of an assessee. Whereas generally in all proceedings before various Courts or Tribunals lawyers or advocates represent the parties, in income-tax proceedings, besides lawyers and advocates who are specially trained and instructed in law, other persons listed in section 157 of the Ordinance read with Rule 16 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, are also authorised to appear. The list includes any person authorised in writing by the assessee who may be a relation, an employee of the assessee, any official of a scheduled bank with which the assessee maintains a current account or has other regular dealings, an accountant or Income Tax Practitioner. The last mentioned two usually represent assessees more frequently viz. an Accountant and an Income Tax Practitioner. In the aforesaid section, there are stated three categories of Accountants who can appear and plead before this Tribunal or other Income Tax Authorities. An I.T.P. is a person who is registered as such with the C.B.R. His educational and accountancy -qualifications are prescribed by the C.B.R. Except for advocates and lawyers, none from the above list is particularly trained and instructed at law. Their expertises are usually confined to the study of income tax a \"\"special law\"\" as opposed to the term and significance known in jurisprudence as \"\"jus\"\". Therefore, in cases of pure legal technicalities or intricacies it would not be realistic to expect of them the same degree of legal acumen as those who have had the facility or exposure to the study and practice of- law proper. Accountants and Income Tax Practitioners with accountancy background have an edge on accounting side. This is natural. These Authorised representatives, as said above, however, are to some extent handicapped in matters of complicated legal issues. The true extent and exact parameters of rectification under section 156 of the Ordinance in the case can be cited as an example.\n \nController Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 56 Tax 130 SC (India); Abdul Waheed v. State PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 85; PLD 1952 BJ 8; Shib Dayal and another v. Jagannath Prasad 636 All. 44 and Faiz Ali Shah v. Chief Administrator, Auqaf PLD 1974 SC 17 ref.\n \nCIT, Madhya Praddsh v. Kamla Oil Mills, Khargone (1975) 31 Tax 164 distinguished.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.131 & 130-Appeal-Limitation-Delay in filing of appeal-Mere issuance of notice for hearing under S.131 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 cannot and does not amount to deemed condonation of delay in filing appeal.\n \nPLD 1964 SC 236 ref.\n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss.130 & 131-Appeal-\"\"Filing of-Handing over of appeal to Postal Authorities is not \"\"filing of an appeal-No official or private agency can be treated as an agent of the Appe118te Authority unless specifically so designated or authorised.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 156-Rectification of mistake, application for -Disposal-¬Adjudication-Application under S.156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 before the First Appellate Authority is a lis which can be disposed of only by recording a judicial order like those recorded on appeals-Rejection of application under S.156, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 through a letter addressed to the assessee, held, was improper.\n \nAtaullah Malik v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan and Karachi etc. PLD 1964 SC 236 ref.\n \n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.130(3)-Appeal-Delay in filing of-Application for condonation of delay-Application under S.130(3), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 before the First Appellate Authority is a lis which can be disposed of only by recording a judicial order like those recorded on appeals-Recording of condonation of delay or otherwise in the hands of the Appellate Authority on the face of second application was illegal for there had to be a finding of sufficient or insufficient cause as the case might be.\n \n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.130(3)-Appeal-Limitation-Time-barred appeal-Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot disturb the order passed by his predecessor admitting a time-barred appeal.\n \n(1976) 103 ITR 759 ref.\n \n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.130 (3)-Appeal-Limitation-Time-barred appeal-Application for condonation of delay-Held, to condone delay on an application is a judicial order and, therefore, has to be supported by proper reasons recorded separately and conveyed to the assessee in the same manner as other orders on appeal are conveyed-Reasons and record are two hallmarks of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings-Order not supported by reasons is just like an oral order which no judicial authority could ever pronounce.\n \nMollah Ejhar Ali v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173; Brig. Mazharul Haq and others v. M.C.B, Islamabad PLD 1993 Lab. 706; 1980 PTD (Trib.) 55; 1993 PTD 771 and 1994 PTD 1144 ref.\n \n(h) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.130 (3)-Appeal-Limitation-Time-barred appeal -Condonation of delay-When no appeal was pending, question of condonation of delay would not arise -Condonation of delay after passing the dismissal order of appeal, therefore, was not permissible, for after dismissing the appeal Appellate Authority became functus officio so far as the question of limitation (or its condonation) was concerned.\n \n(i) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.130 (3)-Appeal-Limitation-Time-barred appeal -Condonation of delay-Sufficient cause-Held, to condone or not to condone delay hinges upon the consideration of sufficient cause which in turn depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and all the cases have to be decided keeping in view all the attending circumstances.\n \nThe State v. Ghulam Shah PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lab. 8; 636 All 44 and PLD 1990 Lab. 302 ref.\n \n(j) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.130(3)-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14-Appeal-Limitation-Time¬barred appeal -Condonation of delay-\"\"Sufficient cause\"\"-Held, although there was no provision in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 equivalent to S.14, Limitation Act, 1908 which provided for exclusion of the time of proceedings bona fide in Court without jurisdiction, yet in absence of negligence, inaction or want of bona fides imputable to a party, word \"\"sufficient cause\"\" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice.\n \nThe State v. Ghulam Shah PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lab. 8; 636 All 44 and PLD 1990 Lab. 302 ref.\n \n(k) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.134 (4)-Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Time-barred appeal-¬Application for condonation of delay-Appellant, in good faith had acted upon the advice of his counsel by going for rectification application twice instead of filing an appeal-Appellant diligently continued agitating the matter though in wrong forum and proceedings-Appellate Authority did not act in accordance with law while dealing with such applications-Revenue was also not likely to be prejudiced in any manner if the request for condonation was allowed-No mala fides or negligence could be attributed to the appellant-Request for condonation of delay appeared to be neither contumacious nor frivolous-¬Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considering the case a fit one for exercise of its discretion under S.134(4), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 condoned the delay in filing the appeal.\n \n(1) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S.156-Rectification of mistakes-Scope of exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon an Income Tax Authority and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under 5.156 of the Ordinance is quite limited which cannot go beyond looking for a mistake apparent on the face of the order sought to be rectified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(4)&130(3),131,130,156 Limitation Act, 1908=5 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 452/LB of 1993 and 1128/LB of 1994, decision dated: 10-10-1994.hearing DATE : 31st August, 1994.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Malik, F.C.A. for Appellant.\nMrs. Shahnaz Rafique, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 136 = 1994 SLD 136 = 1994 PTD 1051 = (1994) 69 TAX 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 17 & 32 – Interest on Securities – Method of Accounting\n•\nThe assessee, a banking company, maintained its accounts on a mercantile system and accounted for interest income on an accrual basis.\n•\nThe income from interest on securities and debentures must be taxed on an accrual basis rather than a receipt basis.\n•\nIf the assessee declares income on a receipt basis but claims expenditure on a mercantile basis, this creates an anomalous situation that needs to be corrected.\n•\nReference: Arunachaniam Chettier & Sons v. CIT, Madras (1935) 3 ITR 464 and 1952) 22 ITR 13.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 23 – Deduction – Admissible Expenditure\n•\nThe assessee, a nationalized bank, made obligatory contributions to the Pakistan Banking Council in respect of the Qarz-e-Hasna Scheme and claimed these as expenditures.\n•\nThe bank failed to prove that the contributions were made for the purpose of its business.\n•\nMerely being obligated to make contributions does not make such expenses admissible for tax deduction.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 91 – Penalty – Addback\n•\nThe assessment for the relevant year concerning profit and loss addbacks had been partly set aside.\n•\nAs the basis of the penalty under S. 91 was disturbed, it was held that the penalty should be struck off.\n•\nReference: Begum Mumtaz Jamals case PLD 1976 Lah. 761.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=17,32,23,91 ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos.1165/LB to 1167/LB of 1984-85, 129/LB, I/DB, 130/LBI/DB, 484/LBI/DB to 487/LBI/DB of 1988-89, 4154/LB of 1991-92 and 1928/LB and 1929/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 18-09-1993, hearing DATE : 16-05-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAIN ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rim and Naeem Akhtar, FCA for the Assessee.\nAbdul Rauf, D.R. for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 137 = 1994 SLD 137 = 1994 PTD 1063", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 56 & 64(3) – Notice for Furnishing Return of Total Income\n•\nA notice under S. 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance can be issued at any time before the income of the assessee has been assessed.\n•\nIf the notice is issued and the assessee fails to respond, the assessment can be made within two years from the end of the financial year in which the notice was served.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 13(1) & 56 – Deemed Income\n•\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) was not required to issue a notice under S. 13(1) and (2) if the assessee failed to comply with requisitions under S. 56.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 65 – Assessment and New Information\n•\nThe ITO discovered new information about the assessee’s investments and initiated proceedings under S. 65. However, the ITO failed to establish that this new information was not previously available or acted upon.\n•\nNo new information was presented, and the reassessment under S. 65 was found to be unwarranted.\n•\nThe penalty was cancelled and the addition was deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,64(3),13(1),(2),65 ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos.1386/KB to 1388/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 8th February 1994.", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, ITP for Appellant\nAli Nasir Bukhari, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 67 = 1995 SLD 67 = 1995 PTD 1068", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Income from One Source Assessed in the Hands of Two Different Assessees\n•\nA lease agreement of a business concern was rejected by the assessing officer for the lessor but the lessee was assessed separately for the same business in the same year and subsequent years.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer treated the lessor unfairly by not providing sufficient evidence to discard the lease agreement.\n•\nAs the income from the business had already been assessed in the hands of the lessee, income from the lease should not have been assessed in the hands of the lessor.\n•\nThe assessment was to be corrected based on the income already assessed to the lessee.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. Nos. 8001/LB of 1991-92; 21.25, 2134 and 6732/LB/1992-93, decision dated: 31st October, 1994.hearing DATE : 12-10-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.G. Chaudhry and Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellant\nGhulam Mujtaba Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 138 = 1994 SLD 138 = 1994 PTD 1069 = (1994) 69 TAX 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – S. 132 – Appeal – Withdrawal of Appeal\n•\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) or Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can enhance an assessment and refuse to allow withdrawal of an appeal.\n•\nThe discretion to allow or refuse withdrawal of an appeal is based on proper reasons.\n•\nIn this case, the enhancement of income by applying a gross profit rate of 15% was arbitrary, as no justification or basis was provided.\n•\nThe refusal to allow the withdrawal of the appeal and the enhancement of income was not sustainable in law and was vacated.\n•\nThe appeal should be treated as withdrawn, and the assessment order was restored.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132 ", + "Case #": "ITA No.2405/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 13-04-1993.hearing DATE : 13-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amin Ansari for Appellant.\nMuhammad Nawaz D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 68 = 1995 SLD 68 = 1995 PTD 1074 = (1995) 71 TAX 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) – S. 66 – Reference – Scope – Jurisdiction of High Court\n•\nThe High Court has jurisdiction only to answer questions raised before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) and not on new questions not raised in the Tribunal or in the petition under Section 66(2).\n•\nThe Court can only deal with questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal.\n•\nIf the question was not raised before the Tribunal or in the petition, the High Court has no jurisdiction to answer it.\n•\nReference: Jam Pallo v. Bashir Ahmad PLD 1993 Lah. 168 and other relevant cases.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,66(1),66(2),66(4),66(5) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 67 of 1981, heard on 1st February, 1995. dates of hearing: 30th January and Ist February, 1995.", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND AHMAD SAEED AWAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner.\nAli Sibtain Fazli alongwith Tariq Qazi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE\nVs\nCapt. (Retd.) GOHAR AYUB KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 139 = 1994 SLD 139 = 1994 PTD 1075 = (1993) 203 ITR 756", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Business Expenditure—Liability for Sales Tax—Sales Tax Collections Relating to Last Quarter of the Year\n•\nIssue: Whether the sales tax collected in the last quarter of the year, but paid after the end of the accounting year, could be deducted as business expenditure under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nFacts:\nThe assessee collected Central and West Bengal sales tax from its head office and various branches in the last quarter of the year. The payments could not be made before the end of the accounting year but were paid in July and the first week of August 1983, within the statutory due dates prescribed by the respective Sales Tax Acts.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that since the sales tax was paid within the statutory due dates, the payments were deductible, even though they were not paid within the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. The Income Tax Officer’s disallowance was incorrect.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Sri Jagannath Steel Corporation (1991) 191 ITR 676 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 68 of 1991, decision dated: 16-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Bagchi and Sunil Mukherjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVINAR SYSTEMS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 463 = 2000 SLD 463 = 2000 PTD 3297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Assessment—Draft Assessment Order—Directions from Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC)—Validity of Second Draft Assessment Order\n•\nIssue: Whether a second draft assessment order issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), following directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) under Section 144-A, is valid after the initial draft assessment order had already been made under Section 144-B.\n•\nFacts:\nThe assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1980-81 showing a loss. A draft assessment order was issued under Section 144-B. The IAC directed further investigation under Section 144-A, and the ITO, after the investigation, issued a second draft assessment order. The assessee challenged the validity of the second draft order, arguing it was time-barred.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe second draft assessment order, issued after the IAC’s directions, was valid. The ITO was not precluded from issuing a second draft order due to the fresh directions and the presence of new materials. The final assessment order was issued within the time limit by excluding the period between March 24, 1983, and August 16, 1983.\n•\nCitation: Arrah Sasaram Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 807 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No-78 of 1993, decision dated: 6-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. K. K. USHA AND K. A. MOHAMED SHAFI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner\nC. Kochunni Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKALA CARTONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 140 = 1994 SLD 140 = 1994 PTD 1078 = (1993) 203 ITR 747", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Revision—Order of ITO Following Tribunal Decision—Non-revision Due to Pending Reference to High Court\n•\nIssue: Whether an order by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) can be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 when it follows the earlier decision of the Tribunal.\n•\nFacts:\nThe Commissioner proposed to revise the ITO’s order because of the incorrect inclusion of interest on doubtful debts and the disallowance of interest under Section 214, based on the non-filing of an advance tax statement. The Tribunal, however, had already directed the exclusion of interest on doubtful debts in earlier assessments. Additionally, the ITO had granted interest under Section 214 for the advance tax payment.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal’s order to exclude interest on doubtful debts was followed by the ITO. The Commissioner’s revision order was based on the fact that the issue was pending in the High Court, but this was not a valid ground for revision under Section 263. The Tribunal rightly held that the ITO’s decision was not erroneous.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Traub (India) P. Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 525 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.J.C. No.112 of 1986, decision dated: 3rd May, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " A. PASAYAT AND B.N DASH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Ray for the Commissioner. B.K. Mahanti, Bibek Mahanti and S.P. Choudhry for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 141 = 1994 SLD 141 = 1994 PTD 1082 = (1993) 203 ITR 746", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Business Expenditure—Gratuity Liability under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972\n•\nIssue: Whether the entire gratuity liability, arising due to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, could be deducted, even if the actuarial liability for the year was lower.\n•\nFacts:\nThe assessee became liable to pay a gratuity of Rs.25,47,829 to employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Although the actuarial calculation for the current year showed a liability of Rs.8,47,815, the assessee claimed the entire liability amount as a deduction.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal held that the entire amount of Rs.25,47,829 was deductible in the year when the Payment of Gratuity Act came into force. The ITO could not limit the deduction to the actuarial liability for that year.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Gaskets and Radiators (Pvt.) Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 509.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.54 of 1980, decision dated: 12-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " G. T. NANAVATI AND S.D. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.J. Shelat with R.P. Bhatt for the Commissioner\nD.A. Mehta and R.K. Patel for K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHREE DIGVIJAY CEMENT CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 142 = 1994 SLD 142 = 1994 PTD 1084 = (1993) 203 ITR 737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "4051: Income-tax—Assessment—Adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)—Compensation Received for Delayed Sale of Property\n•\nIssue: Whether compensation received by the assessee for a delay in the completion of the sale of property can be added to the income under Section 143(1)(a).\n•\nFacts:\nThe ITO issued an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) for the assessment year 1990-91, including a sum of Rs.2,25,000, representing compensation received by the assessee due to the delay in the completion of a sale. The assessee filed a writ petition against this adjustment.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Court held that the compensation amount did not fall within the purview of Section 143(1)(a), which permits adjustment of inadmissible claims or disallowed deductions. Therefore, the addition of the compensation amount to income was not valid, and the intimation was quashed.\n•\nCitation: Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K.S. Pathania (1992) 196 TTR 55 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1678 of 1991, decision dated: 24-08-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.A. DaM with B.D. Damodar instructed by Messrs Kanga & Co. for Petitioners\nG.S. Jetly with P.S. Jetly and Mrs. Manjela Singh for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ADAMAS GEM INDUSTRIES LIMITED and another\nVs\nSmt. NEELA KRISHNAN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 69 = 1995 SLD 69 = 1995 PTD 1085 = (1995) 71 TAX 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) — Section 136 — Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 3 — Reference — Limitation on Filing Reference Application\n•\nIssue: Whether an income-tax reference application made to the High Court after the limitation period, despite not being raised in the pleadings, could be allowed.\n•\nFacts:\nThe Income-tax Department applied for a reference under Section 136 of the Income-tax Ordinance, which was dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the grounds of limitation. The Tribunal held that the limitation period as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act applied, regardless of whether the issue was raised in the pleadings.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stressing that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the court must take notice of the limitation period, whether raised by the parties or not. The reference application was dismissed as time-barred, and no interference was warranted with the Tribunal's order.\n•\nCitation: Muhammad Akram v. Aurangzeb and Another (1989 CLC 1405); Hakeem Muhammad Boota v. Habib Ahmad (PLD 1985 SC 153).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 Limitation Act, 1908=3 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 6 of 1992, decision dated: 19-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. KHURSHID AHMAD AND AHMAD SAEED AWAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Muhammad Saeed on behalf of Muhammad Ilyas for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, LAHORE\nVs\nMst. KHURSHID BEGUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 464 = 2000 SLD 464 = 2000 PTD 3310 = (1999) 237 ITR 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Assessment — Loss and Additional Tax — Constitutional Validity\n•\nIssue: Whether the imposition of additional tax under Section 143(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act is constitutional, particularly regarding the absence of a pre-decisional hearing.\n•\nFacts:\nThe constitutional validity of Section 143(1A), which imposes an additional tax of 20% for incorrect returns, was challenged. The section allows for a post-decisional hearing after prima facie adjustments but does not provide for hearing before adjustments are made. The case also discusses whether the additional tax could be considered a penalty.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court upheld the provisions as valid, explaining that the character of additional tax is not the same as a penalty. It ruled that the legislature has the power to enact laws prospectively and retrospectively. The lack of a pre-decisional hearing was not considered unreasonable, as a subsequent hearing and remedies (like revision or appeal) were available.\n•\nCitation: Kamal Textiles v. Income-tax Officer (1991) 189 ITR 339 (M.P); Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India (1994) 210 ITR 121 (Ker.); Sanctus Drugs Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 225 ITR 252 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 5373 of 1992, 19042, 19050 and 19043 of 1994, decision dated: 25-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " V K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kishore Mallya for Petitioner\nH.N. Naga Mohan Das and M.V. Seshachala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "BIDAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KHARKHANE NIYAMAT and 3 others\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 465 = 2000 SLD 465 = 2000 PTD 3320 = (1999) 237 ITR 684", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 4054\nIncome-tax — Capital or Revenue Expenditure — Collaboration Agreement for Technical Know-How\n•\nIssue: Whether payments made under a technical collaboration agreement should be classified as capital or revenue expenditure.\n•\nFacts:\nThe assessee, a company in the business of manufacturing motor vehicle accessories, entered into a collaboration agreement with a Japanese company. The agreement involved the transfer of technical know-how for the manufacture of precision tools. The assessee paid a lump sum amount and claimed it as revenue expenditure.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that the payment made under the collaboration agreement was revenue expenditure. The payment was made for obtaining technical know-how to run the existing business efficiently, not to acquire a new capital asset. The fact that the technical know-how could be used after the agreement's expiry did not make it capital in nature.\n•\nCitation: CIT v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 678 (Mad.); CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. (P.) Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 538 (Bom.); Praga Tools Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 773 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.532 of 1986 (Reference No.367 of 1986), decision dated: 24-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": " N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P.THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee\nC.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "S.R.P. TOOLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 143 = 1994 SLD 143 = 1994 PTD 1091 = (1993) 203 ITR 928", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax — Interest on Borrowed Capital — Business Loss and Carry Forward of Loss\n•\nIssue 1: Whether interest paid on borrowed capital used for advancing loans that were written off is deductible as business expenditure.\n•\nIssue 2: Whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off business losses determined in accordance with the law.\n•\nFacts:\no\nIssue 1: The assessee paid interest on borrowed funds used to advance loans to companies, which later went into liquidation. The interest paid was initially disallowed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) on the grounds that it was not related to interest receivable. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)' decision to allow the interest as deductible.\no\nIssue 2: The assessee suffered a business loss in the assessment year 1981-82. The ITO did not carry forward the loss for set-off against the income of the following year, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the carry-forward and set-off of the loss. The Tribunal upheld this decision.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nIssue 1: The court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the interest on borrowed capital was deductible even if the loans were written off, as there was no direct relationship between the interest and the receivable amounts.\no\nIssue 2: The court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to carry forward the business loss as it had been determined in accordance with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 47 of 1991, decision dated: 25-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nH.P. LOHIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 119 = 1996 SLD 119 = 1996 PTD 1094", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome-tax - Validity of Addition\no\nThe assessee was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the requisite approval was taken from higher authorities before the addition was made. The procedure followed by the Assessing Officer was valid, and the addition was made in accordance with the law.\n2.\nPurchase of Property - Validity of Addition\no\nThe Assessing Officer found that the purchase price of the property was understated but did not provide solid evidence to back this claim. Since the registered sale-deed was the official document, it should have been accepted unless the department could prove otherwise. The addition made under section 13(1)(d) was not valid.\n3.\nIncome Tax - Household Expenses\no\nThe assessee was found to be living beyond the means as declared in their household expenses. The Tribunal upheld the reasonable addition made by the department to the assessee's income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 179/LBI/DB of 1989-90, decision dated: 15th November 1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 70 = 1995 SLD 70 = 1995 PTD 1094", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nCash Reward for Government Services\no\nA government servant received a one-time cash reward for occasional work with a National Commission. Since this was a windfall and not a regular payment, it was not taxable under the Income Tax Ordinance, following C.B.R. Circular No.8 of 1982.\n2.\nInterpretation of Statutes\no\nThe Central Board of Revenue (CBR) does not have the authority to interpret laws, as per the case.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16 & SecondSched.,PartI,cis.41,41A,65 ", + "Case #": "LTA. No. 31/LB/II of 1988-89, decision dated: 25-05-1994.hearing DATE : 6-12-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Khalid for Appellant\nMian Qasim Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 466 = 2000 SLD 466 = 2000 PTD 3330 = (1999) 237 ITR 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nNotice for Assessment\no\nThe Assessing Officer passed an assessment order without giving the required notice to the assessee. While this made the assessment legally vitiated, it did not render the proceedings void. The proceedings could be continued from the point where the illegality occurred, and the assessment was not annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 13408 of 1997-S, decision dated: 4-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C, J AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Kochunni Nair for Petitioner\nN.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.G.G. PANICKER\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 71 = 1995 SLD 71 = 1995 PTD 1100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 4059\n1.\nAdditional Assessment - Notice Under Section 65\no\nIf no valid notice under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance is served, the proceedings initiated by the ITO are illegal and void. The notice is a prerequisite for the reassessment process, and failure to issue or serve it correctly invalidates the re-assessment.\n2.\nService of Notice and Jurisdiction\no\nAn objection to the service of notice under section 65 is an objection to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, and section 154(6) cannot cure this defect.\n3.\nRe-assessment Proceedings\no\nIf the notice under section 65 is not served on the assessee, the ITO does not acquire jurisdiction to initiate reassessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,154(6) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.88 and 89/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 22-09-1994.hearing DATE : 22-09-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Sadiq Butt, D.R. for Appellant.\nAbdul Haq Kang for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 144 = 1994 SLD 144 = 1994 PTD 1101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nLoss Carry Forward and Set-Off\no\nThe assessee claimed that losses from managing agency business should be carried forward and set off against profits from trading in iron and steel pipes. The Tribunal ruled that managing agency and trading in pipes were not the same business, and thus the losses could not be set off against the profits.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 589 of 1978, decision dated: 4-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND U. TSHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Subhash Shetty with Dinesh Vyas and P.C. Tripathi for the Assessee\nG.S. Jetly with P.S. Jetly for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KHANDELWAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 145 = 1994 SLD 145 = 1994 PTD 1103 = (1994) 69 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nTaxability of Subsidy\no\nA government-owned cement company received a subsidy for reimbursement of losses. This subsidy, being from a specific source to cover trading losses, was not casual income and was taxable.\n2.\nInterest on Investment in Capital Assets\no\nInterest on investments in capital assets is an admissible expenditure only after the commercial production starts. If the assets are still in progress, the interest should be capitalized.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22(c),23(1)(vii),23(1)(xviii) ", + "Case #": "ITAs Nos.2673/KB of 1986-87, 1827/HQ of 1987-88, 291/HQ, 1701/HQ and 1702/HQ of 1988-89, 573/HQ of 1989-90 and 101/HQ to 103/HQ of 1991-92, decision dated: 28th February 1993, hearing DATE : 10th February 1993.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nMUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akbar G. Merchant, CA. for Appellant.\nMuhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 72 = 1995 SLD 72 = 1995 PTD 1103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nIncome from House Property - Heirs of Deceased Owner\no\nThe legal heirs of a deceased property owner must be taxed based on their share of income from the property, which cannot exceed their proportionate share as per Muslim inheritance law. Both the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority were found at fault for not following the law of inheritance correctly.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 12 to 16/LB of 1994, decision dated: 14-09-1994.hearing DATE : 7-09-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Shahnaz Rafique, D.R. for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 467 = 2000 SLD 467 = 2000 PTD 3333 = (1999) 237 ITR 441", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nTaxability of Interest from Foreign Country\no\nInterest income from a foreign bank, such as the Indian Overseas Bank in Colombo, is taxable before the deduction of tax at source, as per the Indian Income Tax Act.\nThese summaries reflect key legal principles related to income tax assessments, the proper procedure for notices, and the taxability of various types of income and subsidies.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1265 of 1985 (Reference No.771 of 1985), decision dated: 26-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner\nP.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nR. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 468 = 2000 SLD 468 = 2000 PTD 2630 = (1999) 236 ITR 848", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\n•\nThe case involves the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) 1997 and whether the clarification issued by the CBDT regarding the valuation of jewellery and bullion could be challenged by lawyers, specifically regarding a letter from CBDT issued on November 25, 1997.\nCourt's Decision:\n•\nThe writ petition filed by lawyers was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioners were not acting in public interest but had personal or oblique interests. Public interest litigation must serve the general public and not just a small group of individuals (in this case, tax evaders).\n•\nThe petitioners, lawyers representing clients involved in the VDIS, were attempting to protect their clients’ interests rather than serving a public cause. The Court emphasized that lawyers must maintain their detachment from client interests in such matters.\nKey Principles:\n•\nPublic Interest Litigation (PIL) must be filed by someone acting bona fide, without private profit, and for the cause of disadvantaged groups.\n•\nThe Court expressed concern over lawyers becoming litigants for personal interests, warning that it could harm the judicial system's integrity.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Act, 1957=5 Finance Act, 1997=73 ", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.767 of 1997, decision dated: 11-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. K. GULATI AND M. C. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. D. Singh and S. P. Gupta for Petitioners.\nBharathji Agarwal for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "KANPUR Income Tax BAR ASSOCIATION and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 469 = 2000 SLD 469 = 2000 PTD 3334 = (1999) 237 ITR 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\n•\nThe case involves the imposition of penalties for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on income additions that were later deleted by the Tribunal.\nCourt's Decision:\n•\nThe High Court ruled that the penalty could not be sustained as the income addition was deleted by the Tribunal. Since the additions were deleted, the penalty order was cancelled. The High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to decide whether the amount could still be included in the assessee's income and whether the penalty was valid.\nKey Principles:\n•\nThe imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be based on valid income additions. If the additions are deleted, the penalty must also be reconsidered.\n•\nThe matter was remitted to the Tribunal to assess the issue of penalty after deciding on the inclusion of income.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "T.C. Nos.313 and 314 of 1981 (References Nos. 130 and 131 of 1981), decision dated: 10-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": " N. V BALASUBRAMANIAN AND P. THANGAVEL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajah for the Commissioner\nS.A. Balasubramanian for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLAKHRAJ & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 73 = 1995 SLD 73 = 1995 PTD 1110 = (1994) 210 ITR 827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\n•\nThe case concerned the classification of income derived from rental payments for flats under an agreement that allowed re-entry by the owner on breach of conditions. The question was whether such income should be taxed under Income from House Property or Income from Other Sources. \nCourt's Decision:\n•\nThe Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The Court found that the High Court had improperly recalled its earlier order and ruled that the case should be reconsidered on its merits without reference to the previous orders.\nKey Principles:\n•\nThe Supreme Court held that the High Court did not have the power to recall its earlier judgment arbitrarily.\n•\nThe case was remanded for fresh disposal by the High Court on the classification of income.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 4409 of 1993, decision dated: 11-08-1994", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shom Mandal and Miss Abha Sharma, Advocates for Appellant. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (M.B. Rao, S.N. Terdol and D.S. Mahra, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "K.N. RAZDAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 470 = 2000 SLD 470 = 2000 PTD 3338 = (1999) 237 ITR 483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue:\n•\nThe case involves the jurisdiction and limitation period for imposing penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73. The penalty was imposed after an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263, which was confirmed by the Tribunal.\nCourt's Decision:\n•\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the penalty order passed by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) after the Tribunal confirmed the CIT's revisional order was valid. Since the CIT’s order merged with the Tribunal’s order, the ITO had the jurisdiction to levy the penalty, and the limitation period for the penalty was not an issue.\nKey Principles:\n•\nOnce a revisional order by the CIT is confirmed by the Tribunal, it becomes part of the Tribunal’s decision. Therefore, the penalty proceedings can continue without limitation issues.\n•\nThe jurisdiction of the ITO to levy penalties after a revisional order is confirmed by the Tribunal is valid.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C.C. No. 105 of 1987, decision dated: 30-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " A.K. MATHUR, C.J. AND B.A. KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.M. Chafekar with Samvatsar for the Assessee. V.K. Jain for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PRABHUDAYAL AMICHAND\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 74 = 1995 SLD 74 = 1995 PTD 1113 = (1995) 71 TAX 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979):\no\nAppeal Fee under Section 134(5): The appeal to the Appellate Tribunal requires a fee, which has been classified as tax under section 2(43). The Finance Act (X of 1994) enhanced the appeal fee from Rs.100 to Rs.5,000 or 10% of the tax levied, whichever is lower. This amendment applied to appeals for the assessment year 1994-95 and onwards.\no\nRetrospectivity of Amendments: Changes to fiscal/tax statutes are typically prospective, not retrospective unless explicitly stated. Hence, the appeals filed before 1st July 1994, will follow the older fee structure.\no\nJurisdiction over Constitutionality: Issues regarding constitutionality or Islamic law (un-Islamic provisions) fall under the jurisdiction of higher courts like the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court, or High Courts.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(5),2(43) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=227,2A,203D,199 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 1217/KB, 1218/KB, 714 to 716/KB, 915/KB and 1125/KB of 1994-95, decision dated: 17-04-1995, hearing DATE : 14-03-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farogh Nasim, Munir Ansari and Amin-ud-Din Ansari for Appellants. Zar Khalil, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 146 = 1994 SLD 146 = 1994 PTD 1119 = (1994) 69 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (1979):\no\nPenalties under Section 116: The tribunal upheld the penalties on the assessee for failing to respond to the notices under section 116. The absence of any defense from the assessee was a significant factor.\no\nConcealment of Income (Sections 111 & 116): The tribunal restored penalties after assessing the defense offered by the assessee regarding concealment of income and noting that no duress was involved.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,116 ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos. 815/LBI/SB to 820/LBI/SB of 1988-89, decision dated: 21st September, 1993, hearing DATE : 20-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rauf, D.R. for the Appellant. Mirza Muhammad Waheed Baig for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 147 = 1994 SLD 147 = 1994 PTD 1122 = (1994) 70 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax - Deductibility of Expenses for Journalists:\no\nDeductibility of Newspaper Expenses: A journalist's expenses on purchasing newspapers and periodicals to write features are not deemed necessary for the performance of duties but rather for maintaining professional qualifications. As such, these expenses are not deductible under section 23(1)(xviii) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(xviii) ", + "Case #": "(1994) 1 All ER 673; (1994) 1 WLR 306, decision dated: 17-02-1994. dates of hearing: 5th to 8-07-1993 and 17-02-1994", + "Judge Name:": " HOUSE OF LORDS", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "SMITH (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) and another\nVs\nABBOT and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 471 = 2000 SLD 471 = 2000 PTD 3342 = (1999) 237 ITR 479", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961:\no\nExemption of Special Allowance: The exemption for special allowances under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act is only applicable when there is a clear nexus between the allowance and the performance of duties. The living allowance paid to foreign technicians, without evidence that it was incurred for the specific performance of duties, was not exempt from tax.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No. 184 of 1990, decision dated: 8-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": " MS. S. V. MARUTHI AND T. RANGA RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBELLIEN MICHEAL ANDRESMANT and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 472 = 2000 SLD 472 = 2000 PTD 3347 = (1999) 237 ITR 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax Act, 1961:\no\nConstitutionality of Different Deadlines for Companies and Non-Companies: The prescribed different deadlines for companies to file returns and obtain audit reports are constitutionally valid. Companies are considered a distinct class, and the differentiation in deadlines is not discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 21889 of 1992 and 8898 of 1993, decision dated: 18-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": " V. K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Rama Murthy for Petitioners. K.H. Kalmath for Vasan Associates and Seshachala for respondents", + "Party Name:": "N. VINODKUMAR & CO. and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 75 = 1995 SLD 75 = 1995 PTD 1131 = (1994) 210 ITR 511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax and Business Expenditure:\no\nProduction of Feature Films: The introduction of a new Rule 9-A in the Income Tax Rules (effective from 2nd April 1986) did not retroactively affect the computation of deductions for the assessment years prior to 1st April 1987. The old rule continued to apply for these years, ensuring consistency in business expense deductions for film producers.\no\nRetrospectivity and Amendments: The amendment of rules like Rule 9-A does not necessarily result in the repeal of prior provisions unless specifically indicated. Hence, the earlier version of the rule applies to assessment years before 1987.", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 18136 and 18137 of 1989, decision dated: 22-12-1993", + "Judge Name:": " S.B. MAJMUDAR, C.J., M. RAMAKRISHNA AND R. V. RAVEENDRAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Prasad for M/s. Vasan Associates for Petitioners. H.L. Dattu for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "V. VERGHESE and another\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 473 = 2000 SLD 473 = 2000 PTD 2658 = (1999) 236 ITR 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax: Depreciation and Investment Allowance\n•\nTopic: Depreciation and Investment Allowance - Actual cost - Subsidy\n•\nIssue: Whether a subsidy received by the taxpayer should be deducted from the cost of the assets when computing depreciation and investment allowance.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal held that subsidies received should not be deducted from the cost of assets for the purposes of depreciation and investment allowance. The Tribunal's decision did not raise any legal question.\n•\nReference: CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) followed.\n(b) Income-tax: Income from Undisclosed Sources\n•\nTopic: Income from Undisclosed Sources - Discrepancy in Stock\n•\nIssue: Whether an addition to the income can be made on the basis of a discrepancy between the stock shown in the books of accounts and the stock declared to the bank.\n•\nConclusion: The Tribunal correctly found that there was no suppression of stock. It held that the stock declared in the books of accounts, which was the basis of the return filed by the assessee, should be accepted over the stock declared to the bank for the purpose of securing a loan. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,47,557 made by the Income Tax Officer was correctly deleted.\n•\nReferences: Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 375 (Mad.) and CIT v. Ramakrishna Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd. (1974) 93 ITR 49 (Mad.) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petitions Nos. 196 and 197 of 1996, decision dated: 20-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": " A. ABDUL HADI AND N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. V. Rajan for Petitioner. R. Janakiraman for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSri PADMAVATHI COTTON MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 474 = 2000 SLD 474 = 2000 PTD 3351 = 2001 PTCL 179 = (2000) 82 TAX 539", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Minimum Tax on Income\n•\nTopic: Exemption from Tax on Loss - Interpretation of Circular\n•\nIssue: Whether an assessee declaring losses is exempt from tax under Section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nConclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that the Circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) interpreting Section 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was invalid. The Circular had effectively removed the power of the adjudicating officer to decide the exemption validity, which rendered it void and of no legal effect.\n•\nReferences: Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 1997 SC 582; Messrs Central Insurance Co. v. CBR 1993 SCMR 1232; CBR v. Sheikh Spinning Mills Ltd. 1999 SCMR 1442.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D-SecondSched.,cls.(118C),(118D)(118-E) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Protection of Economic Reform Act, 1992=13 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13322 of 2000, heard on 6-07-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for Petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Shafqat Mahmood Chauhan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "KOHINOOR RAIWIND MILLS LIMITED and another\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Member, IncomE tax, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 475 = 2000 SLD 475 = 2000 PTD 3358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Self-Assessment\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment - Assessment Based on Return\n•\nIssue: Whether a self-assessment return qualifies for finalization under Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal held that the self-assessment return qualifies for finalization if it meets the criteria under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The Assessing Officer can finalize the assessment under Section 59A if the return is found to be correct and complete.\n•\nReference: Malik Bros. Cloth Dealers, Lahore v. SOIT Circle 12, Zone-B, Lahore, I.T.A. No. 618/LB of 1998 referred.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Instructions by CBR\n•\nTopic: Administrative Nature of CBR Instructions\n•\nIssue: Whether instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) under Section 8 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, create a legal right for the assessee.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal held that such instructions are of an administrative nature and do not create any enforceable legal right for the assessee.\n•\nReference: C.B.R. Letter C. No. 7(27) S.Asstt/96, dated 2-6-1997.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): New Assessee\n•\nTopic: Self-Assessment for New Assessees\n•\nIssue: Whether the return filed by a new assessee qualifies under the Broad Based Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1996-97.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal held that the return filed by new assessees for the assessment year 1996-97 qualifies for acceptance under the scheme, provided the other conditions of the scheme are satisfied.\n•\nReference: C.B.R. Circular No. 16 of 1996, dated 4-5-1996.\n________________________________________\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Broad-Based Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nTopic: First Appellate Authority and Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nIssue: Whether the first appellate authority can direct the Assessing Officer to accept the return under Section 59A if no concealment is found.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal modified the First Appellate Authority’s order and set aside the assessment, directing that the return filed for the year 1996-97 be accepted under the Broad-Based Self-Assessment Scheme, subject to compliance with the scheme’s requirements.\n•\nReference: Malik Bros. Cloth Dealers, Lahore v. SOIT Circle 12, Zone-B, Lahore, I.T.A. No. 618/LB of 1998 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),59A,8 ", + "Case #": "I. T.A. No.481/LB of 1999, decision dated: 29-01-2000, hearing DATE : 23rd October, 1999", + "Judge Name:": " KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noor ul Amin Hotyana, D.R. for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akram Gondal, A.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 76 = 1995 SLD 76 = 1995 PTD 1145 = (1995) 71 TAX 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Statutory Amendment: Retrospective Effect\n•\nTopic: Effect of Statutory Amendment\n•\nIssue: Whether an amendment to a statute takes effect from the date the original statute was enacted when it states that the amendment shall be deemed to have always been so amended. \n•\nConclusion: The tribunal concluded that such an amendment takes effect from the date of enactment of the original statute, as per the deeming provision in the amendment.\n•\nReference: 1987 PTD 129 referred.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Substitution of Clause (c) in Section 65(1)\n•\nTopic: Impact of Amendment on Income Assessment\n•\nIssue: Effect of the substitution of Clause (c) in Section 65(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, by the Finance Act (VII of 1992).\n•\nConclusion: The substituted Clause (c) of Section 65(1) is deemed to have been in effect from the commencement of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. This means that the words income assessed or determined or deemed to have been assessed apply even if income was merely deemed to be assessed or determined.\n•\nReference: 1987 PTD 129 referred.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Self-Assessment and Additional Assessment\n•\nTopic: Additional Assessment Under Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nIssue: Whether income declared in a return filed under the Self-Assessment Scheme is deemed to have been assessed unless the return does not qualify for acceptance.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal affirmed that income declared in a return filed under the Self-Assessment Scheme is deemed to have been assessed and can be subject to additional assessment if required.\n•\nReference: 1987 PTD 129 referred.\n________________________________________\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Appeal and Continuation of Proceedings\n•\nTopic: Appeal as Continuation of Original Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Whether an appeal is a continuation of the original assessment proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal upheld that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and thus, it can alter the original assessment.\n•\nReference: F. A. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 520 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,65,65(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 384/LB to 387/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 11-04-1995, hearing DATE : 11th January 1995", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naseer Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 148 = 1994 SLD 148 = 1994 PTD 1146 = (1993) 203 ITR 779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Business Expenditure on Travel\n•\nTopic: Limits on Business Expenditure for Travel\n•\nIssue: Whether expenditure on travel, including stay in hotels and daily allowances, is deductible as business expenditure.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal held that under Rule 6-D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the disallowance of expenditure for travel is limited to hotel stays and daily allowances. Any other expenditure laid out exclusively for business purposes is allowable under Section 37(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nReference: Section 37(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Rule 6-D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.94 of 1987, decision dated: 25-10-1990", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVIDYUT METALLICS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 77 = 1995 SLD 77 = 1995 PTD 1149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax: Deposit Call Receipts by Contractors\n•\nTopic: Nature of Deposit Call Receipts for Contractors\n•\nIssue: Whether deposit call receipts, representing a security deposit for contract execution, are considered part of contract payments.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal ruled that deposit call receipts are not part of contract payments; they are amounts held as security by the contracting authority and are refundable to the contractor.\n•\nReference: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 59.\n________________________________________\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979): Exclusion from Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nTopic: Exclusion of Assessee from Self-Assessment Scheme Due to Concealment\n•\nIssue: Whether an assessee can be excluded from the Self-Assessment Scheme on the grounds of income concealment without being confronted with the charge.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal held that the assessee must be confronted with the allegations of concealment and given a chance to explain before being excluded from the Self-Assessment Scheme.\n•\nReference: C.B.R. Circular No. 8 of 1985, dated 17th June 1985.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2628/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 2-08-1994, hearing DATE : 5-10-1993", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif Hashmi, D.R. for Appellant. Asif Aziz for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 149 = 1994 SLD 149 = 1994 PTD 1150 = (1993) 203 ITR 773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax: Donations to Charitable Trusts\n•\nTopic: Donation in Kind for Charitable Purposes\n•\nIssue: Whether an assessee is entitled to a special deduction under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for donations in kind.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal ruled that donations made in kind are not eligible for a special deduction under Section 80-G.\n•\nReference: Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax: Advance Tax and Interest for Under-estimation\n•\nTopic: Under-estimation of Advance Tax and Interest\n•\nIssue: Whether interest is payable by the assessee under Section 216 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in case of under-estimation of advance tax.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal concluded that regular assessment under Section 216 refers to the final assessment under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act. Interest for under-estimation is determined based on the final regular assessment.\n•\nReferences: Sri Rama Verma (H.H.) v. C.I.T. (1991) 187 ITR 308 (SC); CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (1984) 146 ITR 452 (Bom.); Kadre (S.A.) v. Binod Mills Co. Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 177 (Bom.) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.260 of 1977, decision dated: 4-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian with J.P. Devadhar for the Commissioner. NA. Dalvi, instructed by Messrs Mulla and Mulla and Craigie, Blunt and Caroe for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 78 = 1995 SLD 78 = 1995 PTD 1152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.59(1) - Self-Assessment Scheme (1992-93) - C.B.R. Circular No. 16 of 1992 - Selection of cases for audit.\nConclusion:\nThe case concerns the selection of income tax cases for audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme, where the Income Tax Officer (ITO) does not have definite information based on material evidence. The ITO had merely indicated that the assessee was running a factory and showroom, but there was no solid evidence suggesting a gross under-statement of income. As per C.B.R. Circular No.16 of 1992, only cases with definite information regarding under-statement of income can be selected for audit. Hence, the selection of the case for audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme was incorrect.\nReferences:\n•\nM/s. Spiceco International v. Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi 1993 PTD 1007\n•\nM/s. Muhammadi Oil Trading Co. v. Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi 1994 PTD 494\n•\nITO v. M/s. Chappal Builders 1993 PTD 1108 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 548/LB of 1994, decision dated: 12-07-1994, hearing DATE : 8-06-1994", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Fayyaz Ahmed for Appellant. Imtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 476 = 2000 SLD 476 = 2000 PTD 3361 = (2000) 82 TAX 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss.116 & 136 - Appeal to High Court - Penalty for late filing of return.\nConclusion:\nThe penalty for late filing of the income tax return was deleted by the First Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. An appeal could only be filed to the High Court if a question of law arose from the impugned order. In this case, no question of law had arisen, and the provisions of Section 136 were not applicable. Therefore, the High Court could not entertain the appeal.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Chattur Singh Taragi (1980) 41 Tax 95\n•\nCIT v. LH Vora (1968) 17 Tax 7 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=116,136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No. 1 of 1998, heard on 6-06-2000", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND TALAT QAYUM QURESHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Eid Muhammad Khattak and Azhar Naeem Qarni for Appellants. Asad Khan and Dilawar Khan Jadoon for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAZHAR JAVED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 79 = 1995 SLD 79 = 1995 PTD 1158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.23(vii) - Deduction of Penal Interest.\nConclusion:\nThe case involved the admissibility of penal interest on capital borrowed. The court concluded that penal interest paid on borrowed capital is an admissible deduction under Section 23(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Therefore, the penal interest was deductible.\nReference:\n•\nM/s. City Bank NA, Karachi v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Zone-C, Karachi 1994 PTD 1271", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(vii),23(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1780 to 1785/LB of 1991(decided on 23rd October, 1994)", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SEED MUMTAZ ALUM GILLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Aziz, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 150 = 1994 SLD 150 = 1994 PTD 1162 = (1993) 203 ITR 953", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Reassessment - Failure to disclose material facts - Transfer of assets to minor child.\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Officer initiated reassessment under Section 147(a) due to the failure of the assessee to disclose income from assets transferred to her minor daughter. However, since the return form at that time did not have a specific column to report such income, the assessee could not be said to have failed to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment was invalid.\nReferences:\n•\nMuthiah Chettiar v. CIT (1969) 74 TTR 183 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Kochammu Amma (1980) 125 ITR 624 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Rani Duleiya (1972) 84 ITR 770 (MP)\n•\nRadheshyam Ladia v. ITO (1987) 166 ITR 134 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=147(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 148 of 1982, decision dated: 8-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.N. Bajoria for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSARALA DEVI BIRLA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 80 = 1995 SLD 80 = 1995 PTD 1165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.132 - Appeal Decision and Remand.\nConclusion (a):\nAppellate authorities are required to provide reasons for their decisions. A failure to record reasons is indicative of arbitrary thinking and is contrary to the requirements of fair judicial practice.\nConclusion (b):\nIn cases of remand, the Appellate Authority must do more than merely reproduce the grounds of appeal and agree with some of them. It should analyze the facts and make a reasoned decision rather than send the case for a second remand without justification. The Appellate Authority’s failure to provide legitimate reasons for remanding the case led to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order.\nReferences:\n•\nMullah Ejhar Ali v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173\n•\nBrig. (Retd.) Mazhar-ul-Haq v. MCB, Islamabad PLD 1993 Lah. 706", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2210 to 2219/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 14-11-1994, hearing DATE : 2-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Azam Malik for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 81 = 1995 SLD 81 = 1995 PTD 1168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.19 - Income from House Property.\nConclusion:\nWhen a tenant verifies the amount of rent paid to the landlord, the tax authorities must have a strong reason to disbelieve the agreed-upon rental value between the landlord and the tenant. Tenancy is a contract, and the agreed rent should be accepted by the tax authorities unless there is clear evidence to suggest otherwise.\nReference:\n•\nCIT v. Siemens AG NTR 1991 SC 40", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1888/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 25-09-1994, hearing DATE : 22-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AHSAN ALAM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Athar, D.R. for Appellant. Ch. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 82 = 1995 SLD 82 = 1995 PTD 1170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss.56, 65 & 166 - Escaped Assessment and Additional Assessment.\nConclusion (a):\nFor income that had escaped assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922, before the commencement of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the assessment could only be initiated following the procedure under Section 65. Therefore, assessments for periods before 1979-80 must comply with these procedural requirements.\nTopic (b): Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.154(6) - Service of Notice.\nConclusion (b):\nThe provisions of Section 154(6) regarding the service of notices refer only to the form or mode of service, and not to the legal requirements for issuing notices.\nTopic (c): Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.13(1)(d) - Deemed Income and Addition to Taxable Income.\nConclusion (c):\nBefore an addition is made under Section 13(1)(d) regarding deemed income, the assessing officer must ensure that the amount expended on acquiring an asset exceeds the amount shown in the assessee’s wealth statement. Merely showing a higher market value than the purchase price does not justify the addition. The officer must provide evidence of the actual expenditure exceeding the declared value.\nReference:\n•\n1990 PTD (Trib.) 260", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,65 & 166(2)(c)(ii),65(2)(3)(4),154(6),13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1692, 1702 and 2(101 to 200:1/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 13-10-1994, hearing DATE : 5-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amjad Malik, D.R. for Appellants (in I.T.As. Nos. 2001 to 2004/LB of 1987-88). Amjad Malik, D.R. for Respondents (in I.T.As. Nos. 1692 and 1702/LB of 1987-88) with Muhammad Ali Khan (in I.TAs. Nos. 2001 to 2004/LB of 1987-88)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 151 = 1994 SLD 151 = 1994 PTD 1171 = (1993) 203 ITR 881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Interest Income - Heads of Income\nConclusion:\nThe respondent, a firm executing Government contracts, received interest due to delays in payments under arbitration awards. The firm claimed the interest (Rs. 2,77,692) was part of its trading receipts and taxed it at the same rate (10%) as its other business income. However, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the interest should be taxed as Income from Other Sources since it was separate from business receipts. The High Court did not address whether the interest was separable from the award amount. The Supreme Court concluded that interest for delayed payments was part of the business income as it was closely linked to the contract and should not be separated.\nCitation/Reference:\nGovinda Choudhury and Sons v. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 497, SC", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2264 of 1977, decision dated: 22-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy and B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocates (Ranbir Chipdra, P. Parameswaran and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, with them) for Appellant. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S.Rajappa and R.K. Mehta, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOVINDA CHOUDHURY AND SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 83 = 1995 SLD 83 = 1995 PTD 1174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Self-Assessment Scheme - Audit Selection\nConclusion:\nThe assessing officer selected the case for total audit based on the low income declared by the assessee, but no material evidence was provided to substantiate the suspicion of income understatement. The tribunal held that the case was improperly selected for audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme. The return filed by the assessee was to be accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme, and the audit was not warranted.\nCitation/Reference:\nM/s. Specico International v. RCIT, Karachi 1993 PTD 1007", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 9064/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 23rd October, 1994, hearing DATE : 10-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kaisar Mansoor for Appellant. Ghulam Mujtaba Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 152 = 1994 SLD 152 = 1994 PTD 1175 = (1993) 203 ITR 1001", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Accrual of Income - Interest on Advances\nConclusion:\nThe assessee company had advanced loans with interest at 12% per annum, but did not show the accrued interest in its income for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74. The Tribunal held that, given the mercantile system of accounting, interest on loans was due and had to be included in the assessee's income as it had accrued. The assessee did not provide evidence that the debt had become bad or that the claim for interest had been renounced.\nCitation/Reference:\nMorvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 140 of 1981, decision dated: 8-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K.C. AGARWAL, C.J. AND V.K. SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "S.M.S. INVESTMENT CORPORATION (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 84 = 1995 SLD 84 = 1995 PTD 1176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Deemed Income - Loan Transaction\nConclusion:\nThe assessee and his brothers pooled their funds to purchase property. The transaction was considered a legitimate loan advance for a specific purpose. The tribunal ruled that the movement of funds from the brothers to the assessee was not deemed income under section 18(12) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The addition to the assessee’s income was to be deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 426/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 2-02-1994, hearing DATE : 2-02-1994", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz Khan, I.T.P. for Appellant. Haji Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 153 = 1994 SLD 153 = 1994 PTD 1178 = (1993) 203 ITR 1017", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Penalty for Concealment of Income\nConclusion:\nThe assessee firm, which dealt with land and water supply in addition to its brick manufacturing business, had certain payments disallowed. The Income Tax Officer disallowed Rs.18,291 for earth and Rs.6,098 for water, leading to the imposition of a penalty for concealment of income. The tribunal held that the practice followed by the assessee for several years, which had been accepted by the Income Tax Department, did not indicate fraud or gross neglect. Therefore, the penalty for concealment was unjustified.\nCitation/Reference:\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 1 of 1979, decision dated: 21st October, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " G. T. NANAVATI AND S.D. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.C. Patel for the Assessee. M.J. Thakore and R.P. Bhatt for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "NARANBHAI VIRABHAI and Co\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 85 = 1995 SLD 85 = 1995 PTD 1179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Deemed Income - Property Acquisition\nConclusion:\nThe assessing officer challenged the understated price of property acquired by the assessee. However, since the assessee had provided registered deeds for the transaction, which were legally valid, the tribunal ruled that the price stated in the deed should be accepted unless solid evidence suggested otherwise. The department failed to prove the price was understated, and the addition was rejected. The tribunal further ruled that deemed interest on the loan for property acquisition was chargeable under section 12(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),12(7) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1829 and 2175/LB/1987-88, decision dated: 7-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Khan and Saadat Ali Khan for Appellants (in I.TA. No. 1829/LB of 1987-88) and Ghulam Qazim Hussain, D.R. (in I.TA. No. 2175/LB of 1987-88). Ghulam Qazim Hussain, D.R. for Respondents (in I.T.A. No. 1829/LB of 1987-88) and Muhammad Ali Khan and Saadat Ali Khan (in I.TA. No. 2175/LB of 1987", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 86 = 1995 SLD 86 = 1995 PTD 1182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Property Acquisition and Loan\nConclusion:\nThe assessing officer added income to the assessee’s return due to an alleged understatement of property acquisition prices. However, the tribunal found that the assessing officer had not substantiated the claim with evidence proving that the property was acquired with more money than declared in the sale deed. The tribunal set aside the tax authorities’ orders with a direction for the assessing officer to reconsider the case.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 4744/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 2-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Riaz Hussain for Appellant. Amjad Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 87 = 1995 SLD 87 = 1995 PTD 1183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Penalty for Concealment\nConclusion:\nWhere an agreed assessment had been made, imposition of a penalty was not permissible under section 111. The case confirmed the decision where the penalty for concealment was not imposed as the agreed assessment had been reached.\nCitation/Reference:\n1986 PTD (Trib.) 129, cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1722/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 22-08-1994, hearing DATE : 29-06-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 88 = 1995 SLD 88 = 1995 PTD 1185 = (1995) 211 ITR 444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Business Expenditure - Statutory Impost\nConclusion:\nThe levy for delayed sales tax payment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was partly compensatory and partly penal. Only the compensatory portion could be treated as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal confirmed this approach in determining the deductibility of such levies.\nCitation/Reference:\nPrakash Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 684, SC", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9555 of 1992, decision dated: 22-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J. I.R.M. SAHAI AND S. MOHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9555 of 1992, decided on 22nd April, 1994\nS. Ganesh, Uday Kumar Sagar and P.H. Parekh for Petitioner. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and B.K. Prasad with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "STANDARD BATTERIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 89 = 1995 SLD 89 = 1995 PTD 1188 = (1995) 211 ITR 447", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Reassessment - Cash Credits\nConclusion:\nThe reassessment notice issued for cash credits, based on a statement from a name-lender, was challenged by the assessee. The tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment but remanded the case for further inquiries since the statement of the name-lender was not shared with the assessee. The reassessment notice was confirmed, and the remand for additional inquiries was deemed appropriate.\nCitation/Reference:\nPhool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456, SC", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 705 of 1977, decision dated: 30-11-1994", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.H. Parekh, Suneeta Sharma and Prerna Kohli for Appellant. J. Ramamoorthy, (Ranbir Chandra, Ms. A. Subhashini and S.N. Terdol with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ASSAM FOREST PRODUCTS (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 90 = 1995 SLD 90 = 1995 PTD 1189 = (1995) 71 TAX 62 = (1994) 206 ITR 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income-tax - Income from Other Sources - Interest Income\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, engaged in iron founding, received interest from short-term deposits made with banks from over-subscribed public share offers. The interest was adjusted against the capital work-in-progress. The income was held to be taxable as income from other sources under section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was not exempt due to being applied towards the cost of construction. The tribunal affirmed that interest income, even if used for construction, remained taxable.\nCitation/Reference:\nBokaro Steel Ltd. v. CIT (1988) 170 ITR 545 (Pat.)\nChallapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No. 44 of 1980, decision dated: 21st July, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. BHARUKA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.K. Vidyarthi and S.K. Sharan for the Commissioner\nPawan Kumar, Laxmi Kant Tiwary, Charanjiv Ranjan and Raj Kishore Prasad for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBIHAR ALLOY STEELS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 477 = 2000 SLD 477 = 2000 PTD 3365 = (2001) 83 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVYTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Reassessment and Additional Assessment\nConclusion:\nIn this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, due to the higher property value assessed by the Excise and Taxation Department compared to the value stated in the sale deed. The AO added the difference between the two values to the assessee's income. The First Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal, however, deleted the addition, ruling that no evidence had been provided to prove that the value indicated by the Excise and Taxation Department was accurate. The Department filed a reference questioning the decision, arguing that the AO's addition was valid due to the requirement for double approval under Section 136 of the Ordinance. The High Court dismissed the reference, stating that there was no substantial question of law, and affirmed the deletion of the addition by the Tribunal. The decision implies that the AO did not provide sufficient proof for the higher valuation, and procedural concerns regarding double approval were not enough to overturn the factual findings of the lower authorities.\nCitation/Reference: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13(1)(aa)(d),59(1-),136 ", + "Case #": "Tax References Nos. l of 1993, 2, 7, 19 of 1991, 10, 11, 15, 36, 39 and 40 of 1990, heard on 17-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": " SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ AND M, JAVED BUTTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmad for Appellant. Hafiz Idrees Ahmad for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI\nVs\nABDUL RASHID, PROPRIETOR. AMIN RASHED & CO., BAZAR DALGRAN, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 154 = 1994 SLD 154 = 1994 PTD 1194 = (1993) 203 ITR 885", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Penalty for Concealment of Income - Jurisdiction to Impose Penalty\nConclusion:\nThe appellant filed a return for the assessment year 1968-69 before the amendment of Section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was completed after the amendment, which expanded the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) jurisdiction to impose penalties for concealed income of less than Rs. 25,000. The ITO imposed a penalty based on a finding of concealed income, and the penalty was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court, affirming the High Court's decision, ruled that the law in force at the time of the assessment order (March 27, 1972) applied, and the ITO had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty as per the amended provisions. The decision clarified that the applicability of the law depends on the date of the assessment, not the date the return was filed.\nCitation/Reference:\nCIT v. Varkey Chacko (1982) 136 ITR 733 (SC)\nBrij Mohan v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 1 (SC)\nCIT v. Dhadi Sahu (1993) 199 ITR 610 (SC)\nCIT v. Onkar Saran and Sons (1992) 195 ITR 1 (SC)\nJain Brothers v. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC)\nManasvi (D.M.) v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1151 of 1982, decision dated: 24-08-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.T. George, M.M. George and R. Sathish for the Appellant. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VARKEY CHACKO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 478 = 2000 SLD 478 = 2000 PTD 3369 = (2000) 82 TAX 42 = (2001) 83 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes and Machinery Provisions\nConclusion:\n(a) The principle of strict construction of fiscal statutes applies primarily to the charging provisions, not to the machinery provisions. Courts must interpret fiscal statutes strictly in the case of tax imposition but can adopt a more liberal approach for provisions related to tax recovery, provided it does not violate the statute's intent.\n(b) When dealing with machinery provisions related to tax recovery, they must be interpreted in a way that supports the recovery process without overstepping the language and spirit of the statute.\n(c) Specifically, under Section 50(7BB) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, penal consequences arise from the failure to deduct advance tax at source. Tax officers issuing letters about tax deductions must ensure they align with the law and corresponding notifications (e.g., Notification No.614(1)/93). The assessing officer's action to set construction costs for tax deduction was found not to be legally substantiated, prompting the Chairman of the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) to issue clearer instructions.\nCitation/Reference:\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Maithram Ranjidas AIR 1940 PC 124\nMessrs Escart Limited’s case 1975 PTD 570\nMessrs Ellahi Cotton Mills case PLD 1997 SC 582\nPLD 1979 Lah. 415", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7BB) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2694 of 2000, heard on 12-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Zia Ullah for Appellant. Gltulam Rasool and Shafqat Cholian for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs LEATHER CONNECTIONS (PVT.) LIMITED through its Chief Executive\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD through Chairman and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 91 = 1995 SLD 91 = 1995 PTD 1197 = (1995) 71 TAX 87 = (1994) 206 ITR 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax - Exemption for Foreign Technicians\nConclusion:\nThe appellant, a foreign technician, applied for tax exemption under Section 10(6)(vii-a)(I)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While the approval was granted for a two-year period starting May 26, 1972, the appellant applied for an extension on March 25, 1974. The extension was granted three days after the original period ended, on October 4, 1975. Despite the delay in granting the extension, the Tribunal ruled that the approval granted by the Central Government related back to the date of the original application and the technician was entitled to the exemption for the assessment year 1975-76. This decision emphasized that delays by the Central Government should not adversely affect the taxpayer’s entitlement to exemption.\nCitation/Reference:\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 10(6)(vii-a)(I)(B)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 99 of 1982, decision dated: 27-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND D.R. DHANUKA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetly with P.S. Jetly instructed by S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRADOMIR DZELATOVIC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 479 = 2000 SLD 479 = 2000 PTD 3516 = (1999) 238 ITR 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Donations – Charitable trust – Trust established for over 200 years, caring for disabled and suffering cattle – Refusal to renew certificate under section 80G due to dairy business involvement and lack of separate books – Court directs re-examination of request sympathetically.\nThe petitioner, a charitable trust established since 1796, is involved in the welfare of infirm and abandoned cattle. Due to growing activities, the trust began accepting public donations and applied for a renewal of its 80G recognition under the Income Tax Act. However, in 1998, the renewal was refused, citing the operation of a dairy business and lack of separate financial records for the dairy business.\nThe trust responded by explaining that only a small fraction of its cattle were milk-giving, and the sale of milk was necessary to meet operational costs. The court emphasized the trust's historical contribution and directed the Commissioner to re-examine the application with a more sympathetic view, recognizing its long-standing commitment to cattle welfare.\nOutcome: The Commissioner’s refusal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh consideration.\nReferences:\n•\nVishal Exports Overseas Ltd. vs. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 259: This case emphasizes the importance of charitable activities being seen in their full context and not disqualified on narrow grounds.\n•\nCIT v. Shri Sakthi Charities (2012) 348 ITR 179 (Mad): A case that highlights the sympathetic interpretation of section 80G of the Income-tax Act, especially in the context of charity work.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 11101 of 1998, decision dated: 17-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " J. N. BHATT AND A. R. DAVE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.H. Kaji for Petitioner. B.B. Naik with Manish R. Bhatt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Shree SURAT, PANJRAPOLE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 155 = 1994 SLD 155 = 1994 PTD 1200 = (1993) 203 ITR 900", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Advance tax – Penalty – Failure to revise advance tax estimate – Demand for lesser advance tax than due – Penalty proceedings valid.\nThe case examines whether penalty proceedings under section 273(c) are valid when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) erroneously demands a lower amount of advance tax than what was due, based on the latest assessed income. The ITO had not demanded higher advance tax, though the assessees' latest self-assessment suggested a higher liability.\nThe court upheld the penalty proceedings, confirming that even though the ITO did not initially demand the correct higher advance tax, this did not invalidate the penalty. The ITO’s oversight in demanding a lower amount of tax did not strip him of jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings.\nOutcome: Penalty proceedings were upheld.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC): The Supreme Court held that the imposition of penalties for failure to comply with advance tax obligations could be valid if the failure was found to be due to deliberate disregard of tax laws.\n•\nCIT v. C. G. T. and Sons Ltd. (1977) 107 ITR 818 (SC): A case affirming that penalties are applicable where an underestimation of tax liability occurs, even if no clear intent to evade tax exists.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 807 of 1979, decision dated: 6-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND, J. N. HORE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Mitra for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MACHINO TECHNO SALES PVT. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 92 = 1995 SLD 92 = 1995 PTD 1204 = (1995) 71 TAX 74 = (1994) 206 ITR 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Company – Surtax – Reserve – Provision for bad debts constitutes a reserve and is includible in capital.\nThis case addresses whether provisions for bad debts, although termed as provisions, should be treated as reserves for surtax purposes. A provision made for bad debts, as per section 36(1)(vii), is not deducted for income tax purposes but remains as part of the company’s capital until it is written off. The court ruled that a provision for bad debts is essentially a reserve because it represents an amount set aside for future contingencies related to bad debts and constitutes part of the company's capital for surtax purposes.\nOutcome: Provision for bad debts is a reserve, and thus included in capital for surtax calculation.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. C. P. T. Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 268 (SC): This case defines the concept of reserves under income tax law, especially in the context of provisions and how they are treated for surtax.\n•\nCIT v. Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 317 (SC): A case that discusses the nature of reserves and provisions in the context of capital for the purposes of taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 209 of 1983, decision dated: 13-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " DR. B.P. SARAF AND D.R. DHANUKA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jehangir Mistry instructed by M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Assessee. G.S. Jelly, with P.S. Jetly and Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GLAXO LABORATORIES (INDIA). LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 480 = 2000 SLD 480 = 2000 PTD 3377 = (2000) 82 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner – Assessment limitation – Appointment of Special Officer – Jurisdiction and validity of administrative orders.\nThis comprehensive ruling examines several procedural aspects of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979:\n(a) Revision of Deputy Commissioner’s Order – The court ruled that assessments made after the order of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner under section 66-A were valid as long as they were finalized within two years of receiving the order.\n(b) Appointment of Special Officer – The appointment of a Special Officer by the Regional Commissioner was valid under section 3 of the Income Tax Ordinance, as the Special Officer functioned within the jurisdiction assigned by the Income Tax Ordinance.\n(c) Administrative Orders – Administrative orders, like those made by superior officers in the Income-tax Department, are not subject to appeal before appellate authorities.\n(d) Draft Assessment Approval – The approval of a draft assessment order by an Inspecting Additional Commissioner was not invalid even if minor mistakes were present.\n(e) Self-assessment under Circulars – The court confirmed that all self-assessments are subject to audit, and if selected, assessments should be done under sections 62 or 63, not section 59(1).\nOutcome: The assessments, appointments, and administrative actions under the Income Tax Ordinance were upheld as valid.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. K. S. V. M. Subba Rao (1991) 191 ITR 86 (SC): Discusses the powers of inspecting authorities and the jurisdiction of the assessing officers under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nR. K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) 130 ITR 536 (SC): A case that upheld the administrative jurisdiction of higher officers within the tax department.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A(2),66(1),6459(4),62,62A,3(1)(AA),4(2),2(17A),5,8,7,59,59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 255/IB, 269/KB of 1995-96, 1280/113, 486/IB of 1998-99, 1139/IB of 1997-98, decision dated: 30-05-2000, hearing DATE : 18-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": " JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadir Mumtaz. D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As Nos.255/IB of 1995-96 and 1280/IB of 1998-99). Mir Ahmed Ali for Respondent. (in I.T.As. Nos.255/IB of 1995-96 and 1280/IB of 1998-99). Mir Ahmed Ali for Appellant (tit I.T.As. Nos.1139/IB of 1997-98 269/IB of 1995-96 and 486/ Its of 1998-99.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 156 = 1994 SLD 156 = 1994 PTD 1210 = (1993) 203 ITR 1038", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax – Business expenditure – Expenditure on fountain construction for advertising – Deductible as business expenditure.\n(a) Business Expenditure on Fountain Construction – The firm constructed a fountain to advertise its business. While the fountain was located on public land, the primary purpose was to advertise the firm's name and line of business. Therefore, the expenditure was considered a valid business expense.\n(b) Advances to Partners without Interest – The firm made advances to its partners without charging interest, despite the partnership deed requiring such interest. The tribunal ruled that the advances came from deposits that did not bear interest, and therefore, interest should not be charged.\nOutcome: (i) The fountain construction was a legitimate business expenditure. (ii) The tribunal’s finding on advances to partners was remanded for further examination, as the revenue was not given an opportunity to provide input.\nReferences:\n•\nS. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 288 ITR 1 (SC): A landmark case affirming that advertising expenses, such as those for constructing a fountain for business promotion, are deductible as business expenses.\n•\nCIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC): Discusses the nature of advances to partners and their treatment under tax laws, specifically addressing the issue of interest-free advances in partnership firms.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1981, decision dated: 17-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K.C. AGARWAL, C.J. AND V.K SINGHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Bapna for the Commissioner. Anant Kasliwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKAMAL AND CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 93 = 1995 SLD 93 = 1995 PTD 1212 = (1994) 210 ITR 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax—Accrual—Mercantile System of Accounting—Bank— Sticky Loans \n•\nCase: State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC)\nThe Supreme Court in this case dealt with the concept of income accrual under the mercantile system of accounting. It held that interest accrued on “sticky loans” (loans that are not recovered or have repayment problems) is taxable. According to the mercantile system, interest is considered as income when it is earned, i.e., when it accrues, regardless of whether the corresponding credit is taken into the debtor’s account or a suspense account. Even if the interest is credited to a suspense account, it is treated as income of the assessee and, as such, is taxable.\n(b) Circulars of Central Board of Revenue—Cannot Detract from or Override Provisions of the Act\n•\nCase: CIT v. Kerala Financial Corporation (1985) 155 ITR 228\nThe Supreme Court ruled that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot override or detract from the provisions of the Act. Section 119 allows the CBDT to issue orders, instructions, or directions to ensure the proper administration of the Act, but it cannot amend the statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the CBDT's instructions should guide the administration of the law, not modify the law itself.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 6354 and 6355 of 1985, with Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 20013 of 1991, 7487 and 7489 of 1992 and 1875 of 1993, dated June 3, 1991, March 12, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 157 = 1994 SLD 157 = 1994 PTD 1216 = (1993) 203 ITR 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax—Reassessment—Scope of Section 147(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961\n•\nCase: CIT v. T.S. PL.P. Chidambaram Chettiar (1971) 80 ITR 467 (SC)\nThis case clarified the scope of reassessment under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, particularly in situations where the taxpayer has failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts during the original assessment. The Court confirmed that reassessment is valid when the assessing officer receives new, specific, and reliable information that shows income has escaped assessment due to such failure.\nThe court distinguished between a mere change of opinion and the discovery of fresh facts that reveal the falsity of earlier information provided by the taxpayer. The reassessment can be initiated based on new information received after the completion of the original assessment, even if the officer could have found out about the falsity of the facts earlier through further investigation.\nKey Points from the Case:\no\nNew Information: If the Income Tax Officer (ITO) receives new, reliable, and specific information (such as the fact that a loan transaction claimed by the taxpayer was a sham), he may initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147(a).\no\nJurisdiction to Reassess: The ITO is not bound by what was missed during the original assessment if new facts come to light that reveal the income has escaped assessment.\no\nSufficiency of Reasons: The court does not scrutinize the sufficiency of the reasons for the ITO’s belief, but only checks if the reasons recorded are reasonable and valid based on the new facts discovered.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1235 of 1977, decision dated: 13-07-1993", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. AGRAWAL AND DR. A.S. ANAND, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Indu Goswami, Ms. Preinlata Bansal, Ram Avtar Barisal, R.K. Maheshwari and Arvind Minocha, Advocates with him) for the Appellants. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar, S. Rajappa and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for the Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL and another\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 94 = 1995 SLD 94 = 1995 PTD 1225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme (1992-93)—Assessment under Normal Law\n•\nCase: M/s. Specico International v. RCIT, Karachi (1993 PTD 1007)\nIn this case, the court dealt with a scenario where an assessee filed their return under the Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1992-93. However, the Income Tax Officer set the return apart for assessment under normal law, without providing valid reasons for doing so.\nThe Court ruled that returns filed under the Self-Assessment Scheme should only be set apart under exceptional circumstances, and the selection for normal assessment must follow a procedure outlined in the scheme. The court condemned the decision to process the return under the normal assessment law without justification and ordered that the case be remanded for re-examination. The Appellate Authority had also made a mistake by not challenging the legality of this reassessment.\nKey Points from the Case:\no\nProcedure for Selection: A case can be selected for normal assessment only under exceptional circumstances, and the procedure for doing so must be clearly recorded.\no\nRemand for Re-examination: The Appellate Authority's remand was not appropriate as it should have first evaluated the vires (legality) of the reassessment rather than just remanding the case.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 210/LB of 1993, decision dated: 24-07-1994, hearing DATE : 21st July, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Aeysha Qazi for Appellant. Imtiaz Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 95 = 1995 SLD 95 = 1995 PTD 1228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty under Section 91 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\n•\nPenalties for Non-payment of Tax\nThis case involved an assessee who was a persistent defaulter in the payment of tax. Under Section 91 of the Income Tax Ordinance, the Income Tax Officer has the authority to impose penalties for non-payment of taxes. However, the Court made it clear that the total penalties imposed should not exceed the original tax demand, and the penalty should be imposed in a reasonable manner, not excessively.\nKey Points from the Case:\no\nPenalties for Defaulters: The penalty for non-payment of tax is permissible under Section 91, but must be in relation to the original tax demand. The penalty cannot exceed the income tax owed.\no\nReasonable Penalty: The purpose of the penalty is not to generate additional revenue but to deter non-payment. Thus, the penalty should not be excessive.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=91 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 6260 and 6261/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 19-09-1994, hearing DATE : 14-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED MUMTAZ ALAM GILANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas War for Appellant. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 96 = 1995 SLD 96 = 1995 PTD 1232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Assets under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance\n•\nCase: Valuation of Property\nIn this case, the Income Tax Officer found that an assessee had acquired an asset at a price higher than what was recorded in the books. The Court upheld the authority of the Income Tax Officer to estimate the true value of the asset based on objective criteria. However, the estimation must be supported by material evidence; otherwise, the original value declared by the assessee should be accepted.\nKey Points from the Case:\no\nObjective Estimation: The Income Tax Officer can estimate the value of an asset if there is a reason to believe that the asset was acquired at a price higher than shown in the books.\no\nRequirement for Material Evidence: The officer's valuation must be supported by evidence. If no such evidence exists, the declared value must be accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 5661/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 26-09-1994, hearing DATE 7-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SALEEM ASGHAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Khan for Appellant. Zulqarnain Tirmizi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 97 = 1995 SLD 97 = 1995 PTD 1233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Condonation of Delay under Section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance\n•\nCondonation of Delay\nThe Court ruled that a delay of one day in filing an appeal can be condoned if the delay was due to a bona fide mistake in calculating the period of limitation. This case emphasized that minor delays caused by genuine mistakes should be allowed to be rectified.\nKey Points from the Case:\no\nBona Fide Mistake: A minor delay of one day, caused by a genuine mistake in the reckoning of the limitation period, may be condoned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 539 and 540/LB of 1992-93, decision dated: 19-05-1994", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.G. Mahboob, I.T.P. for Appellant. Saadat Saeed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 98 = 1995 SLD 98 = 1995 PTD 1236 = (1995) 72 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice for Filing Return—Wealth Statement—Constitutional Jurisdiction\n•\nCase: Messrs Julian Moshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer\nThe court ruled that if an assessee does not file their returns or provide the required wealth statements despite proper notice, they cannot seek relief through constitutional petitions. The Court observed that taxpayers who had not complied with the law and had alternative remedies through appeals could not use constitutional jurisdiction for the same issue.\nKey Points from the Case:\no\nFailure to File Returns: If the assessee fails to file the necessary documents after being duly notified, the court will not entertain a constitutional petition.\no\nAlternative Remedies: The court noted that the assessee had a remedy through the appeal process and therefore, the constitutional jurisdiction was not the proper channel for seeking relief.\npriate cases, involving fiscal rights on allegations of misapplication of law or abuse of power to examine whether or not public functionary concerned acted in accordance with powers conferred on him by statute-Where assessee in spite of proper service under S.56, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, neither filed returns for years in question, nor furnished written statements on income for those years and also for succeeding years, their conduct would be deemed to be objectionable-Such assessees having not come to Court with clean hands, would not be entitled to seek remedy in Constitutional petition, especially where they had definite remedy by way of appeal-Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.\n \nMessrs Julian Moshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer Circle XVHI South Zone, Karachi and others 1992 SCMR 250 and Hafiz Muhammad Arif Dar v. Income Tax Officer PLD 19891SC 109 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,58 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 5735 of 1995, decision dated: 04-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": " AHMAD SAEED AWAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAMEEL AND ANOTHER\nVS\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER/TAX RECOVERY OFFICER CIRCLE14, ZONE B, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 158 = 1994 SLD 158 = 1994 PTD 1240 = (1994) 69 TAX 17 = (1993) 202 ITR 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax-Agricultural income-Business-Capital gains-Single transaction of purchase of agricultural land in October 1966, and sale, in January, 1967-¬Profits constituted agricultural income-Not assessable capital gains-No proof by Revenue that land formed part of business assets of assessee-Profits not assessable as business income-Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.2(1), 2(14), 28, 45 (Prior to amendment with effect from April 1, 1970).\n \nThe assessee, an association of persons, purchased a plot of agricultural land in October 1966 and sold it in January, 1967. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of the profit arising out of this deal on the ground that the subject-matter of the transaction being agricultural land, the profits therefrom were not assessable. The Income Tax Officer held that the transaction constituted an adventure in the nature of trade and the income therefrom amounting to Rs.37,700 was taxable as profits and gains of business. The Tribunal accepted the assessees contention. On a reference:\n \nHeld, that the income derived by the assessee from the sale of agricultural land was agricultural income.\n \nManubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar (1981) 128 ITR 87 (Bom.) fol.\n \nIncome from the transfer of agricultural land effected before the 1st day of March, 1970, could not be subjected to- tax as capital gains.\n \nThe onus of proving that the land formed part of the business assets of the assessee was on the Department and in the absence of evidence to that effect the presumption was that the land was held as capital asset by the assessee and the income from transfer thereof was not income from business.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.180 of 1984, decision dated: 25-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " V.A. MOHTA AND DR. B.P. SARAF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.N. Chandurkar, Senior Advocate (Smt. Chandurkar and Wandile, Advocates) with him for the Commissioner\nNemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDHABLE, BOBDE PAROSE, KALE, LUTE AND CHOUDHARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 99 = 1995 SLD 99 = 1995 PTD 1245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Assessment—Addition—Surmises and Conjectures—Illegal Round Addition\n•\nCase: Suleman Haji Umar v. Controller of Estate Duty, Karachi (1975) 31 Tax 132\nIn this case, the Court considered the legality of an assessment made on surmises and conjectures without proper evidence. The assessing officer had made additions to the income without any material evidence to support the decision.\n(a) Surmises and Conjectures:\nThe Court held that assessments based purely on suspicion and conjecture cannot stand. Suspicion cannot replace legal proof. The assessing officer cannot make an assessment without referring to any evidence or material. In cases where estimates are necessary, they must be based on solid evidence, not mere guesses.\n(b) Round Addition in Estimated Income:\no\nIn this case, the assessee, a legal practitioner, had provided a list of cases and receipts through cheques. However, the assessing officer made a round addition to the income, disregarding the provided details.\no\nThe Court ruled that the officer could not disbelieve the assessee’s declared income without probing the matter further or presenting any contrary material. The round addition was deemed improper and illegal.\no\nThe assessing officer failed to substantiate the estimated receipts with any evidence, and as a result, the Tribunal directed that the declared receipts be accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 68/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 3rd January, 1995", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem Chaudhary for Appellant\nQaisar M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 159 = 1994 SLD 159 = 1994 PTD 1256 = (1994) 69 TAX 165 = (1994) 70 TAX 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—Reference—Irrelevant and Academic Questions\n•\nCase: Sri Rajendra Narayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax 8 ITR 495\nThis case dealt with references under Section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Court clarified that when the questions raised are irrelevant, academic, or do not affect the rights and liabilities of any parties, the Court may refuse to answer them. The Court emphasized that the reference should not be used for merely deciding abstract questions without practical consequences for the parties involved.\nHeld:\no\nThe Court reiterated that general or abstract questions, which are purely academic and do not bear on the rights or liabilities of the parties, should not be raised. If such questions are framed, the Court may refuse to entertain them.\no\nThe Court noted that it is not bound to answer questions that have no bearing on the substantive issues at hand.\nRelevant Precedents:\n•\nSri Rajendra Narayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax (8 ITR 495)\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Sint. Anasuya Devi (68 ITR 750, SC)\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 8, SC)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 8-K of 1994, decision dated: 24-03-1994.hearing DATE : 24-03-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasruliah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nRehan Hasan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANIES NO. 1, KARACHI\nVs\nM/s. HASSAN ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 100 = 1995 SLD 100 = 1995 PTD 1257 = (1995) 211 ITR 706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Capital Gains—Computation of Capital Gains—Substituting Fair Market Value\n•\nCase: CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 250 (SC)\nThis case concerned the computation of capital gains on the sale of assets, specifically with respect to the cost of acquisition of depreciable assets. The assessee purchased land, buildings, plant, and machinery prior to January 1, 1964, and sold them in 1980. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the assets over the years.\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) contested the assessee’s claim to substitute the fair market value of the assets on January 1, 1964, for the cost of acquisition in determining capital gains. The ITO argued that since the property was purchased voluntarily, the assessee did not have the option to substitute fair market value under Section 50.\nHeld:\no\nThe Court ruled that the assessee was entitled to substitute the fair market value as on January 1, 1964, as the cost of acquisition, following the option provided in Section 55(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\no\nThe Court clarified that Section 50 only applies to depreciable assets, and even in the case of assets purchased voluntarily, the assessee retains the option to adopt fair market value for computing capital gains.\no\nThe Court also observed that the provisions of Section 50 should not limit the option granted by Section 55(2), and therefore, the fair market value on January 1, 1964, could be taken into account, subject to depreciation adjustments.\nLegal Provisions:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961: Sections 45, 48, 49, 50, 55\n•\nRajnagar Vaktapur Ginning, Pressing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 264 (Guj.)\n•\nCIT v. Upper Doab Sugar Mills (1979) 116 ITR 240 (All.)\n•\nCIT v. Commonwealth Trust Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 19 (Ker.)\nInterpretation of Statutes:\n•\nThe Court emphasized that the principle that special provisions override general provisions applies only when the provisions operate in the same area. However, Section 55(2) provides an independent option for computing capital gains, and Section 50 merely applies to specific scenarios related to depreciable assets.\n•\nThe Court also clarified that the rule of following decisions from other High Courts is not absolute. It can be ignored if the earlier decision overlooks important legal provisions or is erroneous.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 417 of 1985, decision dated: 27-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " V.A. MOHTA, I.G. SHAH AND S.M, JHUNJHUNUWALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Soli Dastur with S.J. Mehta and I.M. Munim for the Petitioners\nG.S. Jetley with P.S. Jetley for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "GOCULDAS DOSSA AND CO. and others\nVs\nJ.P. SHAH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 160 = 1994 SLD 160 = 1994 PTD 1258 = (1994) 70 TAX 1 = 1994 PTD 1380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.24(g)\n•\nThe term Gratuity fund in the Ordinance has not been defined, and thus should be given its ordinary meaning, as understood in common parlance. Therefore, a provision for gratuity made by an assessee can be considered as a gratuity fund for the purposes of this section.\n•\nReference: Duncan Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1978) 111 ITR 885; Duncan Brother & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1981) ITR 302.\n(b) Words and Phrases - Fund\n•\nThe meaning of fund in legal and financial contexts can be understood through several authoritative references, such as:\no\nJowitt’s Dictionary of English Law (2nd Edn.)\no\nDictionary of Accountants by Eric L. Kohler\no\nCassells English Dictionary\no\nShorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edn.)\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance - S.24(g) - Gratuity Fund\n•\n Provision for gratuity set aside by the assessee for future gratuity payments to employees has the same characteristics as a gratuity fund. However, because it was not approved as such, it was not admissible due to the specific bar in S.24(g) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance - S.136(1) - Reference\n•\nA reference to the High Court should only be made for questions of law that have substance. Questions that are clear and free from doubt do not merit referral to the High Court.\n•\nReference: 1967 PTD 265 and 1970 SCMR 872.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(g),136(1) ", + "Case #": "R. As. Nos. 122/KB to 125/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 5-04-1994.hearing DATE : 29-03-1994", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq Memon for Applicant.\nAbdul Hameed Niazi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 161 = 1994 SLD 161 = 1994 PTD 1266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.134 - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal\n•\nWhen an appellant presents factors that could merit consideration in earlier proceedings but fail to press them, the Tribunal may reject attempts to bring these factors up during an appeal.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance - S.111 - Penalty for Concealment of Income\n•\nPenalty proceedings, being of a criminal nature, require independent evaluation of the evidence. If the penalty is imposed based solely on a predetermined agreement without substantial justification, the penalty can be removed by the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,111 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs Nos. 1518/LB to 1525/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 17-10-1992.hearing DATE : 15-10-1992.", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant\nF.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 162 = 1994 SLD 162 = 1994 PTD 1268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.13(1)(d)(e) - Additions\n•\nAdditions made by the Assessing Officer based on personal observations without evidence are not valid. For example, general statements about the assessee's high living standards or the under-reporting of income are not sufficient to support additions.\n•\nReference: 1987 PTD (Trib.) 36.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance - S.13(1)(d)(e) - Additions\n•\nThe declared cost for constructing a building was not unreasonably low. The addition made on the basis of conjecture lacked evidence and was thus illegal.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance - S.13(1)(d)(e) - Additions\n•\nThe assessee’s claim of agricultural income from land allocated by his father was plausible. Such practices, especially in Punjab, were not uncommon, and thus the claim was not unfounded.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d)(e) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 534/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 10-07-1993.hearing DATE : 28-06-1993.", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant\nShaukat Ali Sheikh, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 101 = 1995 SLD 101 = 1995 PTD 1270 = (1995) 211 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Transfer of Assets for Minor Child\n•\nSection 64(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prior to its amendment in 1971, stipulated that income from transferred assets should only be included in the transferor’s income if the benefit is for the minor child during their minority or deferred to their minority. In this case, since the deferred benefit was beyond the sons' minority, the income from the trust was not included in the transferor's income.\n•\nReference: CIT (Addl.) v. M. K. Doshi (1980) 122 ITR 499 (Guj.); Yogindraprasad N. Mafatilal v. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 602 (Bom); CIT v. M. D. Veeranara-Simhaiah (1988) 174 ITR 435 (Kar); CIT v. T. Ponnaiah (1988) 172 ITR 269 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1996 to 1999 of 1981, decision dated: 27-09-1994, hearing DATE : 27-09-1994Appeals from the judgment and order dated October 3,1980 of the Gujarat High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 64 of 1976", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA, S.C. SEN AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamoorthy, Senior Advocate (B. S. Ahuja, S. N. Terdol and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him), for the Appellant\nNemo for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nM.R. DOSHI (decd. by Legal Heirs)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 163 = 1994 SLD 163 = 1994 PTD 1278 = (1994) 70 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) and Deduction of Tax at Source\n1.\nSection 50(4A), 50(9), 52, and 57 of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979):\no\nDeduction at source: Any person responsible for making payments, such as a company, is liable for tax deductions at source. This includes the company itself and its principal officer.\no\nConnotation of words: The words includes and means are distinguished. The word means is restrictive, while includes is used to expand or broaden the scope. In the context of a company, both the company and its principal officer may be treated as assessee in default. \no\nCase references: The case reaffirms that in the case of a company, both the company and its principal officer can be assessed under section 52 if they fail to comply with tax deductions.\n2.\nWords & Phrases:\no\n Includes and Means : The former is an enlargement of scope, and the latter limits the scope.\no\n Discount vs. Commission : Discount refers to a reduction from the face value of a product or service, while commission refers to a percentage of the amount involved in a transaction.\n3.\nTrade Discount vs. Commission:\no\nCase scenario: A company manufacturing pharmaceutical goods provided a 15% discount to its distributors, which is termed as a trade discount, not a commission. Therefore, sections 50(4A) and 52 do not apply in this case.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4A)(9),52,57 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals. Nos. 755/KB and 756/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 19-03-1994.hearing DATE : 28-02-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Appellant.\nSaleem Butt, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 164 = 1994 SLD 164 = 1994 PTD 1288 = (1994) 70 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (1979) and Additional Assessment\n1.\nSection 65(2):\no\nDefinite information: Information about sales and purchases by the assessee is treated as definite information if it can be established clearly.\n2.\nSection 165:\no\nCBR Circulars: Circulars by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) cannot override the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n3.\nAdditional Assessment:\no\nApproval and Permission: The procedure for additional assessment requires approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and permission from the Central Board of Revenue.\no\nService of Notice: A notice under section 65, once responded to by the assessee, cannot be contested for its validity under section 154(6).\no\nDandakar Formula: This can be applied for verifying purchases if they are verifiable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(2),165,65,59,154(6),13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "ITAs Nos. 6686/KB of 1991-92 and 2272/KB of 1993-94, decision dated: 20-03-1994.hearing DATE : 7-03-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ASIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehtab Khan, ITP for Appellant.\nKhawar Butt, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 165 = 1994 SLD 165 = 1994 PTD 1294 = (1994) 70 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust and Exemption Under Income Tax Ordinance (1979)\n1.\nSection 93 of the Second Schedule (Amendment 1989):\no\nBusiness Income: Charitable trusts engaged in business are not entitled to exemptions under section 93 but may still receive exemptions for income from house property, provided that income is applied for charitable purposes.\no\nEducational Institutions: A trust running a school on a no-profit, no-loss basis qualifies for exemption under section 86 of the Second Schedule, even if surplus arises, as long as it is reinvested for the trust's objectives.\n2.\nExemption Clauses:\no\nCharitable Trusts: Trusts running schools on a no-profit, no-loss basis can still claim exemption under clause (86), even if some activities are outside the scope of exemption clauses.\n3.\nIncome from Other Sources:\no\nNon-Exempt Income: Income from other sources, such as rental income from advertising, is subject to tax and does not qualify for exemption under charitable trust exemptions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.(93),(86) ", + "Case #": "ITA. No. 6090/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 23rd January, 1994.hearing DATE : 3rd January, 1994.", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ARIF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Fariq for Appellant.\nKhalid Siddiqui, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 166 = 1994 SLD 166 = 1994 PTD 1303 = (1994) 206 ITR 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (1961) - Settlement of Cases\n1.\nSection 245C and 245D(1):\no\nSettlement of Income Tax Cases: The objective is for assessees to disclose income that was not previously disclosed. However, if the income has already been discovered by the tax authorities, the Settlement Commission cannot be used to avoid or delay the assessment process.\no\nJurisdiction of Settlement Commission: The Commission can look into material gathered by the tax authorities after the application for settlement has been filed, especially if it relates to income or fraud already under investigation.\n2.\nSupreme Court Ruling:\no\nApplication for Settlement: The respondent had failed to meet the requirement of disclosing income not previously disclosed. The Court held that the Settlement Commission should have rejected the application since it did not meet the criteria under section 245C.\no\nMaterial Collected After Application: The Court ruled that material collected after the filing of the settlement application could be considered in the investigation process and would not be disregarded.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2841 to 2844 of 1993, decision dated: 11-01-1994Appeal by special leave from the order, dated 31st May 1990, of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Madras, in Settlement Application No.21/V/26/ 89-IT)", + "Judge Name:": " J.S. VERMA YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (K.V. Verma, Ranbir Chandra, D.S. Mahra and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Monika Mohil, Ms. Madhavi Khera and Ms. Priya Gupta, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nEXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 102 = 1995 SLD 102 = 1995 PTD 1307 = (1994) 209 ITR 877", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S.66-A—Constitutional Petition—Jurisdiction and Validity of Notice: The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the assessee to first address objections related to the validity of a notice issued by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner. The High Court ruled that the I.A.C. should determine jurisdiction based on the reply to the show-cause notice, and the relevant law, as per the Supreme Court’s guidance in PLD 1992 SC 549.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition (Civil) No.430 of 1994, decision dated: 1st August, 1994", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "NA. Palkhivala and Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, Advocate, with them), for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 167 = 1994 SLD 167 = 1994 PTD 1323 = (1994) 70 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S.66-A—Constitutional Petition—Jurisdiction and Validity of Notice: The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the assessee to first address objections related to the validity of a notice issued by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner. The High Court ruled that the I.A.C. should determine jurisdiction based on the reply to the show-cause notice, and the relevant law, as per the Supreme Court’s guidance in PLD 1992 SC 549.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1646-1 of 1993, decision dated: 30-11-1993.hearing DATE : 30-11-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawahar A. Naqvee for Petitioner.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. NOOR HOSPITAL\nVs\nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 103 = 1995 SLD 103 = 1995 PTD 1329 = (1995) 211 ITR 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Obsolescence of Building on Leasehold Land: The case involved an assessee who built a structure on leased land and later surrendered it along with the building to the lessor. The claim for obsolescence allowance under section 32(1)(iii) was denied by the Income Tax Officer and the Tribunal because the structure was not discarded or demolished, nor was the loss written off in the assessee’s books. The decision to disallow the claim was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Taxation Case No.118 of 1980, decision dated: 14-07-1994", + "Judge Name:": " K.VENKATASWAMI, C.J. AND N.K SINHA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramesh Kumar Agrawal for Assessee\nL.N. Rastogi with S.K. Sharan for Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MARWARI HOTEL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 104 = 1995 SLD 104 = 1995 PTD 1333 = (1995) 211 ITR 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax—Depreciation and Balancing Allowance for Returnable Cylinders: The assessee, in the business of distributing LPG, had claimed depreciation on cylinders used as returnable packages. However, the claim was denied because the cylinders were not actually used up as per the relevant rules. The shortfall in the sale price was also not written off in the books, preventing the allowance under section 32(1)(iii). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision.\n(b) Income-tax—Development Rebate—Shortfall in Reserve Creation: The assessee had claimed a development rebate but failed to create the required statutory reserve. The Income Tax Officer disallowed part of the rebate. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that the statutory requirements were not fully met, and the development rebate should be proportionally disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1325 of 1979, decision dated: 6-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MAY. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J. I AND G.N. RAY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Rajappa, T.N. Banerjee, RA. Perumal and D.N. Gupta-, Advocates, for the Appellant\nJ. Ramamoorthy, Senior Advocate (R. Sutish and D.S. Mahra, Advocates, with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING CO. OF INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 168 = 1994 SLD 168 = 1994 PTCL 629 = 1994 PTD 1336 = (1994) 69 TAX 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S.66—Interpretation: The interpretation of section 66 in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, holds that it only lifts the limitation bar without expanding the jurisdiction of the authorities. Findings or directions under section 66 are confined to the assessment under appeal and cannot extend to other assessments or matters.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance—S.66, 64 & 65—Re-assessment Limitation: For section 66 to lift the bar of limitation, the re-assessment must stem from a definitive finding by the Appellate Authority. If the matter is left to the discretion of the Income Tax Officer, section 66 does not apply. In the case at hand, the re-assessment was based on independent inquiry, and the notice was issued after the limitation period, rendering the proceedings invalid.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance—S.66 & S.65—Jurisdictional Issue in Re-assessment: Since the re-assessment was initiated independently and not following any direction from the Appellate Authority, the provisions of section 66 did not apply. The re-assessment notice was barred by time, making the proceedings and consequent assessment orders invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,64,65,65(3) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 1909/KB and 1910/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 6-01-1994", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Appellant. Muhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 105 = 1995 SLD 105 = 1995 PTD 1359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Benami Transaction and Deemed Income:\n•\nIssue: The assessee and his two brothers were listed as owners of a property, but there were allegations that it was a Benami transaction. The department had not issued notices to the brothers, who were abroad at the time, and failed to prove that the assessee was not the real owner.\n•\nPrinciple: The taxing authorities must prove that a property transaction is Benami. The mere fact that the transaction is in someone else's name is insufficient without evidence, especially when the income from the property is taxable. The assessee does not need to prove that the property is not his if the title is in another person's name.\n•\nOutcome: The addition under Section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance was not lawful since the department failed to discharge its burden of proving the Benami nature of the transaction.\n(b) Sources of Investment and Property Ownership:\n•\nIssue: The sources of investment in the property were explained by the assessee, and all owners listed in the deed were not assessed by the tax authorities.\n•\nOutcome: The addition under Section 13(1)(aa) was not upheld.\n(c) Understatement of Consideration in Property Transaction:\n•\nIssue: The department alleged that the consideration for a property was understated in the registered sale deed and issued a notice under Section 62 rather than Section 13, which is mandatory for such allegations.\n•\nOutcome: The assessment based on revaluation was deemed invalid, and the value in the sale-deed was upheld.\n(d) Appeal and Assessment Validity:\n•\nIssue: The assessee raised objections about the validity of the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), but it was not raised in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nOutcome: The Tribunal allowed the objection to be raised, adhering to the legal principle that jurisdictional matters can be addressed by the tribunal.\n(e) Validity of Notice for Income Return:\n•\nIssue: A notice for furnishing the return of income was issued to an assessee whose assessment for the year had already been finalized.\n•\nOutcome: The notice under Section 56 was not lawful, though the case could be reopened under Section 65.\n(f) Penalty and Concealment of Income:\n•\nIssue: The penalty for concealment of income was imposed, but the parent order that led to the penalty had been annulled by the Tribunal.\n•\nOutcome: The penalty order was also annulled.\n(g) Concealment of Income and Penalty:\n•\nIssue: A penalty was imposed for the concealment of income under Section 111, but there was no evidence of willful fraud or neglect by the assessee.\n•\nOutcome: The penalty could not be imposed based on mere opinionated additions under Section 13, and no concealment was established.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),13(1)(d),13,62,56,65,113 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 573 and 574/LB of 1995, decision dated: 21st May, 1995, hearing DATE : 11-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASHFAQ AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas War for Appellant. Ajmal Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 169 = 1994 SLD 169 = 1994 PTD 1360 = (1994) 70 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Re-opening of Assessment:\n•\nIssue: The department attempted to reopen an assessment after all relevant facts were presented.\n•\nPrinciple: Reopening of an assessment is not valid if the department was already in possession of all relevant facts and nothing was concealed.\n(b) Change of Opinion in Re-assessment:\n•\nIssue: The Assessing Officer reopened an assessment based on a change of opinion regarding certain deductions and provisions, such as depreciation and allowances for subsidies.\n•\nOutcome: The reopening was ruled invalid as there was no new material or fresh information, and the assessment could not be altered based on a mere change of opinion.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.TA s. Nos.373/LB to 378/LB and 408/LB to 413/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 2-06-1994, hearing DATE : 10-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I. N. Pasha for Appellant (in ITA s. Nos. 373/LB to 378/LB of 1986-87). Mirza Ghazanfar Baig, D.R. for Respondent (in ITAs. Nos. 373/LB to 378/LB of 1986-87). Mirza Ghazanfar Baig, D.R. for Appellant (in ITAs. Nos. 408/LB to 413/LB of 1986-87).\nI. N. Pasha for Respondent (in ITAs. Nos. 408/LB to 413/LB of 1986-87)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 106 = 1995 SLD 106 = 1995 PTD 1369 = (1995) 72 TAX 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 13(2) & 62:\n•\nA specific notice under section 13(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is required for a deemed income addition. A notice under section 62 would not fulfill this requirement.\n•\nThe intention of the law is that the taxpayer is made aware of the Revenue's position regarding the elements listed in section 13(1) of the Ordinance. The tax authority must express its intention to treat particular sums as deemed income.\n•\nReliance on natural justice principles suggests that if the taxpayer is given a fair opportunity to present their case, procedural defects can be cured. However, mandatory legal notice requirements must be adhered to, and any violation of these may make an order void unless proven that no prejudice was caused.\n•\nA notice under section 13 must seek an explanation about the facts under subsections (1)(a) to (e) of section 13 and allow a reasonable opportunity for explanation before determining deemed income.\n(b) Affidavit – Value and Presumption:\n•\nAn affidavit, being a sworn statement, does not carry a presumption of truth, especially when it could be contradicted by other evidence or cross-examination.\n•\nIt can be used as a piece of evidence, but its veracity can only be confirmed through cross-examination.\n•\nA counter-affidavit can only be filed by a person who has firsthand knowledge of the facts in question; official functionaries should not file counter-affidavits on matters related to an individual's personal affairs.\n(c) Expert Opinion – Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 13 & 4:\n•\nExpert opinions are not binding, and their value depends on the qualifications and experience of the expert. An opinion is only useful to assist decision-makers in reaching conclusions.\n•\nThe expert's report cannot be relied upon if their qualifications or experience were not established, and the report lacks transparency (e.g., no basis for estimating construction costs).\n•\nIn this case, an expert's cost estimation report was deemed inadmissible due to lack of qualifications, basis for estimates, and failure to disclose relevant details (e.g., area and construction classification).\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Ss. 132(1)(a)(i) & 65 – Remand and Re-assessment:\n•\nWhen an assessment is set aside (in whole or in part), the Assessing Officer must comply with any directions issued in the remand order. These directions are binding but subject to substantial compliance.\n•\nWhere part of an assessment is upheld, it cannot be modified in re-assessment proceedings unless there are grounds for new additions (e.g., under-assessment or concealment).\n•\nIn the case of a full remand, the assessment is considered pending, and the Assessing Officer can reassess all aspects of the case, including any unaddressed or newly discovered sources of income.\n(f) Words and Phrases – And and Or :\n•\nThe word or in legal provisions may be interpreted conjunctively ( and ) to avoid ambiguity and ensure that the Assessing Officer considers all relevant facts.\n•\nThe legal interpretation of or as used in tax laws can be seen as a conjunction rather than a disjunction to reflect legislative intent.\nKey Principles:\n1.\nLegal Requirements of Notice: A specific notice under section 13(2) is essential for invoking deemed income, and procedural fairness must be maintained.\n2.\nAffidavits: While affidavits can serve as evidence, they do not carry a presumption of truth and must be subjected to cross-examination to test their veracity.\n3.\nExpert Reports: Expert opinions must be credible, transparent, and supported by qualifications and experience to be considered valid evidence.\n4.\nRe-assessment After Remand: If an assessment is remanded, the Assessing Officer must comply with the remand directions while retaining the ability to reassess and introduce new income sources if warranted.\n5.\nInterpretation of Legal Terms: Legal terms like or may sometimes be interpreted conjunctively to ensure that the law is applied comprehensively.\nThis case highlights the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures, the role of expert testimony, and the flexibility of reassessment following a remand.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(2),62,13(1),13,4,132(1)(a)(i),65 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.9897/LB of 1991-92 and 155/LB of 1994, decision dated: 20-12-1994, hearing DATE : 1st June 1994", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ABDUL RASHID QURESHI, AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sikandar Hayat and Malik Abdul Latif for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 170 = 1994 SLD 170 = 1994 PTD 1370 = (1994) 70 TAX 195 = 1994 CLC 1721", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act (1948) - Exemption from Income Tax\n(a) Exemption from Income Tax: Section 3-B of the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act (XXIV of 1948) and para. 13 of its Schedule provide exemption from income tax. The exemption applies not only to foreign nationals approved by the licensee but also to employees of a contractor of the licensee or lessee. The provision operates irrespective of any other laws in force, including the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCase references:\n•\nA & B Food Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax/Sales, Karachi (1992 SCIG4R 663)\n•\nNawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty (PLD 1961 SC 119)\n•\nPir Bakhsh v. Ajaib Gul (PLD 1962 Pesh. 61)\n•\nArshad Akram & Co. v. Divisional Superintendent (PLD 1982 Lah. 109)\n•\nMuhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Rahim (1987 CLC 176)\n(b) No Conflict Between Provisions: There is no conflict between Section 3-B and para. 13. A combined reading shows that the exemption applies to contractors of the licensee as well.\n(c) Interpretation of Statutes:\n•\nIf there is a conflict between the main provisions and the Schedule of an Act, the main provisions prevail.\n•\nStatutes must be interpreted harmoniously to avoid repugnancy.\n(d) Income Tax Exemption: Circulars issued by the CBR (dated 5th July 1977 and 21st October 1986) confirm that operating companies and their contractors engaged in petroleum exploration and production are considered approved undertakings and are eligible for income-tax exemption.\n(e) Legal Standing: The petitioners were entitled to exemption from income tax under the terms of Section 3-B and Schedule para. 13. The department's refusal to grant this exemption was unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Regulations of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, (XXIV of 1948)=3-B Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartI,Para.7 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 344 of 1993, heard on 29-11-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND KHAN RIAZUDDIN AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Qayyum Bhatti and Saleem Zulfiqar for Petitioners. Mansoor Ahmed for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "M/s. FLOPETROL INTERNATIONAL, SA, ISLAMABAD and 51 others\nVs\nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 293 = 1994 SLD 293 = (1994) 69 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Penalty for Concealment of Income\n(a) Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c): The Income Tax Officer (ITO) imposed a penalty for the concealment of income based on the assessee's failure to include the value of bricks in a kiln. However, the Appellate Authority (AAC) concluded that the assessee had shown the closing stock of bricks and declared the sales in the following year, canceling the penalty.\n(b) Burden of Proof: Under Section 271(1)(c), the assessee must prove that the failure to declare correct income was not due to fraud or willful neglect. The assessee succeeded in this by showing that the bricks' value was not included due to their lack of market value.\n(c) Decision: The Tribunal's imposition of penalty was unjustified as the assessee provided sufficient explanation for the omission. The facts indicated no willful neglect, and therefore, no penalty should have been imposed.\nCases Referred:\n•\nSree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 28 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy & Sons (1971) 79 ITR 499 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 543 (SC)\n•\nAddl. CIT v. Jai Jawan Radios (1984) 146 ITR 504 (All.)\n•\nCIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons (1992) 195 ITR 1 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I. T. Reference No. 2 of 1987, September 2, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.N. SAHAY AND R.K. AGARWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.B. Jindal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Pradeep Agarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "AZIMULLAH MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 172 = 1994 SLD 172 = 1994 PTD 1387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Perquisites and Salary Deductions\n(a) Deduction for Perquisites: The assessee is not entitled to a deduction for the entire expenditure on perquisites or other benefits provided to employees.\n(b) Expenditure on Salary: To qualify as salary under Section 10(4)(d), the expenditure must be made under a legal obligation, as per the agreement, and not affect retirement or pensionary benefits. Payments not meeting these criteria cannot be deducted as salary.\nCases Referred:\n•\nBishambar Dayal v. Commissioner of Income-tax (103 ITR 813)\n•\nCIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. (145 ITR 24)\n•\nCIT v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. (119 ITR 431)\n(c) Interpretation of Perquisite : Since perquisite is undefined, the nature of the benefit matters, not the name. If a benefit is provided that meets the criteria of a perquisite, the nature of the benefit will determine its classification.\nCases Referred:\n•\nTennant v. Smith (3 TC 158)\n•\nCorry v. Robinson (18 TC 411)\n(d) Reference: The High Court cannot consider documents not produced before the Tribunal during the reference stage.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(iii) ", + "Case #": "Application No. 17 of 1987, decision dated: 23rd April, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. MAHMUDUR RAHMAN AND SYED, J.R. MUDASSIR HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moksudur Rahman for Petitioner. A.K.M. Mozammel Hoque Bhuiyan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, DHAKA (SOUTH) ZONE, DHAKA\nVs\nTITAS GAS TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., DHAKA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 173 = 1994 SLD 173 = 1994 PTD 1395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Double Taxation and Reference\n(a) Reference Powers: The High Court cannot address matters outside the Tribunal's order. It can only review questions of law arising directly from the Tribunal’s decision.\n(b) Double Taxation: The assessee, a subsidiary of a Government Corporation, was taxed on surplus due to the refixation of petroleum product prices. Despite the surplus being directed to the parent corporation, it remains taxable as the profit earned by the assessee.\n(c) Decision on Double Taxation: The fact that the government directed the surplus to be transferred did not alter its taxable nature. The assessee company’s profit was taxed in its hands, and later, the transfer to the corporation did not change the surplus’s character.\nCases Referred:\n•\nCIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367)\n•\nPondichery Railway Co. v. CIT (AIR 1931 PC 165)\n•\nS. Naseem Anwar v. Income Tax Officer (15 DLR 414)\n•\nTata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. N.C. Upadhaya (96 ITR 1)\n(d) Interpretation of Taxing Statutes: Tax laws should not be interpreted to result in double taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Application No.133 of 1991, decision dated: 30-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. MAHMUDUR RAHMAN AND SYED, J.R. MUDASSIR HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rafique-ul Haq with Mustafa Adil and Md. Shorful Islam Khan for Applicant. Md. Moksudur Rahman for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MEGHNA PETROLEUM LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF TAXES (WEST ZONE), DHAKA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 481 = 2000 SLD 481 = 2000 PTD 3521 = (1999) 238 ITR 458", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Mesne Profits and Capital Gains\n(a) Mesne Profits: Mesne profits, awarded in a dispute for possession of leased land, are not considered capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, the assessee received mesne profits after a civil suit with the lessee, but no capital asset was transferred.\n(b) Decision on Taxability: The profit from mesne profits does not constitute capital gains, as there was no transfer of ownership of the asset (building), and thus no capital gains arose.\nCase Referred:\n•\nCIT v. Mrs. Annamma Alexander (1991) 191 ITR 551 (Ker.)\n•\nSevantilal Maneklal Sheth v. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 503 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.36 of 1993, decision dated: 16-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH, C, J. AND, J. B. KOSHY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Party appeared in person\nP.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ACHUTHAN PILLAI & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 107 = 1995 SLD 107 = 1995 PTD 1403 = (1995) 71 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 59: Self-Assessment Scheme\n•\nOverview: This case discusses the Self-Assessment Scheme (SAS) introduced under Section 59 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, to simplify tax filing and reduce unnecessary scrutiny. The key issue is whether the authorities can reopen an assessment based on definite information suggesting a gross understatement of income.\n•\nKey Conclusions:\no\nSelf-Assessment as the Default: The Self-Assessment Scheme is the default method for taxpayers, and regular assessments are exceptions under the Ordinance.\no\nGross Understatement: Definite information is necessary to trigger a full audit, and mere suspicion is insufficient for reopening an assessment.\no\nImpact of Suspicion : Suspicion refers to a belief that is not based on definitive evidence, and thus, reopening should be based on clear evidence of a gross understatement of income.\no\nCase Example (Spiceco International): The Revenue's action to select a case based on an advertisement was found unjustified because there was no clear evidence linking the advertisement to any gross understatement of income.\n•\nSummary: The Self-Assessment Scheme under Section 59 allows for audits only based on clear evidence of tax evasion. The case clarifies the difference between suspicion and definite information required for reopening an assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,65 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 171(PB) of 1993-94, decided, on 21st November, 1994.hearing DATE : 5-10-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, FAZAL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rauf Rohaila for Appellant.\nQaisar Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 174 = 1994 SLD 174 = 1994 PTD 1416 = (1994) 70 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 66(1) & Section 166(2)(a): Assessment and Limitation\n•\nOverview: This case addresses the issue of reassessment and the applicable limitations for returns filed before the commencement of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. It discusses the interaction between Section 66(1) (limiting reassessment) and Section 166(2)(a) (transitional provisions for returns filed before the Ordinance's commencement).\n•\nKey Conclusions:\no\nOld Law Provisions Apply: Returns filed before the Ordinance's commencement are assessed under the old law, and the limitation provisions of the new Ordinance do not apply to these cases.\no\nAssessment Continuity: Even after the commencement of the new law, reassessments for returns filed before its start continue under the previous law’s rules.\n•\nSummary: The case establishes that returns filed before the start of the new Ordinance are not bound by the limitation provisions of the 1979 Ordinance. The assessment process continues under the old law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66(1),166(2)(a),66(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos.351(IB) to 358(IB) of 1990-91, decision dated: 4-01-1994.hearing DATE : 4-01-1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RASHID AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant.\nAziz Ahmad Bilour, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 175 = 1994 SLD 175 = 1994 PTD 1422", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Section 80-C: Constitutional Petition Against Tax Recovery\n•\nOverview: This case involves a constitutional petition filed against the imposition of taxes under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, challenging the law’s validity and requesting a stay on tax recovery until the petition is decided.\n•\nKey Conclusions:\no\nHigh Court's Jurisdiction: The High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain constitutional petitions challenging the vires (validity) of tax laws under Article 199 of the Constitution.\no\nStay on Tax Recovery: The High Court granted a stay order preventing the recovery of taxes under Section 80-C until the constitutional petition was resolved.\n•\nSummary: The High Court granted a stay on tax recovery and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear challenges regarding the constitutionality of Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1656 and Miscellaneous No.4262 of 1994. decided on 21st July, 1994.", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUR RAHIM KAZI AND ABDUL LATIF QURESHI, Justice(s),", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Petitioner.\nSheikh Haider for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INTERNATIONAL TEA TRADERS, KARACHI\nVs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 176 = 1994 SLD 176 = 1994 PTD 1423 = (1994) 70 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 55, 56 & 108: Penalties for Failure to File Return\n•\nOverview: This case deals with the imposition of penalties for failure to file an income tax return under Sections 55 and 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and whether penalties can be imposed simultaneously for the same period under both provisions.\n•\nKey Conclusions:\no\nPenalty for Default: Penalties under Sections 55 (failure to file returns) and 56 (failure to comply with notice) can be imposed separately but cannot be charged for the same period.\no\nRecalculation of Penalties: Penalties for overlapping periods of default were set aside, and the assessing officer was instructed to recalculate penalties for each section.\n•\nSummary: The case clarifies that penalties under Sections 55 and 56 cannot be imposed simultaneously for the same period. The court directed the assessing officer to recalculate penalties based on distinct time periods.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,56,108 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.575/IB and 576/IB of 1991-92, decision dated: 31st March, 1994, hearing DATE , 21st February, 1994.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hayee Butt for Appellant, Shahid Nasim, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 177 = 1994 SLD 177 = 1994 PTD 1427 = (1994) 70 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 63, 61 & 62: Best Judgment Assessment\n•\nOverview: This case examines the power of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to make best judgment assessments when an assessee fails to comply with notices under Sections 61 and 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The focus is on how best judgment assessments should be conducted under such circumstances.\n•\nKey Conclusions:\no\nBest Judgment Assessment: The ITO is empowered to make an assessment based on best judgment when an assessee fails to respond to notices.\no\nIncome Estimation: The ITO's estimation of income through the use of the G.P. rate was upheld. The method used to calculate income was found appropriate even though the assessee did not comply with the notices.\no\nImproper Wealth Accretion Method: The use of the wealth accretion method for income calculation was not justified.\n•\nSummary: The case confirms that the ITO has the authority to issue a best judgment assessment in cases of non-compliance and that income can be estimated using appropriate methods such as the G.P. rate.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,61,62,63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 2537/LB of 1986-1987, decision dated: 27-04-1994, hearing DATE : 20-12-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.R. Farooqi, ITP for Appellant. Javed-ur-Rehman, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 108 = 1995 SLD 108 = 1995 PTD 1430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Limitation\nDetails: An ex parte appellate order was sent to the assessee under a postal certificate, but no evidence of service was available. The assessee contended they had moved from the address where the appellate order was sent. The reassessment order also confirmed the assessee had shifted.\nHeld: The Tribunal concluded that there was no possibility of service at the address provided, treating the appeal as within time.\nCitations: None mentioned.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax - Re-assessment - Essentials\nDetails: Reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a wealth statement indicating the house's completion by 30-6-1988. The assessee claimed this date was a mistaken entry by their representative and provided alternative evidence, including a letter from Sui Gas Authorities and property tax receipts.\nHeld: The Income Tax Officer failed to rebut the evidence provided by the assessee, making the reassessment proceedings invalid.\nCitations: None mentioned.\n________________________________________\n(c) Income-tax - Re-assessment - Validity\nDetails: Original assessment under the Self-Assessment Scheme lacked a proper assessment order. There was no notice under relevant provisions, and the reassessment was based on unsigned IT-30 records.\nHeld: The reassessment was declared void ab initio and canceled by the Tribunal.\nCitations: None mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(3),(4),65 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.1103/LB of 1995, decision dated: 18-06-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant.\nMrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 178 = 1994 SLD 178 = 1994 PTD 1432 = (1994) 70 TAX 115 = (1993) 204 ITR 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Capital Gains - Exemption\nDetails: The sale of a house used as a residence for two continuous years before its sale is a condition for claiming exemption under Indian Income Tax Act, Section 54. The intent of specifying two years is to provide clarity and limit the exemption to genuine residential use cases.\nHeld: Use for the full two-year period before the sale is mandatory for exemption eligibility.\nCitations:\n•\nAbdul Sattar (M) v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 642 (Kar.) - Dissented from.\n•\nViswanathan (M) v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 244 (Mad.)\n•\nS. Radhakrishna v. CIT (1984) 145 ITR 170 (Mad.)\n________________________________________\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes - Exemption Provisions\nDetails: Exemption provisions, akin to exceptions, must be strictly construed, aligning with legislative intent and economic rationale. However, once applicable, they should not be overly restrictive in interpretation.\nHeld: Strict construction applies only until the exemption is established.\nCitations:\n•\nUnion of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. (1991) AIR SC 2049.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.269 of 1980, decision dated: 8-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " G. T. NANAVATI AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.A. Mehta for K.C. Patel for the Assessee\nB.J. Shelat, instructed by M.R. Bhatt of R.P. Bhatt and Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "R. KRISHNAMURTHY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 109 = 1995 SLD 109 = 1995 PTD 1439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax - Self-assessment - Audit Selection\nDetails: The case of the assessee was selected for total audit due to suspicion of income understatement, as their income remained static despite substantial available capital.\nHeld: Static income does not constitute definite information or material evidence for gross understatement, making the audit selection invalid.\nCitations: None mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.614/1B of 1992-93, decision dated: 18-04-1995.hearing DATE : 18-04-1995.", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir Hussain D.R. for Appellant\nGhulam Abbas Chattha and M. Ilyas Mian for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 110 = 1995 SLD 110 = 1995 PTD 1440 = (1995) 72 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Exemption for Industrial Undertaking\nDetails: An assessee company claimed exemption for an industrial undertaking, but the unit comprised assets purchased from a sister registered firm. The firm was engaged in manufacturing for years.\nHeld: The exemption was denied as the undertaking was not established within the specified timeframe for new industrial units.\nCitations: 1990 PTD (Trib.) 1065.\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax - Industrial Undertaking Exemption\nDetails: Exemption under the relevant clause is available only to an existing company that sets up a new undertaking within specified dates. Newly registered companies acquiring an existing industrial unit are not eligible.\nHeld: The exemption claim was invalid.\nCitations: None mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,C1.125 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.896/KB, 897/KB, 898/KB, 899/KB and 900/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 16-04-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, ACTING CHAIRMAN AND S.M. SIBTAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yousuf Butt, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Naseem for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 179 = 1994 SLD 179 = 1994 PTD 1442 = (1993) 204 ITR 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax - Voluntary Disclosure\nDetails: Under the Indian Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, disclosures made after seizure are not voluntary and do not qualify for concessional tax rates.\nHeld: Disclosures after seizure are limited to benefits under Section 14 and not under Section 3.\nCitations: Decision of Delhi High Court affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.77 of 1983, decision dated: 8-09-1993 Appeal by special leave from the order dated 12-01-1982, of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2020 of 1981", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appeal by special leave from the order dated 12th January, 1982, of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2020 of 1981\nAnil B. Divan and G.S. Shah, Senior Advocates (Hari Har Lal, Vikram Bhatia, B.V. Desai and S. Nakvi, Advocates with them) for the Appellant.J\nRamamurthy, Senior Advocate (R. Ayyam Perumal, Ms. A. Subhashini and D.S. Mehra Advocates with him) for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "TRIBHOVANDAS BHIMJI ZAVERI\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 111 = 1995 SLD 111 = 1995 PTD 1450 = (1995) 72 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax Tribunal - Appeal - Death of Assessee\nDetails: Appeals do not abate with the death of an assessee. Non-joinder or misjoinder of legal heirs does not affect the appeal's validity.\nHeld: Objections based on non-joinder of legal representatives were dismissed.\nCitations:\n•\n1986 SCMR 514.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=R.21 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R.9 ", + "Case #": "W.TAs. Nos.189/LB to 207/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 19-02-1995", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CH. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant Ch. Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 180 = 1994 SLD 180 = 1994 PTD 1459 = (1993) 204 ITR 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax - Reassessment - Compensation for Termination\nDetails: A reassessment notice was issued based on findings from a Commission of Inquiry regarding forged documents supporting compensation claims for loss of employment. The Settlement Commission apportioned the compensation into taxable and non-taxable portions.\nHeld: The reassessment was valid, and a substantial portion of compensation was taxable.\nCitations:\n•\nJyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi (1993) 201 ITR 611 (SC).\n(b) Income-tax - Findings of Fact\nDetails: The Supreme Court will not interfere with factual findings of the Settlement Commission unless they contradict legal provisions.\nHeld: The Settlement Commission's findings were upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. S. P. Jain (1965) 56 ITR 724 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=147 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2702 of 1979, decision dated: 14-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (S . R. Agarwal, Ms. Sarita Kapur and Ms. Bina Gupta, Advocates, with him) for Appellants.P. S. Poti, Senior\nAdvocate (D. S. Mehra, V. U. K. Eradi, Ms. Malini Poduval and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN through Legal Heirs\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 181 = 1994 SLD 181 = 1994 PTD 1469 = (1993) 204 ITR 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Inclusion of Income – Minor’s Income in Firm of Karta\nDetails:\nThe respondent, acting as Karta of a Hindu undivided family (HUF), was a partner in a firm where his minor children were admitted to the benefits of partnership. For assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the issue was whether the minors' income could be included in the respondent’s income under Section 64(1)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 (pre-amendment). The Appellate Tribunal and the High Court ruled against inclusion.\nHeld: The Supreme Court dismissed the Department’s appeal, affirming that Section 64(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act (pre-1976 amendment) was in pari materia with Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the 1922 Act. Hence, the minors' income could not be included in the respondent’s total income.\nCitations: L. Hirday Narain v. ITO (1970) 78 ITR 26; CIT v. Anand Sarup (1980) 121 ITR 873; CIT v. Sanka Sankaraiah (1978) 113 ITR 313.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=64(1)(i),(ii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.861 and 862 of 1984 with Civil Appeals Nos.5851 to 5853, 2989 and 5984 to 5989 of 1983, decision dated: 14-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHURCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (W.C. Chopra and D.S. Mehra, Advocates with him) for Appellant (in all the appeals).\nU.A. Rana, Anand Prasad and Rajiv Tyagi, Advocates for Respondent (in Civil Appeals Nos.861 and 862 of 1,984).\nS.K. Bagga, Senior Advocate (Muni Lal Varma, Mrs. Sureshta Bagga and Seeraj Bagga, Advocates, with him) for Respondent (in Civil Appeals Nos.5851 to 5853 of 1983).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHARBHAJAN LAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 182 = 1994 SLD 182 = 1994 PTD 1473 = (1993) 204 ITR 352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Business Loss – Year of Allowance\nDetails:\nA firm advanced ₹60,000 for procuring a manufacturing license and foreign exchange permit for expanding its business. The permit was not obtained, resulting in a loss. The amount was written off in accounts for AY 1964-65 but the Income-tax Officer denied the claim. The Tribunal allowed it as a business loss, but the High Court ruled the loss occurred in AY 1963-64 when the failure to procure the permit occurred.\nHeld: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling that the loss should be allowable in AY 1963-64 based on the facts.\nCitations: CIT (Addl.) v. Glass Miniature Bulb Industries (1981) 130 ITR 41.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.6182 of 1983, decision dated: 14-09-1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and D.S. Mehra, Advocates with him) for Respondent..J.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate (M.R. Bidsar and S.K. Jain, Advocates with him) for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "GLASS MINIATURE BULB INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 183 = 1994 SLD 183 = 1994 PTD 1476 = (1993) 204 ITR 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Capital Gains – Liquidation Assets\nDetails:\nUnder Section 46(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assets received by a shareholder during a company's liquidation, in excess of amounts taxable as dividends, were deemed capital gains. The court addressed whether this assessment complied with the Act.\nHeld: The Supreme Court confirmed that such amounts are taxable as capital gains, affirming earlier rulings.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Vijoy Kumar Budhia (1975) ITR 380; C.I.T. v. R.M. Amin (1977) 106 ITR 368.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1411 of 1975 with Civil Appeal No.2042 of 1984, decision dated: 14-09-1993.", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S. P. BHARUCHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "None appeared for Appellant (in C. A. No. 1411 of 1975).\nS. N. Misra, Senior Advocate (Munish Misra and S.S. Jauhar, Advocates, with him) for Appellant (in C.A. No. 2042 of 1984).\nB.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Monoj Arorar, D.S. Mehra and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate with him) for Respondent (in both the appeals).", + "Party Name:": "VIJAY KUMAR BUDHIA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nANUSUIYA DEVI BUDHIA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 104 = 2004 SLD 104 = 2004 PTCL 43 = 2004 PTD 1 = (2003) 88 TAX 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Self-Assessment Scheme – Policy and Rights\nDetails:\nThe Self-Assessment Scheme and its implementation were challenged, particularly regarding the extension of cut-off dates and criteria for audit selection. The court analyzed whether such extensions violated taxpayers' rights or contradicted the scheme’s objectives.\nHeld: The extensions were deemed administrative decisions without infringing vested rights. The scheme's purpose of fairness was upheld, provided guidelines were published transparently.\nCitations: Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Hamid Khan (1965 SC); Mian Kamal Anwar v. ITAT (2002 PTD 1895).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=7,8,59,62 General Clauses Act, 1897=23 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 9979, 4699, 6478, 3896, 6471, 929, 2358, 4029, 4054, 4055, 4056, 4057, 4143, 4144, 4319, 4320, 4358, 4407, 4470, 4481, 4545, 4546, and 10328 of 2003, decision dated: 24-09-2003.hearing DATE : 5-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Shahid Jamil and Mian Yousaf Umar for Respondents\nMian Ashiq Hussain, Siraj-ud-Din Khalid,.Naeem Shah, Rana Muhammad Afzal, Shahbaz Butt, M. Iqbal Hashmi and Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioners", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAHIB TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director, Faisalabad\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Secretariat, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 105 = 2004 SLD 105 = 2004 PTD 30 = (2004) 89 TAX 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Reopening of Assessment – Validity of Inquiry Reports\nDetails:\nAn assessment was reopened based on an inquiry report conducted a year after the income year. The appellate authority found sales estimates exaggerated, while the Tribunal upheld the original assessment.\nHeld: The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, restoring the appellate decision due to lack of documentary evidence in the inquiry report.\nCitations: None directly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,62,64 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 979 of 2000, decision dated: 24-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN GENERAL STORE through Tariq Pervaiz\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 106 = 2004 SLD 106 = 2004 PTD 31 = (2004) 89 TAX 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Self-Assessment – Selection for Audit\nDetails:\nA taxpayer was selected for audit contrary to a prior assurance that cases selected once would not be reselected for two years. The taxpayer argued this created a vested right.\nHeld: The court upheld the principle of promissory estoppel, preventing the Department from resiling from its promise. The assurance created a vested right.\nCitations: Millat Bottle Store Faisalabad v. Additional CIT (1998 PTD 2555).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=594 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1396 of 1995, heard on 16th October 2003 hearing DATE : 16-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SHEIKH HAKIM ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Waheed Baig for Petitioner. Ch. Abdul Sattar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SARFRAZ ICE FACTORY\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 107 = 2004 SLD 107 = 2004 PTD 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax – Service of Notice – Maladministration\nDetails:\nAn assessment was completed without proper service of statutory notices. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended reframing the assessment after proper notice was served, addressing maladministration.\nHeld: The High Court supported the recommendation for reassessment under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nCitations: None directly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,62,65,13(1)(aa),111,116 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=Rr.17,20 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 691-K of 2003, decided .on 12-07-2003.", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Yousuf and Hussamul Haq for the Complainant. Ejaz Asad Rasul, I.A.C. Range-I and Syed Nizam-ud-Din, ITO, Circle-C-21, Zone-C. Karachi for, Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL KARIM through Taxman Law Associates, Karachi\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 108 = 2004 SLD 108 = 2004 PTD 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Practice and Procedure; Deduction of Overhead Expenses from Interest Income\nDetails:\n•\nA Tribunal denied flat rate deductions for overhead expenses on interest income from bank deposits to a cooperative housing society, departing from its earlier decisions.\n•\nSection 31(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not permit such deductions unless explicitly claimed and attributable to earning that income.\n•\nThe assessee neither claimed nor specified any associated expenses.\nHeld:\n•\nTribunal's decision was upheld as reasons were provided for departing from prior rulings.\n•\nHigh Court answered the reference in affirmative.\nCitations: PLD 1963 S.C. 296; PLD 1995 S.C. 423.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=31(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "C. T. R. No. 52 of 1996, decision dated: 16-06-2003 hearing DATE : 11-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, LAHORE\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE07, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 109 = 2004 SLD 109 = 2004 PTD 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "0\nTopic: Additional Assessment under Simplified Procedure\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessment was annulled due to procedural flaws under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nDefects included proceedings being void ab initio, absence of written assessment orders, limitation issues, and lack of plausible reasons for rejecting declared costs.\nHeld:\n•\nThe assessment was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal for procedural non-compliance and merit-based deficiencies.\nCitations: 2002 PTD 1530; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1336; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1167.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59B & 13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1929/LB of 2003, decision dated: 24-09-2003 hearing DATE : 10-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Abbass for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad Shad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 110 = 2004 SLD 110 = 2004 PTD 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund and Maladministration by Assessing Officer\nDetails:\n•\nA refund was issued to an employee after delays and appeals, but there was misconduct by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman refrained from disciplinary action but recommended compensation for delayed refunds.\nHeld:\n•\nCompensation for delayed refunds was directed, and disciplinary action against the Assessing Officer was recommended.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3); Income Tax Rules, 1982, R.5(b).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,156(2) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.5(b) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 658 of 2003, decision dated: 12th.July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant in person. Gul Rehman, Taxation Officer", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL WARRAICH\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 111 = 2004 SLD 111 = 2004 PTD 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Delayed Issuance of Refund\nDetails:\n•\nRefunds were delayed on pretexts of unverified tax credits.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration in delaying refunds despite Presidential directions for compliance.\nHeld:\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed prompt issuance of refunds and compliance with recommendations.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3); Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.96.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1110 to 1112-K of 2003, decision dated: 12th September 2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Razak for the Complainant. Khalid M. Lodhi Taxation Officer for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs COMPUNET ONLINE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 112 = 2004 SLD 112 = 2004 PTD 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Service of Notice and Additional Assessment\nDetails:\n•\nNotices served on a family member without reasonable efforts to serve the assessee.\n•\nStatutory requirements for service under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and CPC were not met.\nHeld:\n•\nAssessment annulled for improper service of notice.\n•\nAssessing Officer must ensure proper notice service before proceeding.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss.154, 65, 56; CPC, O.V, R.15; 2001 PTD 1998; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 625.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=154,65,56,13(1)(aa) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R.15 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1194(IB), 1195(IB), 1189(B), 1190(IB) of 2000-2001, decision dated: 24-01-2003 hearing DATE : 24-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Jalil, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1194/IB and 1195/IB of 2000-2001). Naik Muhammad Malik for Respondent (in I. T. As. Nos. 1194/IB and 1195/113 of 2000-2001.). Naik Muhammad Malik for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.1189/IB and 1190/IB of 2000-2001). Abdul Jalil, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.1189/IB and 1190/IB of 2000-2001).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 113 = 2004 SLD 113 = 2004 PTD 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Refund Delays and Improper Amendment of Assessments\nDetails:\n•\nRefunds were delayed, and amending assessments raised issues unsupported by evidence.\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration and recommended withdrawal of baseless notices and prompt refund issuance.\nHeld:\n•\nNotices for amending assessments were directed to be withdrawn, and refunds issued within 30 days.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S.122; Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3); Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S.62, 143-B, 80-C.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,143B,80C Income Tax Rules, 2002=R.68 ", + "Case #": "Complaint NO.C-59-K of 2003, decision dated: 10-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Manzoor Ahmed and M. D. Khan for the Complainant. Agha Hidayatullah, Additional Commissioner Range III, Zone-C, Karachi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs GOODWILL INTERNATIONAL\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 114 = 2004 SLD 114 = 2004 PTCL 173 = 2004 PTD 122 = (2003) 88 TAX 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Right of Appeal in Taxation Laws and Islamic Jurisprudence\nDetails: The case discusses the substantive nature of the right of appeal in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, its compatibility with Islamic injunctions, and the constitutionality of a statutory precondition for filing an appeal.\nHeld:\n1.\nRight of appeal is a substantive right granted explicitly by statute.\n2.\nArticle 227 of the Constitution requires laws to align with Islamic injunctions, and discretionary judicial actions should follow Islamic jurisprudence until all laws are brought into conformity.\n3.\nThe precondition under Section 129(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, introduced by the Finance Ordinance, 2000, was declared unconstitutional.\nCitations:\n•\nHassan Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, PLD 1970 SC 1.\n•\nMuzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi, PLD 1981 SC 94.\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Siemen A.G., PLD 1991 SC 368.\n•\nHafiz Abdul Waheed v. Miss Asma Jehangir, PLD 1997 Lah. 301.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=227 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1722, 1882, 2386, 2908 and 2446 of 2002, 54, 2585 to 2588 of 2003; heard on 24-10-2003 hearing DATE : 24-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Petitioner. Ch. Sultan Mansoor D.A.G., Malik Muhammad Nawaz and Ms. Shaheena Akbar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SADIQ BROTHERS\nVs\nAPPELLATE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, RAWALPINDI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 115 = 2004 SLD 115 = 2004 PTD 145 = (2003) 88 TAX 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration in Tax Assessment Process\nDetails: The case involves maladministration in the assessment of tax returns, including undue delays, arbitrary estimations, and failure to transfer records.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended disciplinary actions against negligent officers and directed the Commissioner to amend the assessments to reflect fairness and conformity with established practices.\nCitations: Relevant CBR Circulars and Income Tax Ordinance provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Rules, 1982=Rr.28,29 ", + "Case #": "Complaints No.C-730-K and C-731-K of 2003, decision dated: 9-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Naqi for the Complainant\nM. Azhar Ansari, DCIT, Circle-07, Cos-V for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HALIM HOSPITAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nR.C.I.T., CORPORATE REGION, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 116 = 2004 SLD 116 = 2004 PTD 151 = (2003) 88 TAX 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Depreciation Allowance and Exchange Fluctuation in Taxation\nDetails: The case examines the computation of depreciation allowance under the Third Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, focusing on the inclusion of foreign exchange fluctuation differences.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition of exchange fluctuation differences for depreciation purposes, disallowed extra-shift allowance based on CBR Circulars exceeding statutory provisions, and adjusted tax rates for manufacturers.\nCitations:\n•\nI.T.A. Nos. 1669 to 1671/LB of 1996.\n•\n1999 PTD (Trib.), 1672.\n•\n1993 SCMR 232.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched.,R.8(8)(e),3,3(1)(a),80CCEighthSched.,PartII ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 2209/LB, 2462/LB, 2257/LB of 1997, 955/LB of 1996, 4816/LB of 2001 and 3207/LB of 2002, decision dated: 1st August, 2003 hearing DATE : 1st August, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal Khan, F.C.A. for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 117 = 2004 SLD 117 = 2004 PTD 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Arbitrary Application of Gross Profit Rates\nDetails: A rice husking business challenged the arbitrary imposition of a 15% gross profit rate when prior assessments and comparable cases had significantly lower rates.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended correcting the assessment to ensure equitable tax imposition.\nCitations: S.122A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.881-L of 2003, decision dated: 18-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Aslam for the Complainant. M. Anwar Sheikh, D-CIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "IMTIAZ TRADING COMPANY (RICE DEALERS), SHEIKHUPURA\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 118 = 2004 SLD 118 = 2004 PTD 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Revisional Jurisdiction on Time-Barred Assessments\nDetails: A time-barred assessment order under Section 59A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was annulled due to its invalidity in law.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that a time-barred order holds no legal ground for subsequent revisions.\nCitations: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 912.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59A ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 2110/LB of 2002, decision dated: 14-02-2003 hearing DATE : 10th January 2003", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naseem Akbar, F.C.A. for Appellant. Mrs. Talat Altaf Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 119 = 2004 SLD 119 = 2004 PTD 171 = (2003) 88 TAX 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration in Self-Assessment Scheme\nDetails: The case addressed the arbitrary setting apart of a tax return under the Self-Assessment Scheme without adhering to the prescribed criteria of evidence or revenue potential.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the withdrawal of the order and acceptance of the complainant's return.\nCitations: 2002 PTD 1895.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.424-L of 2003, decision dated: 18-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Baig for the Complainant. Ghulam Rasool (D-CIT) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAZAL SWEETS, LAHORE\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 120 = 2004 SLD 120 = 2004 PTD 174 = (2004) 89 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Applicability of Minimum Tax and Local Authority Exemption\nDetails: The Lahore Development Authority (LDA) contested the imposition of minimum tax, arguing no business activity or specified turnover.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal vacated the orders, finding no legal basis for the tax assessment due to the absence of evidence of business activity.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1977 Kar. 152.\n•\n1980 PTD 329.\n•\nPLD 1965 SC 201.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "General Clauses Act, 1897=3(28) Lahore Development Authority Act, (XXX of 1975)=4(2),6,19,2728 Companies Ordinance, 1984=2(4) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D,2(16),54,56,63,SecondSched.,PartI,Cl.(88),PartIV,Cl.(23) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 2785/LB to 2787/LB of 2001, decision dated: 26-05-2003 hearing DATE : 20-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHALID WAHEED AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Shahid Tamil Khan, Legal Adviser and Ahmed Ali, Assistant Commissioner for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 121 = 2004 SLD 121 = 2004 PTD 194 = (2003) 88 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment Scheme - Audit Selection\nDetails:\n•\nRelates to the selection of a case for total audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 2002-2003.\n•\nThe department's interpretation of the term including in C.B.R. Circular No.7(7)/S.Asst/2002 was deemed irrelevant.\n•\nSelection was based on Gross Profit comparison with parallel cases without authentic evidence of suppressed income.\nHeld:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended withdrawal of the impugned order and acceptance of the complainant’s return for the assessment year 2002-2003 under the Self-Assessment Scheme. Maladministration was established.\nCitations:\n•\nStatutes: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (S.59(1)); Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (S.2(3)).\n•\nCase References: 1973 PTD 19; 1992 PTD 1285.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 183 of 2003, decision dated: 20-05-2003 hearing DATE : 20-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Ahmad Shah for the Complainant. Muhammad Arif Khan, I.A.C. and Khalid Mehmood, Special Officer, Circle-21, Sialkot for the Department", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ASGHAR BAT MAKER, MUBARAKPURA, CIRCLE21, SIALKOT\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 122 = 2004 SLD 122 = 2004 PTD 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Senior Citizen Rebate - Self-Assessment\nDetails:\n•\nAssessee qualified for a 50% tax rebate as a senior citizen.\n•\nFirst Appellate Authority annulled the assessment as the tax paid was less than the previous year after applying the rebate.\nHeld:\nThe Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision. The assessment under S.62 was annulled, and the return was qualified under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nCitations:\n•\nStatutes: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Ss.59(1), 62, and First Schedule, Part I).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),62,FirstSched.,PartI Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=R.20(2) ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 2549/LB of 2002, decision dated: 23rd August, 2003 hearing DATE : 23rd August, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Appellant\nNemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 123 = 2004 SLD 123 = 2004 PTD 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment - Salary and Business Income Audit Selection\nDetails:\n•\nTwo issues arose regarding salary cases with business income and audit selection based on previous annulled assessments.\n•\nNo valid basis existed for audit selection; salary income exceeded 50% of total income.\nHeld:\nAudit selection was invalid. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended excluding the return from audit cases and acceptance under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nCitations:\n•\nStatutes: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (S.59(1)); Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (S.2(3)).\n•\nCase Reference: Complaint No. 1404 of 2002.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 386 of 2003, decision dated: 18-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mir Ahmad Ali for Petitioner. Raza Munawar, I.A.C. and Nasir Maqbool Hashmi, Taxation Officer, Jhelum for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Lady Dr. SHAHZANA IMTIAZ, JHELUM\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 124 = 2004 SLD 124 = 2004 PTD 224 = (2003) 88 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessment - Roving Enquiries and Validity\nDetails:\n•\nA case involving property transactions and reopening of assessment for the year 1996-97 based on irrelevant data.\n•\nShow-cause notice issued without prior approval.\nHeld:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended withdrawal of the notice and action as per relevant years. Maladministration was evident.\nCitations:\n•\nStatutes: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (S.65); Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (S.2(3)).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1468-L of 2002, decision dated: 2-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Inayat-ur-Rehman for the Complainant. Aftab Alam, ALIT, Circle-15, Multan Zone, Multan", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL, PROPRIETOR SHIEKH CORPORATION, KATCHERY ROAD, MULTAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 125 = 2004 SLD 125 = 2004 PTD 233 = (2003) 88 TAX 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Best Assessment - Barred by Limitation\nDetails:\n•\nAssessment became time-barred due to discrepancies and manipulation in the record.\n•\nRecovery notice was issued post limitation period.\nHeld:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended reassessment under S.122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and disciplinary action against responsible tax officials.\nCitations:\n•\nStatutes: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (S.63); Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (S.122); Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (S.2(3)).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,66(1)(c),116 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1437-L of 2002, decision dated: 11-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abu Bakar (A-CIT) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs FAIZ COLD STORAGE, DEFENCE ROAD, SIALKOT\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 126 = 2004 SLD 126 = 2004 PTD 244 = (2003) 88 TAX 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessment - Definite Information and Change of Opinion\nDetails:\n•\nReopening of assessment for the year 1998-99 challenged.\n•\nThe original assessment showed conscious application of mind; reopening was deemed a change of opinion without new evidence.\nHeld:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended dropping additional assessment proceedings as they were based on wrongful jurisdiction.\nCitations:\n•\nStatutes: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (S.65); Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (S.126(1)); Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (S.2(3)).\n•\nCase References: 1997 PTD 47; 1995 PTD (Trib.) 580; PLD 1997 SC 700.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=126(1),65 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1431-L of 2002, decision dated: 8-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq for the Complainant. Muhammad Nadeem Arif (D-CIT) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "FOOD CONCEPT (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 127 = 2004 SLD 127 = 2004 PTD 271 = (2004) 89 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.5\nDetails: The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (F) interfered with an assessment completed by the Assistant Commissioner (K) without referring the matter to higher authorities.\nHeld: The Deputy Commissioner’s action was unlawful, amounting to usurpation of jurisdiction, which rendered the action null and void.\nCitations: PLD 1982 SC 135; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 266; PLD 1990 SC 1070.\n(b) Partnership Act (IX of 1932) - S.4\nDetails: Equal capital contributions among partners are not mandatory under Section 4.\nHeld: Partnership deeds executed in the presence of witnesses cannot be dismissed on mere assumptions.\nCitations: None directly cited for this point.\n(c) Income Tax - Evidence\nDetails: A statement doubting trust among individuals was made during assessment.\nHeld: Such assumptions are not valid evidence.\nCitations: (1962) 5 Tax 126 (Trib.); PLD 1951 Dacca 56.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.65\nDetails: Reopening of assessment on false claims of octroi business.\nHeld: Action of the Assessing Officer was invalid as the assessee was not involved in octroi business.\nCitations: None provided.\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.65\nDetails: Double taxation imposed due to reopening of assessment for accounts already disclosed.\nHeld: Reopening and double taxation were unlawful; the original order was restored.\nCitations: PLD 1972 SC 271; (1964) 9 Taxation 350; (1967) 16 Tax 43 (Trib.); (1997) 35 Tax 59.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,65,59(1),62 Partnership Act, 1932=4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4017/LB to 4019/LB of 2001, decision dated: 30-06-2003 hearing DATE : 21st June, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Iqbal and Saqib Bashir, ITP for Appellant. Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for-Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 128 = 2004 SLD 128 = 2004 PTD 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVURlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss.66-A, 59-A & 59(1)\nDetails: Assessment under Self-Assessment Scheme was canceled without a written order.\nHeld: Cancellation was invalid due to the absence of a written order.\nCitations: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2276; 2003 PTD 1530; 1993 PTD 332; 2002 PTD (Trib.) 912.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss.66-A, 50 & 53\nDetails: Advance tax discrepancy in balance sheets led to proceedings.\nHeld: Case remanded for verification of records and reconciliation.\nCitations: None explicitly provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59A & 59(1),50,53 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 975/LB, 4369/LB, 758/LB, 4370/LB, 4795/LB and 4796/LB of 2001, decision dated: 4-09-2003 hearing DATE : 4-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL, MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Mutee Babri, ITP for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 975/LB, 4369/LB, 758/LB and 4370/LB of 2001).\nUmar Farooq, DR for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.975/LB, 4369/LB, 758/LB and 4370/LB of 2001).\nUmar Farooq, D.R. for Appellant (in T.As. Nos.4795/LB and 4796/LB of 2001).\nSohail Mutee Babri, ITP for Respondent (in I.T.A Nos.4795/LB and 4796/LB of 2001).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 129 = 2004 SLD 129 = 2004 PTD 295 = (2004) 89 TAX 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.136\nDetails: Appeal involved questions of fact.\nHeld: High Court lacks jurisdiction to examine questions of fact under S.136.\nCitations: Engro Chemical Pakistan Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs 2003 PTD 777.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.136\nDetails: High Court’s scope of review limited to legal questions arising from Tribunal orders.\nHeld: Questions not addressed by the Tribunal cannot be raised in High Court.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. National Refinery Ltd. 2003 PTD 2020.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No.D-983 of 1999, decision dated: 25-09-2003 hearing DATE : 2-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SHABBIR AHMED AND GULZAR AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan-ul-Hassan Naqvi and Miss Lubna Pervez for Appellant Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UROOJ (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI through Chief Executive\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CIRCLE6, COMPANIES IV, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 130 = 2004 SLD 130 = 2004 PTD 297 = (2004) 89 TAX 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.156(3)\nDetails: Rectification applications deemed accepted due to the lapse of the statutory time limit.\nHeld: Tribunal rejected this plea.\nCitations: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1708.\n(b-g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.156\nDetails: Multiple aspects of rectification of mistakes, highlighting its scope and limitations.\nHeld: Rectification is limited to apparent errors; it cannot serve as a tool for review or reassessment.\nCitations: PLD 1957 (SC Ind.) 448; PLD 1974 Lah. 458; PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 69.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156(3),156 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4,25,264 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=152 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221 ", + "Case #": "Nos. 10/IB to 12/IB of 2000-2001, I.T.As. Nos. 1139/IB of 255/IB, 269/IB of 1995-96, 486/IB and 1280/IB of 1998-99, decision dated: 31st July, 2003 hearing DATE : 7-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR UL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mir Ahmed Ali for Applicant. Abdul Jaleel, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 131 = 2004 SLD 131 = 2004 PTD 318 = (2004) 89 TAX 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.136\nDetails: Reference to High Court without first approaching the Tribunal.\nHeld: Reference dismissed as misconceived.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.71 of 2002, decision dated: 30-05-2003 hearing DATE : 30-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": " S. AHMED SARWANA AND GULZAR AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Moton for Applicant. Amin-ud-Din Ansari for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMessrs CHINKIONG CHINESE RESTAURANT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 132 = 2004 SLD 132 = 2004 PTD 320 = (2004) 89 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Ss.156(4) & 62\nDetails: Rectification of assessment beyond the four-year limitation.\nHeld: Such rectification was annulled.\nCitations: None explicitly provided.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.156\nDetails: Issues with rectification involving change of opinion, reassessment, and financial errors.\nHeld: Rectification requires clear mistakes; controversial or debatable matters are excluded.\nCitations: 1992 PTD 570.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156(4),62,156(2),156,66A ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 5890/LB to 5893/LB of 2002, decision dated: 30th April 2003 hearing DATE : 25-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": " ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi and Yousaf Ali Ch., I.T.P. for Appellant. Ahmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 133 = 2004 SLD 133 = 2004 PTD 330 = (2004) 89 TAX 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reopening of Tax Cases under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n________________________________________\n(a) Power of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to Revise Orders\nDetails:\n•\nSection 66-A allows the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) to revise an order by the Assessing Officer (AO) if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests.\n•\nLoss of revenue does not automatically qualify as prejudicial if the AO’s actions were legally valid or based on permissible views.\n•\nErrors requiring correction include misapplication of facts, incorrect legal interpretation, or violation of natural justice principles.\nHeld:\nThe provision applies only when both conditions (erroneous order and prejudice to Revenue) coexist. The Commissioner cannot revise merely due to differing opinions if the AO's stance was legally tenable.\nCitations:\n•\nMalabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 2001 PTD 1106 (applied).\n________________________________________\n(b) Scope of Revision under Section 66-A\nDetails:\n•\nA company manufacturing TV sets sold a portion of its plot and claimed the proceeds as capital gain, exempt from tax.\n•\nAO and Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) scrutinized and approved the claim.\n•\nIAC issued a show-cause notice under Section 66-A, treating the proceeds as business income and claiming loss of revenue.\n•\nThe assessee argued that the isolated transaction was not a business adventure but a necessity due to policy changes affecting the TV industry.\nHeld:\nSince the AO's decision was scrutinized and approved by CIT and IAC earlier, revising the same under Section 66-A was unlawful. A change of opinion cannot justify reopening the case.\nCitations:\n•\nGlaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Inspecting A.C., PLD 1992 SC 549 (followed).\n________________________________________\n(c) Principles for Determining Business Income vs. Capital Gain\nDetails:\n•\nFactors like intention at acquisition, business nature, and transaction context are decisive.\n•\nIn this case, the plot sale was an isolated transaction.\n•\nThe assessee demonstrated no intention of profit-making at purchase and justified the sale due to changed circumstances.\nHeld:\nThe AO rightly classified the gain as capital gain. Reopening based on changed opinions of the IAC was invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nSection 66-A of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n________________________________________\n(d) Constitutional Petition and Jurisdiction\nDetails:\n•\nAssessee filed a constitutional petition against the notice under Article 199 of the Constitution.\n•\nIt argued that the AO’s assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue.\nHeld:\nThe notice under Section 66-A was void and issued without jurisdiction since the essential conditions were not met.\nCitations:\n•\nArticle 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-620 of 1993, decision dated: 14-11-2003, hearing DATE : 16-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J. AND GHULAM RABBANI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque Memon for Petitioner. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for the Income-tax Department. Sajjad Ali Shah, Standing Counsel for the Pakistan", + "Party Name:": "Messrs S.N. H. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax DEPARTMENT and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 134 = 2004 SLD 134 = 2004 PTD 355 = (2004) 89 TAX 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax - Lease Business\n•\nTopic: Sale and repurchase transactions\n•\nDetails: In this case, the aspect of a sale of assets subject to an agreement to repurchase at a future date, with the difference between the sale and repurchase price being treated as profit, was not considered at the assessment stage. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the First Appellate Authority to set aside the assessment.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal maintained the decision to set aside the assessment.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.\n(b) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981\n•\nTopic: Memorandum of Appeal\n•\nDetails: The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal on the grounds that the grounds were vague and violated the Tribunal's rules.\n•\nHeld: The dismissal of the appeal was upheld.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, Rule 10.\n(c) Income Tax - Profit and Loss Expenses\n•\nTopic: Disallowance of expenses\n•\nDetails: The Department failed to point out the basis for the disallowance at 20%, which was later reduced to 15% by the First Appellate Authority. The Appellate Tribunal maintained the First Appellate Authority's decision.\n•\nHeld: The order of the First Appellate Authority was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.17 Interest on Securities\n•\nTopic: Taxation of interest on Federal Investment Bonds\n•\nDetails: The First Appellate Authority directed interest on Federal Investment Bonds to be taxed on an accrual basis. The assessee argued that only interest receivable should be taxed. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal confirmed that the interest income was taxable on an accrual basis, with no deductions allowed for accrued interest.\n•\nCitations: 1994 PTD 1051.\n(e) Income Tax - Determination of Income\n•\nTopic: Matching Costs\n•\nDetails: Matching costs should be considered before determining income.\n•\nHeld: Matching costs must be deducted before calculating the income.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.84 Liability in Certain Transactions in Securities\n•\nTopic: Deeming provision\n•\nDetails: Section 84 of the Income Tax Ordinance is a deeming provision that cannot be applied generally.\n•\nHeld: Section 84 cannot be applied universally in all circumstances.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.\n(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.80D(2), Explanation\n•\nTopic: Minimum Tax on Income\n•\nDetails: The term turnover in the Explanation to Section 80D does not have an exhaustive definition and was introduced to clarify doubts, particularly regarding trade discounts on invoices.\n•\nHeld: The Explanation was meant to resolve doubts about the term turnover and its scope.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.\n(h) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.80D\n•\nTopic: Minimum tax on income\n•\nDetails: The provisions of Section 80D reflect the Legislature's intention to impose a minimum tax on companies, regardless of whether they earn a profit.\n•\nHeld: Minimum tax is applicable irrespective of the profit status of the company.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.\n(i) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.80D\n•\nTopic: Turnover in Leasing Business\n•\nDetails: Minimum tax applies to companies deriving income from leasing businesses, and turnover includes all receipts and accruals from the company's major business activities.\n•\nHeld: Leasing businesses fall under the minimum tax provisions of Section 80D.\n•\nCitations: Principles of Income Tax Law with International Tax Glossary by Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=17,18,84,80D(2),80D ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.847/IB, 848/IB, 824/IB, 825/IB of 2000 2001, 249/IB and 277/IB of 2003, decision dated: 3rd September, 2003 hearing DATE : 3rd September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.847/IB, 848/IB of 2000 2001 and 249/IB of 2003).\nKashif Aziz Jehangiri, ACA for Respondent (in I.T.As.. Nos.847/IB, 848/IB of 2000 2001 and 249/IB of 2003).\nKashif Aziz Jehangiri, ACA for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.824/IB, 825/IB of 2000 2001 and 277/IB of 2003).\nNaushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.824/IB; 825/IB of 2000 2001 and 277/IB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 135 = 2004 SLD 135 = 2004 PTD 397 = (2004) 89 TAX 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Joint Venture and Tax Recovery\n•\nTopic: Recovery of tax from a joint venture partner\n•\nDetails: In a joint venture for pipeline construction, the assessing officer wrongly treated the assessee as a sub-lessee of a non-resident partner. The Appellate Tribunal found that the payments were received as part of a joint venture and ruled against the assessing officer's decision to levy tax.\n•\nHeld: The assessment was incorrect, and the Appellate Tribunal vacated the orders of both authorities.\n•\nCitations: 1971 PTD 175, 2000 PTD 2424.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Authority of Deputy Commissioner\n•\nTopic: Jurisdiction of tax officers\n•\nDetails: A Deputy Commissioner’s order cannot be declared illegal by another officer unless it is canceled or annulled by the competent authority.\n•\nHeld: The order could not be declared illegal unless specifically annulled by the competent authority.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52A/86,50(4),59A,80C,143B,3(1)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 186-IB, 187-IB and 188-IB of 2002, decision dated: 16-05-2003 hearing DATE : 23rd April, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kashif Aziz Jehangiri, ACA for Appellant. Naushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 136 = 2004 SLD 136 = 2004 PTD 408 = (2004) 89 TAX 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Disallowance of Financial Expenses\n•\nTopic: Disallowance of financial expenses\n•\nDetails: The First Appellate Authority set aside the disallowance of financial expenses, but the Appellate Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer's decision due to the assessee’s failure to justify the expenses.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal restored the original disallowance by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Lease Income\n•\nTopic: Lease income from fixed assets\n•\nDetails: A reduction in rent based on a revision of a lease agreement was not justified as the original agreement did not stipulate conditions for the machinery’s working condition. The First Appellate Authority's order was vacated by the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nHeld: The original lease rent should stand, and the First Appellate Authority's order was vacated.\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Penalty for Non-filing of Returns\n•\nTopic: Penalty for non-filing of return and financial statements\n•\nDetails: The First Appellate Authority deleted the penalty for non-filing of returns, but the Appellate Tribunal reinstated it, clarifying that missing financial documents rendered the return invalid.\n•\nHeld: The penalty was reinstated with a limit as per Section 108(b)(i).\n•\nCitations: None mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,132,30,108(b)(i),55,ThirdSched Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.190 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.445-IB, 446-IB and 690-IB of 2000-2001, decision dated: 21st May, 2003 hearing DATE : 21st May, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " SYED MASOOD-UL-HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFARUL HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zulfiqar H. Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Hafiz M. Idrees for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 137 = 2004 SLD 137 = 2004 PTD 420 = (2004) 89 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Revision of Deputy Commissioner’s Order\n•\nTopic: Revision of assessment by Inspecting Additional Commissioner\n•\nDetails: The Inspecting Additional Commissioner could not revise the Deputy Commissioner’s order based on a difference of opinion about asset sales and tax treatment under Section 80C. The Appellate Tribunal disapproved the revision order.\n•\nHeld: The revision order was not justified, and the Appellate Tribunal disapproved it.\n•\nCitations: 1991 PTD 488, 1981 SCMR 701, 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3395, 2002 PTD 1379", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132,52/86,50(4) ", + "Case #": "LT.As. Nos.217-IB to 220-IB, 227-IB to 230-IB of 2003, decision dated: 3rd September, 2003 hearing DATE : 3rd September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naushad Ali Khan, D. R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. NOs.217-IB to 220-IB of 2003).\nKashif Aziz Jehangiri, A.C.A. for Respondent (in I.T.As Nos.217-IB to 220-IB of 2003).\nKashif Aziz Jehangiri,. A.C.A for Appellant (in I.T.As Nos.227-IB to 230-IB of 2003).\nNaushad Ali Khan, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.227-111 to 230-IB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 138 = 2004 SLD 138 = 2004 PTD 422 = (2004) 89 TAX 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - S.62 and Assessment Procedures\nDetails: The case discusses the procedural aspects of tax assessment under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, focusing on the necessity of notice for defects in accounts, the explanation provided by the assessee, and the computation of total income.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe mandatory notice under S.62 requires that defects in the accounts be communicated to the assessee, providing an opportunity for an explanation. After this, the assessing officer should record the explanation and basis for income computation in the assessment order.\n2.\nNotices can be communicated through order-sheet entries, which fulfill the statutory requirement.\n3.\nThe First Appellate Authority’s decision to set aside the assessment due to lack of notice was incorrect, as the explanation provided in the order-sheet sufficed.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss.62, 50(4), 51\n•\nKanga & Palkiwala, 7th Edn., pp.845 - 847\n•\n2001 PTD (Trib.) 2938\n•\nBlacks Law Dictionary ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,27,28,29(3)(b),50(4),80C,ThirdSched.,R.7(2)(b),80C Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched.,PartI Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.207A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3105-LB of 2002, decision dated: 21st April, 2003 hearing DATE : 26-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwarul Haq for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 139 = 2004 SLD 139 = 2004 PTD 441 = (2004) 89 TAX 365", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Company Status and Rectification of Mistake\nDetails: The case explores whether an appellate tribunal can rectify an error regarding a company’s status as public or private limited, under the Income Tax Ordinance, particularly focusing on the connotation of shares. \nHeld: The tribunal correctly determined the company’s status and rejected the rectification request. The argument that 100% of the company's assets were owned by the government did not warrant a change in status.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.65\n•\nPakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act (XVII of 1996)\n•\n1993 PTD (Trib) 964, 1998 SCMR 908, 1991 PTD 758", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,62(1),50(4),51 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1813-KB of 2002, decision dated: 11-09-2003 hearing DATE : 9-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUE BALOCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Yasmin Ajani, F.C.A. for Appellant. Ms. Shaista Abbas, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 140 = 2004 SLD 140 = 2004 PTD 452 = (2004) 89 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Reopening of Assessments\nDetails: The case deals with reopening assessments based on anonymous complaints and the validity of such actions under the Income Tax Ordinance, focusing on the concept of definite information. \nHeld: The reopening of assessments based on an anonymous complaint without definite, verifiable information was invalid. The First Appellate Authority's decision to restore the original assessment was correct.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss.65, 59-A, 63\n•\nGeneral Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A\n•\n1996 PTD 100", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIV,para.B(2),156,2(16) ", + "Case #": "M. A. (Rectification) No. 35/11 of 2003, decision dated: 25-06-2003 hearing DATE : 25-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SYED MASOOD-UL-HASAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SYED AQEEL ZAFAR-UL-HASAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Majeed, FCA/AR for Applicant Abdul Jaleel, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 141 = 2004 SLD 141 = 2004 PTD 456 = (2004) 89 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Additional Assessment and Jurisdictional Issues\nDetails: The case discusses the validity of assessments reopened due to the improper procedure in obtaining permission instead of approval from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner.\nHeld: The assessment was invalid because the permission was granted instead of the required approval. The Appellate Tribunal vacated the assessment based on this procedural flaw.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss.65, 13(1)(c)\n•\n2003 PTD (Trib.) 1238, 1998 SCMR 2013", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59A,63 General Clauses Act, 1897=24A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 465-IB, 464-IB, 370-IB and 371-IB of 2003, decision dated: 6-08-2003.", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAIN AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 142 = 2004 SLD 142 = 2004 PTD 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) - Penalty Reduction and Jurisdiction\nDetails: This case concerns the reduction of penalty under the Income Tax Ordinance and the authority of the Commissioner of Income Tax to reduce penalties when no reasonable cause for default exists.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the reduction of penalty, asserting that the assessing officer does not have the power to reduce penalties. The Department’s reference to the High Court on this issue was deemed academic and was not pursued.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.133, 190\n•\n175 ITR 317", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "M. A. (Stay) No. 428-KB, M. A. (A. G.) No. 429-KB, I.T.A. No.676-KB and W.T.A. No.53-KB of 2003, decision dated: 16th. September, 2003 hearing DATE : 16-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JAVED MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, A.R. for Appellant. Sajjad Ahmed Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 143 = 2004 SLD 143 = 2004 PTD 474 = (2003) 88 TAX 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption Claims and Assessments\n•\nDetails: The assessee, a Member of the Provincial Assembly, received several allowances (Salary, Telephone Allowance, Office Maintenance Allowance, Sumptuary Allowance, Traveling Allowance, etc.) but only offered Salary, Telephone Allowance, and Daily Allowance for taxation, claiming exemption for the rest. The case was remanded by the First Appellate Authority for the assessee to present copies of assessment orders of other MPs or any relevant appellate decisions. Despite the opportunity, the assessee failed to comply, and the First Appellate Authority upheld the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nHeld: The onus was on the assessee to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support their claim for exemption. The failure to do so resulted in the rejection of the claim for exemption.\n•\nCitations: No direct references to case law or statutory citations in the provided text.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=133,190,108(b)(ii),129,132 ", + "Case #": "Nos.264/LB, 265/LB and 266/LB of 2003, decision dated: 8th August 2003 hearing DATE : 8-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Applicant Miss Rehana Meer for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 144 = 2004 SLD 144 = 2004 PTD 476 = (2004) 89 TAX 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Exemption Claims and Assessments\n•\nDetails: The assessee, a Member of the Provincial Assembly, received several allowances (Salary, Telephone Allowance, Office Maintenance Allowance, Sumptuary Allowance, Traveling Allowance, etc.) but only offered Salary, Telephone Allowance, and Daily Allowance for taxation, claiming exemption for the rest. The case was remanded by the First Appellate Authority for the assessee to present copies of assessment orders of other MPs or any relevant appellate decisions. Despite the opportunity, the assessee failed to comply, and the First Appellate Authority upheld the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nHeld: The onus was on the assessee to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support their claim for exemption. The failure to do so resulted in the rejection of the claim for exemption.\n•\nCitations: No direct references to case law or statutory citations in the provided text.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,SecondSched.,Cls.(39),(131) ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 3770-LB, 3771-LB and 3772-LB of 2000, decision dated: Lard August, 2003hearing DATE : 23rd August, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND EHSAN-UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz Khan, I.T.P. for Appellant. Mrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 145 = 2004 SLD 145 = 2004 PTD 480 = (2003) 88 TAX 201 = (2004) 89 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Jurisdiction and Assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nDetails: The case involved various procedural issues regarding the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Authority and Inspecting Additional Commissioner. It was found that the First Appellate Authority incorrectly examined the revisionary jurisdiction under S.66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and could not address the merits of such jurisdiction since no formal appeal had been filed against it. The Appellate Tribunal did not entertain arguments or case law related to the S.66-A order, which had not been appealed separately.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal disregarded the improper review of S.66-A jurisdiction by the First Appellate Authority and ruled that the Assessing Officer’s discretion under S.62 was not bound by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner’s findings.\n•\nCitations: Sections 62, 66-A, 22, 27, and other relevant provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,66A,62,59(b),134,66A,62,59(b),22,27 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.7912/LB of 1996, decision dated: 23rd April, 2003 dates of hearing: 6-11-2002 and 19th Apri1, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " EHSAN-UR-REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rasheed and Bashir Ahmad Shad, D.Rs. for Appellant Muhammad Iqbal Kh. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 146 = 2004 SLD 146 = 2004 PTD 491 = (2004) 89 TAX 436", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 116, 63 & 138-E(4)\n•\nTopic: Penalty Proceedings After Modified Assessment\n•\nDetails: Penalties were sought to be imposed after a modified assessment under S.63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The modification was made by an order under S.138-E(4). The Assessing Officer proceeded to finalize penalty proceedings despite the modifications made.\n•\nHeld: Penalties could still be imposed despite the modifications to the property income adopted by the Assessing Officer. The assessment remained valid as it was neither vacated nor set aside by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The penalty proceedings could be finalized as they were initiated during the course of the assessment.\n•\nCitations: 1992 PTD 155; 2001 PTD 1206; 2001 PTD 2416\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss. 116, 63 & 138-E(4)\n•\nTopic: Initiation of Penalty After Settlement Agreement\n•\nDetails: The assessee claimed that penalties could not be imposed due to an agreement reached in settlement. Penalty proceedings were already initiated before the agreement.\n•\nHeld: The penalty proceedings had been initiated before any agreement and were pending at the time of the Income Tax Settlement Commission’s order. There was no mention of dropping the penalty proceedings in the order, thus they remained valid.\n•\nCitations: 1992 PTD 155; 2001 PTD 1206; 2001 PTD 2416\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.116 & 111\n•\nTopic: Limitation for Penalty Imposition\n•\nDetails: Penalty orders were not passed within two years from the date of notice.\n•\nHeld: The penalty orders were barred by limitation. If notices were served before 30-6-1999, the penalty could remain; otherwise, proceedings must be dropped.\n•\nCitations: None\n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.27(2)(a) & 62\n•\nTopic: Capital Gain from Non-Competition Agreement\n•\nDetails: The assessee received a payment under a non-competition agreement. The issue was whether it was a capital receipt.\n•\nHeld: The payment was taxable as it was not exempt under S.27(2)(a). The assessee's claim was not valid as the receipt was not related to the sale of capital assets.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1978 Kar. 1047 = 1978 PTD 329; 1964 ITR 283; 1983 ITR 159\n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.65, 27(2)(a), & 63\n•\nTopic: Re-opening of Assessment for Concealment\n•\nDetails: The assessee argued against the re-opening of the assessment due to a change of opinion.\n•\nHeld: The objection was dismissed as the amount received was not declared for tax, and it was not exempt under S.27(2)(a). The re-opening under S.65 was justified.\n•\nCitations: 1993 SCMR 96; 20 ITR 208; 137 ITR 54\n(f) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S.65\n•\nTopic: Taxation of Undisclosed Income\n•\nDetails: The assessee argued that income chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Ordinance should not escape because it had not been taxed in another person's hands.\n•\nHeld: The income was properly chargeable to tax, irrespective of the taxation status of another taxpayer.\n•\nCitations: None", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=116,63,138-E(4),111,27(2)(a),62,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.4713/LB, 4714/LB, 4715/LB, 4716/LB and 4717/LB of 2002, decision dated: 28-03-2003hearing DATE : 22-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat M. Chohan, A.R. for Appellant. Mrs. Sameera Yasin, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 147 = 2004 SLD 147 = 2004 PTD 550 = (2004) 89 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.28, 29 & 132(l)(a)(ii)\n•\nTopic: Capital Gain from Sale of Stock Exchange Card\n•\nDetails: The Assessing Officer did not allow the cost of acquisition of a stock exchange card while computing capital gains.\n•\nHeld: The First Appellate Authority's decision to disallow the cost was invalid. The cost of acquisition must be considered in the capital gain computation as per S.28 and S.29.\n•\nCitations: None\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-Ss.29(b) & 28\n•\nTopic: Sale of Inherited Stock Exchange Card\n•\nDetails: The First Appellate Authority's ruling on capital gain computation without considering the cost of acquisition was contested.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal canceled the First Appellate Authority's order and confirmed that the cost of the stock exchange card must be deducted in capital gain calculation.\n•\nCitations: None", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=28,29,132(l)(a)(ii),29(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1884/KB of 2002, decision dated: 22-09-2003 DATE , of hearing: 11-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Majeed for Appellant. Mrs. Shaista Abbas, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 164 = 2006 SLD 164 = 2006 SCMR 109 = (2006) 93 TAX 197 = 2006 PTR 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVUTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-Ss.240, 114, 121, 122, 137, 141, 161, 221 & 239\n•\nTopic: Removal of Difficulties by S.R.O. No.633(I)/2002\n•\nDetails: The Federal Government issued a notification amending several sections of the Income Tax Ordinance. The legality of such amendments was questioned.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Government exceeded its power under S.240 of the Ordinance. The notification was deemed invalid as it made substantial amendments without removing any actual difficulty.\n•\nCitations: Saeed Ahmed v. The State PLD 1964 SC 266; Fauji Foundation v. Shamimur Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,121,122,137,141,000,000,000,000 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117 and 1118-L of 2005, decision dated: 17-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": " FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record, Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chatta, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.Andrabi Naveed Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.P. No. 1032-L of 2005).\nSiraj Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.P. 1113-L of 2005). Faizur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.P. No. 1114-L of 2005).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONEC, LAHORE and OTHERS\nVs\nM/S KASHMIR EDIBILE OILS LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 148 = 2004 SLD 148 = 2004 PTD 583 = (2004) 89 TAX 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-First Sched., Part I, para. (A), proviso (f) & Part IV, para. 2(13)\n•\nTopic: Exemption of Super-Tax for Professional Firms\n•\nDetails: Super-tax for registered professional firms was discussed in terms of its chargeability and payability. \n•\nHeld: Although the super-tax was chargeable, it was not payable for professional firms as per the exemption under para. (2B).\n•\nCitations: Kohinoor Textile v. Federation of Pakistan 2002 PTD 121\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-First Sched., Part IV, para. (2B)\n•\nTopic: Exemption of Super-Tax for Professional Firms\n•\nDetails: Super-tax on registered firms was not payable, although it was chargeable.\n•\nHeld: The proper interpretation of the tax provisions allowed the super-tax to be considered chargeable but not payable.\n•\nCitations: Al-Samrez v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCIVIR 1917\n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-First Sched., Part I, para. A, proviso (f), Part II, para. (C), Part IV, para. (2B)\n•\nTopic: Calculation of Rebate for Professional Firms\n•\nDetails: Whether the rebate for super-tax was applicable when the firm did not pay the tax.\n•\nHeld: The rebate should be calculated using the super-tax payable under para. (c) of Part II, not the provisions of para. (2B).\n•\nCitations: A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala AIR 1957 SC 657", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartI,para.(A),proviso(f)PartIV,para.2(13),(2B)66A,969(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 410/KB to 448/KB, 457/KB to 470/KB, 536/KB and 537/KB of 2003, decision dated: 30-08-2003 hearing DATE : 24-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fatehali W. Vellani and Mrs. Khushnum Munchrji and Dr. Farogh Naseem, Barrister-at-Law for Appellant\nRaja M. Irshad, Legal Advisor, C.B.R./D.A.G. of Pakistan alongwith Zafar Iqbal, Inayatullah Kashani, D.R., M. Sharif Awan, D.R./I.A.C., Sheikh M. Hanif (Author of the order), Abdul Salam, I.A.C. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 149 = 2004 SLD 149 = 2004 PTD 618", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax on Undisclosed Income and Additional Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe assessees' declaration of Tax Amnesty Scheme, 2000 under Section 59-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was valid. However, any investment made after 30-6-1999 would not be covered by the said declaration. Additionally, the approval for additional assessment under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was mandatory, and permission by the Inspecting Additional Commissioner was not enough.\nCitation:\n1998 SCMR 2013; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1238 and I.T.A. No.676 of 2003 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59D,65,13 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1916/KB of 2002, decision dated: 13-10-2003hearing DATE : 1st October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faiz Ellahi Memon, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Tahir, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 150 = 2004 SLD 150 = 2004 PTD 627 = (2004) 89 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference to High Court\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal referred a question to the High Court regarding whether the departmental appeals before the Appellate Tribunal had become infructuous and thus liable to be dismissed.\nCitation:\nNone mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132,136 ", + "Case #": "R. As. Nos. 705/KB and 706/KB of 2002, decision dated: 29-09-2003 hearing DATE : 9-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUE BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Wishno Raja Qavi, D.R. for Appellant\nNemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 151 = 2004 SLD 151 = 2004 PTD 630 = (2004) 89 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rebate and Maladministration\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority had committed maladministration by not allowing a 50% rebate to the assessee, who was above 65 years old. The Ombudsman recommended amending the assessment orders to allow the rebate.\nCitation:\nNone mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartI Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.799 of 2003, decision dated: 2-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raza Munawwar, I.A.C., Jhelum and Nasir Maqbool Hashmi, Taxation Officer, Islamabad for Respondent\nNemo for the Complainant", + "Party Name:": "Malik ALLAHYAR KHAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 152 = 2004 SLD 152 = 2004 PTD 633", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessment and Disclosure of Income\nConclusion:\nThe High Court dismissed a reference application, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the assessee had failed to disclose the source of income for investments made during the relevant year.\nCitation:\nNone mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59A,65,136(1) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 125 of 2001, heard on 30-09-2003 hearing DATE : 30-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Haider Rizvi for Appellant. Mian Yousuf Omar for Responden", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SALEEM\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 153 = 2004 SLD 153 = 2004 PTD 673 = (2004) 89 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Selection of Return for Audit and Maladministration\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the Department had ignored the history of the case and selected the return for audit without proper justification, amounting to maladministration. The Ombudsman recommended withdrawing the letter selecting the return for audit.\nCitation:\nNone mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.890 K of 2003, decision dated: 21st August, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazharul Hasan for the Complainant. Abdul Sattar, D.C.I.T. for the Department", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HILAL TRAVEL SERVICES, KARACHI\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 154 = 2004 SLD 154 = 2004 PTD 687", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Cancellation of Assessment and Remand\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal vacated the orders of the Authorities below and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, as the First Appellate Authority had incorrectly cancelled the assessment.\nCitation:\nNone mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.274/LB of 2003, decision dated: 8-10-2003 hearing DATE : 8-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tauqir Akbar, D.R. for Appellant Ch. Abdul Ghafoor, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 165 = 2006 SLD 165 = 2006 SCMR 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Exemption Certificate and Constitutional Validity\nConclusion:\nThe High Court dismissed a petition challenging the issuance of exemption certificates and the constitutional validity of certain S.R.Os., as the counsel for the petitioner had conceded that the S.R.Os. in question were examined by the Supreme Court in an earlier case and found to be valid.\nCitation:\nAnoud Power Generation Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 340 and Collector of Customs v. Ravi Spinning Ltd. 1999 SCMR 412 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.271-K of 2004, decision dated: 20-10-2005.(On appeal from the order, dated 23-12-2003 passed by High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Constitutional Petition No.272 of 2000).hearing DATE :, 20-10-2005.", + "Judge Name:": " RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Irtaza H. Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "DADABHOY ENERGY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 155 = 2004 SLD 155 = 2004 PTD 689 = (2004) 89 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Disposal of Appeal by Appellate Tribunal\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal has the power to set aside an order and remand the case to the Assessing Officer or Inspecting Additional Commissioner, as the case may require. The Tribunal's inherent powers can be exercised to correct procedural lacunas or omissions.\nCitation:\nPLD 1975 Kar. 858; 19 All. 155 (PC); PLD 1978 Pesh. 19 and PLJ 1977 Kar. 2000 (sic) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=221(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=135(4)(c),135(5),23(1),66A,(3),(4),135,135(4)(a),(b),(c),135(5) ", + "Case #": "M. As. (Rect.) Nos.226/KB to 228/KB of 2003 in I.T.As. Nos.511/KB to 513/KB of 2002, decision dated: 28th August; 2003 hearing DATE : 15-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Appellant. Shaikh M. Hanif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 156 = 2004 SLD 156 = 2004 PTD 708 = (2004) 89 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Notice for Furnishing Return of Total Income\nConclusion:\nThe proviso to Section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is retrospective in action and applies to all pending proceedings at any stage of the appeal.\nCitation:\n1993 SCMR 73 and 1999 PTD (Trib.) 8 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56 ", + "Case #": "M. As. Nos.528/LB to 531/LB of 2003, decision dated: 23rd September, 2003 hearing DATE : 16-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Aziz, D.R. for Applicant\nNemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 157 = 2004 SLD 157 = 2004 PTD 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Addition and Additional Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe Assessing Officer's action of reopening the assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was not proper, as all facts and evidence were available on record. The addition made under Section 13(1)(d) of the Ordinance was not tenable in law.\nCitation:\n2000 PTD (Trib.) 2193; 2002 PTD (Trib.) 337; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1143 and 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1978 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(d),65 & 80C,13(a)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.675/KB of 2003, decision dated: 5-12-2003hearing DATE : 2-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir Ansari, I.T.P. for Appellant. Ghulam Shabir Memon, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 158 = 2004 SLD 158 = 2004 PTD 735 = (2004) 89 TAX 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income from Lease of Flour Mills\nConclusion:\nThe income from the lease of Flour Mills was correctly assessed as business income under Section 22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, rather than as income from other sources under Section 30(2)(d).\nCitation:\nSultan Brothers Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay City II (1964) 51 ITR 353 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,30,30(2(d) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 85 and 779 of 2000, decision dated: 7-11-2003 hearing DATE : 25th September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " SHABBIR AHMED AND GULZHAR AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Zakaria for Appellants. Muhammad Arif Moten for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SATTER FLOUR MILLS PRIVATE LTD., SUKKUR\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 159 = 2004 SLD 159 = 2004 PTD 745 = (2004) 89 TAX 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistake\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Ignorance of binding statutes can amount to a mistake apparent from the record.\nCitation:\n2001 PTD 303 and 2001 PTD (Trib.) 865 ref.\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 2896; 1992 PTD 570; 1997 PTD Note 123 at p.201 and 1997 PTD Note 62 at p:106 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,SecondSched.,Cl.(126D) ", + "Case #": "M.A. No.591/LB of 2000, decision dated: 23rd October, 2003, hearing DATE : 16-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rasheed Ch., D.R. for Appellant. Shahbaz Butt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 160 = 2004 SLD 160 = 2004 PTD 752 = (2004) 89 TAX 418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Definition of Order and Cancellation of Assessment Order\nConclusion:\nAn order is defined as a decree, decision, mandate, command, or direction. In the context of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, an acknowledgement slip/return can be considered an order, and its cancellation is justified if it deviates from the requirements of the Self Assessment Scheme.\nCitation:\n2002 PTD (Trib.) 710 and 2002 PTD (Trib.) 580 distinguished.\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 3718 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,59(1),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 138/LB of 2001, decision dated: 3rd September, 2003 hearing DATE : 3rd September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi and Qadeer Ahmed, ITP for appellant. Muhammad Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 161 = 2004 SLD 161 = 2004 PTD 758", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Non-Service of Notices and Ex-Parte Re-Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe non-service of notices by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority resulted in an ex-parte re-assessment, which was invalid. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the order be properly served on the assessee to enable them to file an appeal.\nCitation:\nNone mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=122A General Clauses Act, 1897=27 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=154,63/132,65 ", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1400/L and 1401/L of 2003, decision dated: 12-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Aslam for the Complainant. Muzammil Hussain, (D CIT) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AL FATHE KHAN ICE FACTORY\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 162 = 2004 SLD 162 = 2004 PTD 762 = (2004) 89 TAX 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Taxation of Golden Hand Shake Scheme and Leave Encashment\nConclusion:\nAmounts received under the Golden Hand Shake Scheme, which are not compensation in lieu of surrender of service, require separate treatment. Leave encashment is a separate compensation and is not covered by various allowances such as house rent allowance and conveyance allowance.\nCitation:\n2003 PTD (Trib.) 909 rel.\nWrit Petition No. 14026 of 2000 and 2002 PTD 562 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16 ", + "Case #": "LT.As. Nos. 1920/LB,1934/LB, 1913/LB, 2183/LB to 2191/LB of 2001, decision dated: 30-10-2003hearing DATE : 30-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1920/LB, 1934/LB, 1913/LB, and 2183 to 2191/LB of 2001).\nAbdul Qaddus Mughal for Respondent (in I. T. A. No. 1920/LB of 2001).\nCh. Mubarik Ali, F.C.A.. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1934/LB and 1913/LB of 2001)\nMuhammad Arif (Assesse) in person (in I.T.A. No. 2190/LB of 2001).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 163 = 2004 SLD 163 = 2004 PTD 769 = (2004) 89 TAX 372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities and Principles of Setting Aside Orders\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Authorities have jurisdiction to administer justice in accordance with the law, subject to limitations imposed by law. Deviation from procedure or causing procedural lapses is mere irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, which may be rectified or corrected.\nCitation:\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 1878; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 1059; 1990 PTD 62; 1971 SCMR 681; 1990 PTD 889; 1990 PTD 389; 2001 SCMR 838 and 1996 PTD (Trib.) 18 ref.\nPLD 1979 SC (AJ & K) 109 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5,5(1)(cc),23,24(c)50(7B),24(i),50(1),ThirdSched.,R.1 Income Tax Rules, 1982=PartIIIA,Rr.35C,35D,35E(2),35F(1),(2),(3),(4),(5) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1331/KB,1332/KB and 1820/KB of 2002, decision dated: 30-08-2003hearing DATE : 7th August; 2003", + "Judge Name:": " S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHEEN IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervaiz Jami for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1331/KB and 1332/KB of 2002).\nAli Husnain, D. R. for Respondent (in I. T. As. Nos. 1331/KB and 1332/KB of 2002)\nAli Husnain, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 1820/KB of 2002).\nShahid Pervaiz Jami for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 164 = 2004 SLD 164 = 2004 PTD 801 = (2004) 89 TAX 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Various Income Tax Cases\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal made various decisions on different income tax cases, including:\n•\nSetting aside orders due to procedural irregularities\n•\nDisallowing deductions for expenses not properly verified\n•\nConfirming disallowance of accrued expenses\n•\nUpholding treatment of shop license fee as income from house property\n•\nMaintaining normal depreciation on hotel building\n•\nDeleting allocation of expenses to exempt income\nCitation:\nVarious references mentioned in the text, including:\n•\nI.T.A. No.1791/KB of 2001\n•\nI.T.A. No.89/KB of 2002\n•\nI.T.A. No.2294/KB of 1997\n•\n(1995) 21 ITR 145\n•\n1992 PTD (Trib.) 1141", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(5),86 Customs Act, 1969=156(1)(10A)(14),202 ", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No.97 of 2002, decision dated: 18-11-2003, hearing DATE : 23rd October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " SHABBIR AHMED AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Appellant. Ms. Masooda Siraj for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AL HAJ INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 165 = 2004 SLD 165 = 2004 PTD 826 = (2003) 88 TAX 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to Revise Deputy Commissioner's Order\nConclusion:\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner's power to revise the Deputy Commissioner's order under Section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is subject to limitation, which runs from the date of passing the order by the Assessing Officer.\nCitation:\n1991 PTD (Trib.) 321 and 1997 PTD (Trib.) 831 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 3353/LB to 3355/LB of 1999, decision dated: 30-05-2003, hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.M. Akram for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 166 = 2004 SLD 166 = 2004 PTD 832 = (2003) 88 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Invocation of Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 66A\nConclusion:\nThe Inspecting Additional Commissioner cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 against an order that has merged into an appellate order or has lost its legal existence due to reassessment under Sections 62/65.\nCitation:\n1992 PTD (Trib.) 1610 and 1984 PTD 234 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,62/132,62/65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2226/LB to 2229/LB of 2002, decision dated: 13-05-2003, hearing DATE : 6-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqsood Ahmed, I.T.P. and Shakeel ur Rehman for Appellant. Bashir Ahmad Shad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 167 = 2004 SLD 167 = 2004 PTD 838", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Orders Passed Without Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nOrders passed by an authority in excess of its jurisdiction or without jurisdiction are null and void and can be ignored. Limitation to file an appeal against an order passed without lawful jurisdiction would cease to run, meaning that an appeal against such an order can be instituted at any time.\nCitation:\nNone", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),55 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5077/LB of 2001, decision dated: 10-05-2001, hearing DATE : 10-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Sheryar, DCIT for Appellant. Kh. Riaz Hussain for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 168 = 2004 SLD 168 = 2004 PTD 844", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additional Assessment Under Section 65\nConclusion:\nProceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are uncalled for if no new facts have been brought on record to justify action. The order passed under Sections 65/63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal along with other two orders under Sections 111 and 108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitation:\n1998 PTD (Trib.) 123; 1993 PTD (Trib.) 689; 1995 PTD (Trib.) 318; ITA No. 1514/LB of 1987-88 and Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1990 PTD 155 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,63,108(b),111 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 8074/LB to 8076/LB of 1996, decision dated: 29-06-1999, hearing DATE : 22-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAZEER AHMED SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for Appellant. Noor ul Amin Hotyana, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 169 = 2004 SLD 169 = 2004 PTD 848 = (2003) 88 TAX 197", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Donation of Biscuits to Army During War\nConclusion:\nDonation of biscuits to the Army during war is a charitable purpose and eligible for exemption under Section 47(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claim in circumstances.\nCitation:\nNone", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=47(c)SecondSched.,Cl.91(xxxvii),41,13(1)(d),23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3372/LB of 2003 and 3682/LB of 2002, decision dated: 7-05-2003, hearing DATE : 2-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHERAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bute Khan for Respondent. Nemo for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 170 = 2004 SLD 170 = 2004 PTD 861 = (2003) 88 TAX 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rectification of Mistake and Difference of Opinion\nConclusion:\nA miscellaneous application for rectification of a mistake can only be filed if a final order has been passed, and the mistake is apparent from the record. The Appellate Tribunal had determined certain parameters for holding the assessee as assessee in default .\nCitation:\n(1936) 4 ITR 157; (1972) 86 ITR 11; (1985) 155 ITR 310 and 2002 PTD 2570 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,135(2),133(7),135 ", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos. 322/LB to 327/LB of 2002, decision dated: 15-04-2003, hearing DATE : 12-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid for Appellants. Shahbaz Butt. Amicus curiae. Muhammad Asif D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 171 = 2004 SLD 171 = 2004 PTD 880 = (2004) 89 TAX 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Addition Under Section 13(1)(aa)\nConclusion:\nAddition under Section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 can only be made after determining the source from which the funds emanated. Identification of the source is an important condition for coming to the conclusion with regard to its addition.\nCitation:\n2003 PTD 1040 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(aa),52A,86 Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=2(7),4 ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 1545/LB of 2003, decision dated: 2-11-2003, hearing DATE : 6-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan and Abdul Quddus for Applicant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. and Shahid Jamil Khan L.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 172 = 2004 SLD 172 = 2004 PTD 892 = (2004) 90 TAX 357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Lahore Development Authority’s Tax Exemption under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\n•\nDetails: The Lahore Development Authority (LDA) was deemed a local authority by the Appellate Tribunal, thus exempting its income under Clause (88) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s decision, contending that the demand for minimum tax under Section 80D was improperly invalidated.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal's findings were referred to the High Court as questions of law:\n1.\nWhether LDA qualifies as a local authority and is exempt under Clause (88) of the Second Schedule.\n2.\nWhether the minimum tax demand under Section 80D was correctly declared illegal without determining income, loss, or tax payment below 0.5% of turnover.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Section 133(1); Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 136(1), 80D, 2(16), and Second Schedule, Clause (88).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=133(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),80D,2(16),SecondSched.,Cl.(88) ", + "Case #": "R.As. Nos. 463/LB to 465/LB of 2003, decision dated: 4-11-2003, hearing DATE : 1st November, 2003", + "Judge Name:": " EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheraz Mirza, D.R. for Applicants. Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 173 = 2004 SLD 173 = 2004 PTD 901 = (2004) 90 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTopic: Applicability of Exemption under Sales Tax and Customs Laws\n•\nDetails: The case examined the applicability of the Second Proviso to Section 5 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, concerning exemptions for Bills of Entry under Sections 79 and 104 of the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner argued for exemption based on the pre-amendment provision, while the Department enforced tax following its withdrawal.\n•\nHeld:\no\nThe Second Proviso to Section 5, as it stood before July 1, 1996, applied generally to Bills of Entry under Sections 79 and 104.\no\nAfter the amendment (effective July 1, 1996), the Proviso became specific to Section 104, excluding Section 79.\no\nThe Court emphasized clear legislative language and ruled against retrospective application of the amendment.\no\nPromissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable as the petitioner failed to fulfill exemption requirements before withdrawal.\n•\nCitations:\no\nStatutes Referenced: Sales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 5, 6, and 15; Customs Act, 1969, Sections 30, 79, and 104.\no\nCase Law Referenced:\n\nAbbas Steel Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1989 CLC 1463\n\nCrescent Pak Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Government of Pakistan 1990 PTD 29\n\nCape Brandy Syndicate v. I.R. (1921) 1 KB 67\n\nMuhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty, PLD 1962 SC 335\n•\nPrinciples Highlighted:\n1.\nTaxing statutes must be interpreted based on their explicit language.\n2.\nLegislative intent must be derived from clear expressions in the statute, not presumed or inferred from other laws.\n3.\nCourts cannot stretch the language of a law to address perceived deficiencies or hardships.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=5,provisoII,6,15 Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(5) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Customs Act, 1969=30,79,104 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 615 of 1996, decision dated: 12-12-2003, hearing DATE : 4th November. 2003", + "Judge Name:": " SHABBIR AHMED AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaque A. Memon for Petitioner. Shakeel Ahmed for Respondent No. 3. Syed Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HASHWANI HOTELS LIMITED through Executive Director\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 174 = 2004 SLD 174 = 2004 PTD 921 = (2004) 89 TAX 385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)—S. 50(4), Explanation\nDetails: The Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 1998, w.e.f. July 1, 1998, treated sales as supplies for tax deduction purposes. This explanation expanded the scope of S. 50(4), making it substantive legislation.\nHeld: The Explanation could not be applied retrospectively, as no liability can be imposed for non-compliance with a future law.\nCitations: Dream Land Cinema v. CIT (PLD 1977 Lah. 292).\n(b) Interpretation of statutes\nDetails: The purpose of an explanation is to clarify ambiguity or align the provision with legislative intent. Substantive explanations with new liabilities are not retrospective unless explicitly stated.\nCitations: Various cases, including Pakistan Petroleum v. CIT (1985 PTD 1) and Rehman Corporation v. Income Tax Officer (1985 PTD 787).\n(c) Interpretation of statutes\nDetails: The real intent of a provision can be ascertained by examining the statute in its entirety.\n(d) Various explanations in Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nDetails: Not all explanations are clarificatory. Declaratory ones are retrospective, but substantive ones introducing new liabilities are prospective.\n(e) Fiscal statutes\nDetails: Terms not defined in tax laws are interpreted in their common parlance by the business community.\n(f) S. 50(4), Explanation\nDetails: Supply of goods is distinct from sale of goods ; every supply is a sale, but not every sale is a supply.\n(g) Interpretation of statutes\nDetails: Absurdity or unreasonableness should not be attributed to legislative intent.\n(h) Interpretation of statutes\nDetails: No liability can be imposed retroactively for future legislative provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No.790 of 2000, decision dated: 30-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SHABBIR AHMED AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs NAZIR AHMED AND SONS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 175 = 2004 SLD 175 = 2004 PTD 965 = (2004) 89 TAX 457", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) S. 136(2)—Reference\nDetails: Tribunal's refusal to refer a question to the High Court was not challenged in the prescribed manner. The High Court declined to address the issue.\n(b) Adventure in the nature of trade\nDetails: An assessee engaged in real estate business purchased and sold a hotel property. The transaction aligned with her trade activities and was not considered an isolated adventure.\nCitations: Cases such as Radha Vilas Karyalaya v. CIT (71 ITR 279) and Messrs Nafees Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (2001 PTD 1380).\n(c) Determining factors for adventure in the nature of trade\nDetails: Factors include intention at the time of acquisition, subsequent actions, and resemblance to usual business operations.\n(d) Capital gain (S. 27(2)(ii))\nDetails: Immovable property is excluded from the definition of capital asset for capital gain purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2),136,27,27(2)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 3 of 1993, heard on 11-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sikandar Hayat Khan for Petitioner. Miss Shaheena Akbar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM\nVs\nIncome Tax TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD BENCH, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 176 = 2004 SLD 176 = 2004 PTD 983 = (2004) 90 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) S. 65—Definite information\nDetails: Reopening an assessment based on valuation differences without concrete evidence does not qualify as definite information. Such actions must be based on irrefutable evidence.\nHeld: Proceedings based on conjecture or assumptions are invalid.\nCitations: 1990 PTD 338, 1997 PTD (Trib.) 239.\n(b) Reopening of assessment—S. 65, S. 62\nDetails: Assessments reopened without clear evidence of higher payments were invalid. Definite information must be certain, not debatable or speculative.\nHeld: The Tribunal's order reopening the assessment was cancelled.\nCitations: Various precedents, including 1993 PTD (Trib.) 1681 and PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,653(1)(d),80CC,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4363/LB of 2001, decision dated: 15-06-2002, hearing DATE : 5-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tipu Sultan, ITP for Applicant. Mian Yousaf Umar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 177 = 2004 SLD 177 = 2004 PTD 1004", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a)\nTopic: Discount on Sales in Profit and Loss Account\nDetails: Assessing Officer reopened assessment, arguing discounts on sales were wrongly allowed as an expense in the Profit and Loss Account rather than being part of the trading account. The assessee followed gross sales accounting and claimed selling expenses.\nHeld: Adoption of accounting methodology (gross sales with selling expenses) did not impact the net result, and disagreement between officers did not justify reopening.\n(b)\nTopic: Basis for Reopening Under Section 66-A\nDetails: S.66-A requires a precise finding on an issue of fact for reopening a case. Ambiguous or debatable findings cannot form the basis.\nHeld: Reopening based on arguable findings is invalid.\n(c)\nTopic: Estimation of Sales and Electricity Consumption\nDetails: Reopening was challenged where sales were estimated without correlating to electricity consumption. Assessee argued electricity usage was tied to production, not sales.\nHeld: Assessment required detailed scrutiny; mere disagreement was insufficient to reopen the case.\n(d)\nTopic: Markup on Loans\nDetails: Reopening based on the claim that markup was wrongly allowed, alleging loans were used for property purchases.\nHeld: Findings lacked evidence; loans were presumed used for business. Reopening was invalid.\n(e)\nTopic: Telephone Bills\nDetails: Reopening due to telephone bills claimed for installations outside business premises.\nHeld: Revenue loss might exist, but no legal error in the assessment. Order of Inspecting Additional Commissioner was annulled.\n(f)\nTopic: Profit and Loss Expenses\nDetails: Revising quantum of disallowed expenses in the Profit and Loss Account was considered a basis for reopening.\nHeld: Such grounds do not warrant revisional jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "I. T. A. No. 3487/LB of 2001, decision dated: 22-11-2003, hearing DATE : 24-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suhail Mutee Babri, ITR/AR for Appellant. M. Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 178 = 2004 SLD 178 = 2004 PTD 1010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment and Change of Opinion\nDetails: Assessment reopened as wealth statement assets didn’t match declared income. Return was previously accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nHeld: Self-Assessment presumes examination of material. Reopening based on the same record constitutes a change of opinion and is invalid.\nCitations: 1991 PTD (Trib.) 294; 2000 PTD (Trib.) 329.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,13(1)(aa).13(1)(d),59(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.5402/LB of 1997, decision dated: 4-06-2003, hearing DATE : 11-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": " ZAFAR ALI THAHEEM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 179 = 2004 SLD 179 = 2004 PTD 1029 = (2003) 88 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Interpretation of Statutes\n(a) Definition clauses ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity.\n(b) Undefined terms in statutes should be interpreted harmoniously using plain and ordinary meanings.\n(c) Definitions remove vagueness and provide certainty.\n(d) Include in definitions enlarges the meaning to encompass additional elements.\n(e) Presumptive Tax Regime and Services\nDetails: Services rendered through contracts were not taxable under presumptive tax provisions (S.80-C).\nHeld: Assessments framed under normal law were valid; orders canceling them were unsustainable.\nCitations: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 228; I.T.A. No.672/IB of 1998-99.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C,50(4),59(A),66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2668/LB to 2672/LB of 2002, decision dated: 14-02-2003, hearing DATE : 25-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, F.C.A. for Appellant. Ashraf Ahmad Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 180 = 2004 SLD 180 = 2004 PTD 1038", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Self-Assessment and Presumptive Income\nDetails: Non-judicial explanations of self-assessment provisions lack authority. Inclusion of deemed income in self-assessment comparison was valid.\nHeld: Returns qualified under Self-Assessment Scheme.\nCitations: 1993 SCMR 1232; 1993 PTD 766; (1999) 80 Tax 51.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),50(4),80C ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 788/LB of 2002, decision dated: 11-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUNSIF KHAN MIHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farid Adil for Appellant. Muhammad Zulfiquar Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 181 = 2004 SLD 181 = 2004 PTD 1052 = (2003) 88 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Definite Information for Reopening\nDetails: Reopening based on prior knowledge of property purchase.\nHeld: Existing information does not qualify as definite for S.65.\n(b) Department’s information lacked definite character, rendering reopening invalid.\n(c) Legislative categories under S.65 mandate precise application by authorities.\n(d) Non-ticking of relevant clauses invalidates notices under S.65.\n(e) First Appellate Authority’s setting aside order was erroneous. Cancellation of assessment was appropriate.\nCitations: 1997 PTD 47; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 1994; 2000 PTD (Trib) 2531.\n(f–i) Jurisdiction and Legal Findings\nCourts may decide legal issues related to jurisdiction. Non-compliance with law warrants annulment of assessment.\nCitations: 1953 XXIII ITR 15; (1985) 155 ITR 306; (1962) 45 ITR 454; (1963) 48 ITR 427.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59(1),65(1),59A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.2433/LB of 2000, decision dated: 15-06-2002, hearing DATE : 21st March, 2002", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Uzma Butt for Appellant. Javed ur Rehman, D.R.O. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 182 = 2004 SLD 182 = 2004 PTD 1062", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Imposition of Tax on Reserves Exceeding 50% of Paid-Up Capital\nDetails: Section 12(9A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 imposed a tax of 10% on reserves exceeding 50% of paid-up capital. The court determined that assessed profits rather than declared profits were used as the basis for tax calculation. This method was deemed invalid, and the court directed the computation of after-tax profits per accepted accounting standards.\nHeld: Imposition of tax based on assessed profits was unjustified; after-tax profits must be computed using proper accounting standards.\nCitations: Referenced case law includes Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd., PLD 1986 SC 453, highlighting interpretation of tax statutes.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(9A),SecondSched.,PartIV,Cls.59 & 66A ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1526/KB of 2002, decision dated: 30-06-2003, hearing DATE : 26-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": " S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervez. Jami for Appellant. Javed Iqbal Rana D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 183 = 2004 SLD 183 = 2004 PTD 1091", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities & Related Matters\n(a) Details: The Commissioner’s power to assign jurisdiction under the Self-Assessment Scheme was challenged. The court dismissed the challenge, asserting that no distinction exists between such cases and others for jurisdiction allocation.\nHeld: Commissioner has the authority to assign jurisdiction.\nCitations: See Muhammad Rafique v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1991 Karachi 33, for precedent on jurisdictional assignments by tax authorities.\n(b) Details: Allegations of misconduct against an inspector who conducted inquiries, including tampering with recorded statements, were found unsubstantiated.\nHeld: Inspector acted within authorization; allegations were baseless.\nCitations: Income Tax Officer v. Raja Industries, PLD 1984 Lahore 22.\n(c) Details: Tractor lease income was misclassified as agricultural, leading to maladministration allegations. Although evidence of malpractice was found, no specific misconduct was established.\nHeld: Recommendations were made to prevent assessment errors and ensure accurate classification.\nCitations: Relevant jurisprudence: Federal Tax Ombudsman Case No. 29/2005 (unreported).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=5(1)(d),59(1),146,148,62 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122A Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 109 of 2003, decision dated: 10-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Malik Khan, I.T.P. for the Complainant. Ashraf Ali Marwat, T.O. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SAID REHMAN, SANITARY STORE, CHARSADDA\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 184 = 2004 SLD 184 = 2004 PTD 1096 = (2004) 89 TAX 430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Tax Deduction by Withholding Agents in Construction Contracts\nDetails: A taxpayer was held in default for failing to deduct tax on purchases. However, assessments were based on assumptions rather than actual payments liable for deduction.\nHeld: Assessment rejected; appellate authority affirmed no specific payment warranted tax deduction.\nCitations: Pak Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Income Tax, 2002 PTD 445, clarifies withholding tax applicability in similar contexts.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86,50(4),80C,143B ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 100(IB) to 104(IB) of 2001-2002, decision dated: 11-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND KHALID WAHEED AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tahir Khan D.R. for Appellant. Hafiz M. Idris and Aurangzaib for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 185 = 2004 SLD 185 = 2004 PTD 1102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Rental Income Determination\nDetails: Rental income was assessed based on wealth tax valuations instead of actual rent received, which contradicted the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nHeld: Assessment invalidated, and reassessment ordered based on proper inquiry.\nCitations: For methodology in assessing rental income, see CIT v. Siddiq Sons Ltd., 1998 PTD 876.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,63 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.651 of 2003, decision dated: 10-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Complainant. Safdar Iqbal, DCIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TANVEER AHMED KHAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 186 = 2004 SLD 186 = 2004 PTD 1104 = (2004) 89 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Income Tax Provisions vs. Companies Ordinance, 1984\n(a) Details: The court addressed whether the Companies Ordinance, 1984, could influence the Income Tax Ordinance's provisions. It ruled that the ordinances operate independently.\nHeld: Companies Ordinance does not override the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitations: Ittefaq Foundry Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1999 SCMR 194.\n(b) Details: Questions of law framed for High Court reference lacked substance and were dismissed.\nHeld: Reference applications were rejected.\nCitations: CIT v. Abdul Khaliq Co., PLD 2005 SC 92.\n(c) Details: Statutory interpretation must avoid relying on unrelated laws.\nHeld: Provisions should be interpreted within their own framework.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mian Abdul Qayum, 2001 SCMR 432.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12,12(9A)SecondSched.;PartIV,Cl.(59),136 ", + "Case #": "R.A: Nos. 327/LB and 360/LB of 2003, decision dated: 27-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IMTIAZ ANJUM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Akram Tahir, D.R. for Applicant (in R.A. No. 327/LB of 2003). Naveed A. Andrabi for Respondent (in R.A. No. 327/LB of 2003).\nNaveed A. Andrabi for Applicant (in R.A. No. 360/LB of 2003). M. Akram Tahir, D.R. for Respondent (in R.A. No. 360/LB of 2003).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 187 = 2004 SLD 187 = 2004 PTD 1108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Maladministration Under Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000\n(a) Details: Maladministration was defined as encompassing irregularities, illegalities, and mismanagement.\nHeld: Comprehensive definition provided.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Report No. 12/2001 (unreported).\n(b) Details: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance interpreted as welfare legislation aimed at addressing injustices.\nHeld: Statute must be liberally interpreted.\nCitations: Shafiq Sons v. Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, PLD 2003 Lahore 56.\n(c) Details: Tax recovery action based on misattributed property ownership was found unlawful.\nHeld: Department’s action was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law.\nCitations: Hussain v. FBR, 2011 PTD 943.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=93 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.913-K of 2003 in Suit No.539 of 2000, decision dated: 12-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tufail H. Ibrahim for the Complainant. Sajid Nazir Malik, DCIT and Misri Ladhami, ACTT for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Amin -ud-Din Ansari for Respondent No. 3,", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALRIAZ (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nMUHAMMAD ISMAIL and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 188 = 2004 SLD 188 = 2004 PTD 1115 = (2003) 88 TAX 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Powers of Inspecting Additional Commissioner to Revise Deputy Commissioner’s Order (Limitation)\nDetails: Assessment orders made on 4-5-1994 and 29-6-1996 were challenged as being barred by limitation when revised under Section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The department contended that the appeal process extended the limitation period, but the court held that since the mistake in assessment was not a subject of the appeal, the limitation period began from the original assessments' dates.\nHeld: The revisions made beyond four years of the original assessments were barred by limitation and invalid. The Appellate Tribunal restored the original assessments.\nCitations:\n•\n(1999) 79 Tax 273 (Trib.)\n•\n2000 PTD 207\n•\n2002 PTD 570", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1766/KB and 1767/KB of 2002, decision dated: 27-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUE BALOUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR NAZAR MIAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin, ACA for Appellant. Jawed Iqbal Rana, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 189 = 2004 SLD 189 = 2004 PTD 1123 = (2004) 90 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Reference to High Court – Absence of Referring Party\nDetails: A party, on whose instance a question was referred to the High Court, failed to appear at the hearing.\nHeld: High Court declined to answer the question due to the absence of the referring party.\nCitations:\n•\nDada Bahi H. Mama & Sons, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) 16 Tax 43\n•\nM. M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax West Bengal (1955) 27 ITR 188", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.64 of 1993, decision dated: 21st December, 2000", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent Nemo for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MOLVI BROTHERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 190 = 2004 SLD 190 = 2004 PTD 1125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Best Judgment Assessment and Maladministration\nDetails: Assessments finalized without serving a notice or substantiating income estimates were deemed harsh and excessive. Maladministration by the Assessing Officer was established, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended setting aside the assessments for re-evaluation with proper inquiry and opportunity for the assessee to be heard.\nHeld: Assessment to be redone under S.122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nCitations: Complaint No. 1438 of 2002 (Federal Tax Ombudsman)\n(b) Topic: Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman in Cases of Maladministration\nDetails: The Federal Tax Ombudsman had jurisdiction to investigate complaints where maladministration by tax authorities was evident.\nHeld: Jurisdiction upheld.\nCitations: Complaint No. 1438 of 2002 (Federal Tax Ombudsman)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No.844 of 2003, decision dated: 12-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "GULSHER\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 191 = 2004 SLD 191 = 2004 PTD 1128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic: Additions as Deemed Income – Procedural Requirements\nDetails: Issuance of notice to the assessee and specific approval from the IAC (Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) are prerequisites for making additions as deemed income under S.13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. General approval of the assessment order is not a substitute for specific approval of the additions.\nHeld: Additions made without specific approval were invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Khurram Sagir Industries Ltd. v. CIT Zone-A, Lahore\n•\nC.T.R. No. 107 of 1991", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13 Income Tax Act, 1922=4 ", + "Case #": "C.T.R. No.321 of 1991, decision dated: 2-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONEB, LAHORE\nVs\nMessrs ABID HUSSAIN BHATTI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 192 = 2004 SLD 192 = 2004 PTD 1133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Topic: Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman in Cases of Maladministration\nDetails: The Federal Tax Ombudsman retained jurisdiction in cases involving confirmed maladministration by tax authorities, even if procedural aspects were challenged.\nHeld: Jurisdiction not ousted.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9(2)(b)\n(b) Topic: Illegal Assessment Due to Non-Issuance of Notices\nDetails: An assessment made without issuing notices under S.56 or S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was challenged. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended canceling such assessments under S.122A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\nHeld: Assessments made without proper notices were illegal and void.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b),2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,65 ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 900 of 2003, decision dated: 8-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "None for the Complainant. Freedoon A. Sheik, ACIT for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "LAL KHAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 193 = 2004 SLD 193 = 2004 PTD 1135 = (2004) 89 TAX 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax – Profit & Loss Account – Add Backs\nDetails: Additions to claimed expenses deviated from historical treatment where expenses remained largely consistent.\nHeld: Deviations from historical add-back proportions without justification were invalid.\nCitations:\n________________________________________\n(b) Income-tax – Profit & Loss Expenses – Unverifiable Claims\nDetails: Additions based on unverifiable claims in accounts with a history of acceptance were challenged.\nHeld: Additions required specific identification of unverifiable expenses; blanket claims were invalid.\nCitations:\n________________________________________\n(c) Income Tax Rules, 1982 – Rule 216(3)(a)\nDetails: Exclusion of commissions from FOB sales for export profit calculations contested.\nHeld: Commission exclusion was invalid; FOB values on bills of entry were decisive.\nCitations: C.B.R. Circular No. 2 of 2000.\n________________________________________\n(d) Income-tax – International Accounting Standards\nDetails: Relevance of IAS definitions to Income Tax Law interpretations.\nHeld: IAS guidelines were not binding; Income Tax Law's independent purpose prevailed.\nCitations:\n________________________________________\n(e) Interpretation of Statutes – Definitions\nDetails: Usage of dictionary meanings for undefined terms in legislation.\nHeld: Ordinary dictionary meanings were preferred for undefined terms.\nCitations:\n________________________________________\n(f) Income-tax – International Accounting Standards\nDetails: Relevance of IAS terms to dictionary definitions.\nHeld: IAS terms often aligned with standard dictionary meanings.\nCitations:\n________________________________________\n(g)-(o) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 12(9A)\nDetails: Various interpretations of profits, reserves, and taxation timing under Section 12(9A).\nHeld: The provisions of Section 12(9A) were deemed non-retrospective; specific terms like reserve were restricted to undivided current-year profits, excluding historical reserves.\nCitations: Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd.; Writ Petition No. 9665 of 2001.\n________________________________________\n(p)-(t) Interpretation of Reserves and Retrospective Effects\nDetails: Misapplication of historical reserves and double taxation concerns under Section 12(9A).\nHeld: Taxation of prior reserves was invalid without clear legislative intent; principles favored assessee where interpretations diverged.\nCitations: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2499 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(9A) Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.216(3)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 4302/LB to 4304/LB of 2001, decision dated: 10-07-2003, hearing DATE : 5-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": " PER KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER-", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja and Faisal Iqbal Khawaja for Appellant. Muhammad Asif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 194 = 2004 SLD 194 = 2004 PTD 1164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Section 59(1)\nDetails: Case selected for total audit due to low declared profit without affording the assessee a personal hearing.\nHeld: Principles of natural justice were violated; selection for audit was deemed void.\nCitations: Central Board of Revenue Circular No. 7 (2002); 2002 PTD 1918.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) ", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 829-L of 2003, decided 13-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed, ITP for the Complainant. Muzamal Hussain Butt, D-CIT for the Revenue", + "Party Name:": "NEW ALQAMAR TRADER\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 195 = 2004 SLD 195 = 2004 PTD 1169 = (2004) 90 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a)-(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Sections 80-BB & 80-C\nDetails: Clarification of terms transportation and ply in the context of goods transport taxation.\nHeld: Taxation Officer was directed to interpret terms harmoniously, considering dictionary definitions, and reassess without implementing prior findings.\nCitations: Black’s Law Dictionary; Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80BB80C Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.8295 of 2003, heard on 20-02-2004. dates of hearing: 19th and 20-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": " ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Latif Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. Shahid Jamil for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN & SONS\nVs\nTAXATION OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 196 = 2004 SLD 196 = 2004 PTD 1173 = (2004) 90 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of Statutes\nConclusion: The scheme of law must be examined in its entirety for accurate conclusions; no provision should be interpreted in isolation.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nSections: Ss. 2(13), 210, & 239\nConclusion: Matters pending under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, are to be decided based on its substantive law but by authorities designated under the 2001 Ordinance. The discretion exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax, including delegation of powers, is lawful and not subject to objection.\n(c) Discretion\nConclusion: Lawful discretion exercised by competent authorities is not open to exceptions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(13),210,239 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-588 of 2003, decision dated: 13-01-2004, hearing DATE : 13-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": " SHABBIR AHMED AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Faquir Muhammad for Petitioner. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ALLIED MOTORS LTD. through Manager Finance\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 197 = 2004 SLD 197 = 2004 PTD 1225 = (2004) 89 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nSection: S. 111\nConclusion: Penalty proceedings for concealment require specific findings in the assessment order, proving mens rea.\n(b) Burden of Proof\nConclusion: Assessment and penalty proceedings differ in burden; the former lies on the assessee, the latter on the department, with a criminal standard of proof.\n(c) Definite Finding\nConclusion: Penalty initiation necessitates explicit findings of concealment in assessment orders.\n(d) Notice under Section 116\nConclusion: Notices must clearly outline alleged concealment, with unambiguous charges against the assessee.\n(e) Rejection of Taxpayer’s Version\nConclusion: Disagreement over law or accountancy does not automatically attract penalties, despite income additions.\n(f) Imposition of Penalty\nConclusion: Penalty is unjustified without deliberate concealment; supporting evidence introduced later is inadmissible for penalty justification.\n(g) Mens Rea and Explanation\nConclusion: Assessing Officers must substantiate concealment with mens rea; failure invalidates penalties.\nCitations: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1085 rel.; CIT v. Abdul Jabbar 2001 PTD 1348; (2003) 87 Tax 359 (Trib.); 1992 PTD (Trib.) 688.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,116,13(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1330/LB of 1997, decision dated: 13-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " RASHEED AHMED SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saeed Chaudhry for Appellant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 198 = 2004 SLD 198 = 2004 PTD 1231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nSections: Ss. 59(1) & 61\nConclusion: Doubt regarding service notice with signature cuttings must favor the assessee. Maladministration in notice handling requires an inquiry.\nRecommendation: Accept the return under the Self-Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1),61 ", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 747 of 2003, decision dated: 11-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem Malik for the Complainant. Iftikhar Baloch for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SAJID RAFIQ\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 199 = 2004 SLD 199 = 2004 PTD 1233 = (2004) 89 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nSection: S. 62\nConclusion: Assessments without notices or pointing out account defects are null and void.\nCitations: 1999 PTD (Trib.) 3892; 2002 PTD (Trib.) 1583 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4475/LB of 2000, decision dated: 5-09-2003, hearing DATE : 15-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tipu Sultan, I.T.P. for Respondent Nemo for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 200 = 2004 SLD 200 = 2004 PTD 1236 = (2004) 89 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nSections: S. 63; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)\nConclusion: Ex parte assessments made without inquiry and later entry discrepancies indicate maladministration. Irregularities require reassessment and disciplinary action.\nRecommendation: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended reassessment under S.122.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63,129(2),5.122 ", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 951 of 2003, decision dated: 26-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Tauqir Ahmed, D.C.I.T. for Respondents Complainant in Person", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISSA\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 201 = 2004 SLD 201 = 2004 PTD 1240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nSections: Ss. 52-A & 86\nConclusion: S.86 operates independently of S.52-A. Additional tax under S.86 cannot overlap with deductions under S.52-A.\nCitations: 2000 PTD (Trib.) 484 rel.\n(b) Rectification of Mistake\nConclusion: Applications for adjustments under S.156 require prior rectification of orders under S.86.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52A,86,156, ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.760/KB of 2002, decision dated: 2-11-2003, hearing DATE : 29-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " S. HASAN IMAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir A.R. for Appellant Faiz Elahi D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 202 = 2004 SLD 202 = 2004 PTD 1244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Survey Form Validity\nConclusion: Signatures by unauthorized persons (e.g., a brother) invalidate survey forms.\nCitations: Complaint No.675 of 2001 rel.\n(b) Amendment of Assessment\nConclusion: Survey forms do not qualify as definite information for amendments under S.122.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122,122(5)(a),239 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=3(1) & First Schedule Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 967 of 2003, decision dated: 7th October 2003", + "Judge Name:": " JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saghir Tirmizi and- Hasan Askari for the Complainant Muhammad Azhar, ACIT for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ARSHAD JAVED\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 203 = 2004 SLD 203 = 2004 PTD 1251 = (2004) 90 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Tax on Importers and Contractors\nConclusion: Machinery as a fixed asset falls outside the Presumptive Tax Regime for sales income.\nCitations: Black’s Law Dictionary ref.\n(b) Exemption and Withholding Tax\nConclusion: Exemptions under S.50(5) affect S.80-C applicability. Certificates of physical installation are crucial for tax adjustments.\n(f) Reference Applications\nConclusion: Time-barred applications or issues outside Appellate Tribunal decisions are dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C(2)(ii),50(5),136(1),80C ", + "Case #": "R. A. No.411/KB of 2003 in ref: M.A. Rec. No. 17/KB, decision dated: 8-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ BALUCH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Ahmed, D.R. for Applicant. Saif-ud-Din Adeeb, A.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 204 = 2004 SLD 204 = 2004 PTD 1263 = (2004) 90 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax – Addition\nConclusion:\nThe case dealt with the addition of alleged production suppression by a public limited company engaged in yarn manufacturing. The rejection of the wastage (dryage) claimed by the assessee was deemed unjustified by the Tribunal. The assessee maintained meticulous records regarding the purchase, consumption of cotton, and yarn production, which were regularly verified for excise duty purposes. Dryage losses are a routine and unavoidable aspect of the manufacturing process, and the rejection of such claims led to results that were logically absurd. Furthermore, no deficiencies or discrepancies were identified in the books of accounts maintained by the company. The Tribunal’s decision to uphold the addition without substantive evidence was therefore found erroneous and contrary to established principles.\nCitations: Tanvir Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 1990 PTD 254 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos.512 and 513 of 2000, heard on 6-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Mian Yousaf Umar for Respondent/Revenue", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAHIM BAKHSH through General Manager\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 205 = 2004 SLD 205 = 2004 PTD 1293 = (2004) 89 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Liability for Tax Deduction\nSections: Ss. 52 & 86\nConclusion:\nThe department levied tax on purchases presumed to be taxable under S. 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, without providing sufficient legal grounds or evidence. The First Appellate Authority deleted these additions, pointing out that no individual purchase exceeded Rs. 25,000, a threshold beyond which tax liability under S.52 arises. The department argued that the assessee failed to submit requisite details, but no specific provision in the law authorized the Assessing Officer to demand such information. Furthermore, the officer failed to identify any instance of non-compliance or payment exceeding Rs. 25,000. Relying on presumptions and surmises to impose such liabilities is against the principles of fair taxation, as the burden of compliance under S.52 involves significant penalties for non-deduction or non-deposit of tax. The Tribunal dismissed the department’s appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering strictly to the law before imposing extraordinary burdens.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=52,86,50 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 821/IB to 823/IB of 2002, decision dated: 4-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naushad Ali Khan D.R. for Appellant. Mr. Shahid Farid, ACA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 6 = 1993 SLD 6 = 1993 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981 – Mandatory Compliance\nRules: Rr. 10 & 11\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal considered appeals filed without certified copies of the impugned orders attached to the memorandum of appeal. Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules mandates the inclusion of certified copies as part of the procedural requirements. Non-compliance with these rules is equated with non-adherence to the Income Tax Ordinance, rendering the appeals procedurally defective. Additionally, Rule 10 ensures that appeals must be filed with clear grounds. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for procedural violations, highlighting that adherence to procedural integrity is fundamental in legal appeals to maintain the sanctity and reliability of the judicial process.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=Rr.10,11 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 21/LB/1985-86, decision dated: 10-09-1989, hearing DATE : 22-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant. Munir Ahmad Sheikh, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 7 = 1993 SLD 7 = 1993 PTD 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Exemption for Dearness Allowance\nSections: Second Schedule, cl.(36-B); Notification No.F.S.(5)-RS/81 (27-6-1981)\nConclusion:\nThe employees of NASPAK, declared to be under the complete administrative control of the Government of Pakistan by a Memorandum dated 6-7-1974, were entitled to exemption from tax liability on dearness allowance. This entitlement was supported by the notification under the relevant clauses of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n(b) Competency to Admit Additional Evidence\nSections: S. 131(3); CPC O.XLI, R.27\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner holds the authority to admit additional evidence if deemed necessary to ascertain the legality of the findings by the lower authorities. This provision allows for a more thorough review process where critical evidence, not previously available, can aid in delivering a just verdict.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,cl.(36B), Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=131(3),O.XLI,R.27 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 1180/LB of 1983-84, decision dated: 5-08-1989, hearing DATE : 31st July, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " FAKHARUDDIN SIDDQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naseer Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ismail for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 8 = 1993 SLD 8 = 1993 PTD 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Definition of Income\nSection: S. 2(24)\nConclusion:\nThe term income was elaborated to encompass all receipts that could be considered gains, profits, or economic benefits derived by an individual or entity within the scope of taxation laws.\n(b) Unexplained Investments\nSection: S. 13(1)(a)\nConclusion:\nThe assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the sources of investments reflected in their financial declarations. Under S. 13(1)(a), unexplained amounts are presumed to be income from undisclosed sources, placing the burden of proof squarely on the assessee. Given the lack of adequate explanations, the Income Tax Officer was justified in treating the amounts as taxable income.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(24),13(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4056/LB/1985-86, decision dated: 27-08-1989, hearing DATE : 16-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munir Ahmad Sheikh, D.R. for Appellant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 9 = 1993 SLD 9 = 1993 PTD 12 = (1992) 66 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Double Taxation Agreement – Commercial Profits Exemption\nArticles: Arts. III & XI(1)\nConclusion:\nThe exemption for commercial profits under Art. III of the Double Taxation Agreement between Pakistan and France was rejected for a French company engaged in oil drilling projects. The company's activities constituted professional services, not commercial profits, and thus fell under the taxable purview of Art. XI(1).\nCitations: C.I.T., Karachi v. Abbot Finance Co. (SARL), Civil Ref. No. 26 of 1972.\n(b) Scope of Appellate Assistant Commissioner’s Powers\nSection: S. 132(1)(c)\nConclusion:\nThe powers granted under S. 132(1)(c) allow the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to provide findings on issues not directly contested before lower forums, reinforcing their wide discretion in appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 1154(1-B)/1986-87, decision dated: 15-05-1992, hearing DATE : 25-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SABIR SYED ACCOUNANT MEMBER AND CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Majid, FCA for Appellant. Noor Muhammad, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 10 = 1993 SLD 10 = 1993 PTD 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Rejection of Accounts\nSection: S. 32(3)\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, operating as a contractor on multiple projects, had their accounts rejected by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for not maintaining a wage register, which is a critical requirement for substantiating the accuracy of declared earnings and expenditures. The ITO applied his Gross Profit (GP) rate on contracts and supplies while making additional adjustments to the profit and loss accounts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A.C.C.) upheld this decision. However, upon further appeal, the Tribunal ruled that while rejecting the accounts was justified due to the lack of proper record-keeping, the ITO's add-backs for salaries and welfare amounts were unwarranted given the scale of the projects. Consequently, these add-backs were deleted. This case underscores the importance of maintaining proper records to avoid discretionary assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 4589/LB and 4589A/LB/1984-85, decision dated: 17-08-1989, hearing DATE : 6-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Ahmad Chaudhry, FCA for Appellant. Naseer Ahmad, DA for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 11 = 1993 SLD 11 = 1993 PTD 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Cancellation of Firm Registration\nSections: Ss. 56 & 68(5)\nConclusion:\nA notice issued under S.56 for cancellation of firm registration cannot substitute for the specific requirements outlined under S.68(5). Proper procedural adherence is essential for valid actions.\n(b) Registration of Firm and Cancellation Without Hearing\nSections: S. 26-A (Income Tax Act, 1922); S. 68(5) (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Officer had granted registration to the firm in the previous year, acknowledging no change in the firm’s constitution. However, during the relevant assessment year, the officer refused registration ex parte, without proper inquiry or affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case. This action was deemed procedurally flawed and unlawful.\n(c) Ex Parte Cancellation of Registration\nSections: Ss. 56, 63, & 68(5)\nConclusion:\nThe ITO proceeded ex parte under S.63 after the assessee failed to submit their return despite receiving a notice under S.56. The subsequent cancellation of the firm’s registration under S.68(5), without issuing a show-cause notice or granting a hearing, was ruled invalid. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulled the assessment without exception.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,63,68(5) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.253/LB of 1983-84, decision dated: 22-08-1989, hearing DATE : 9-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naseer Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 12 = 1993 SLD 12 = 1993 PTD 27 = (1992) 66 TAX 185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Power of Revision by Commissioner of Income-Tax\nSection: S. 33-A (Income Tax Act, 1922); Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199\nConclusion:\nThe Commissioner exercised their power of revision under S.33-A without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard, violating procedural fairness. Furthermore, the order was passed beyond the one-year limitation period following the assessment. Since no prejudicial order can be issued without lawful authority or a hearing, the impugned order was declared null and void. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision with proper procedural compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2043 of 1975, decision dated: 17-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "JUNEJO FLOUR MILLS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 13 = 1993 SLD 13 = 1993 PTD 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Credits – Set-Off Against Past Additions\nSection: S. 23(3) (Income Tax Act, 1922)\nConclusion:\nThe assessee originally claimed cash credits as Hundi transactions with various parties, a claim they failed to substantiate. Subsequently, the assessee requested that these unexplained credits be set off against gross profit additions made by the department in previous assessments. The Tribunal allowed this benefit. However, it was held that once the assessee identifies credits as emanating from named individuals and fails to validate their claims, they cannot revert to asserting these credits as deriving from past income additions. The burden lies solely on the assessee to provide positive proof that the credits, despite being in third-party names, were derived from prior additions.\nCitations: S. Kuppuswamy Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1964) 51 ITR 757 (Mad.); (1972) 86 ITR 724, 729 (Punj.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(3) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 17 of 1971, decision dated: 27-07-1976", + "Judge Name:": " ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.N. Rangaswami and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner. K. Mani for Ramachandran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS-II\nVs\nBANARSILAL DHAWAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 14 = 1993 SLD 14 = 1993 PTD 37 = (1992) 66 TAX 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Admissibility of New Pleas Before Appellate Tribunal\nSections: Ss. 10(2), 23(3), & 66 (Income Tax Act, 1922)\nConclusion:\nThe assessee initially attributed cash credits in their books to loans from various parties. When this explanation was disproven, the assessee introduced a new plea before the Tribunal, claiming the amounts represented intangibles from previous years. This contradictory plea, being an afterthought, was ruled inadmissible. The Tribunal was found unjustified in directing the Income Tax Officer to allow intangibles, as the plea was not consistent with the earlier explanation.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Banarsilal Dhawan 1993 PTD 28 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2),23(3),66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No.25 of 1982, decision dated: 11-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD C.J. MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Applicant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE\nVs\nNATIONAL TYPEWRITER CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 15 = 1993 SLD 15 = 1993 PTD 39 = (1993) 67 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Introduction of S.3C and Fifth Schedule\nConclusion:\nSection 3C and the Fifth Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1922, were introduced to bring undisclosed incomes into the tax net. This framework aimed to reassure taxpayers that cases falling under S.3C would not be dealt with under the regular provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Central Board of Revenue was authorized to create additional rules, directions, and machinery to govern these cases. Notably, the Fifth Schedule prohibited the Income Tax Officer from making arbitrary additions to disclosed incomes unless expressly inadmissible under the law. Punishments for failing to disclose income fully included imprisonment and fines equal to the undisclosed amount, leaving no room for judicial discretion.\n(b) Exclusive Framework for S.3C Cases\nConclusion:\nThe Fifth Schedule provided a self-contained mechanism, excluding the application of other provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner was not authorized to invoke external provisions for cases governed by S.3C or the Fifth Schedule.\nCitations: CBR Circular No.63(211)-IT-IV/76, dated 14th July 1976.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3C,Sched.Fifth ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. No.45 to 50 and I.T.R. No.22 of 1985, decision dated: 4-02-1992, hearing DATE : 20-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farooqui for Petitioner. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nVs\nZAFAR ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 16 = 1993 SLD 16 = 1993 PTD 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) – Review of High Court Orders in References\nSection: S.66(1)\nConclusion:\nJurisdiction under S.66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, is limited to advisory opinions by the High Court. This jurisdiction does not form part of the Court's original or appellate authority, and therefore, no application for a review of an order passed in a reference is maintainable. This provision underscores the specialized and limited scope of the High Court in handling income tax references.\nCitations: Palkhivala's Commentary on the Law and Practice of Income Tax, 7th Edition, p.1148.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.122 of 1984 and C.MAs. Nos. 15 and 32 of 1992, decision dated: 12-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Applicant in person. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M/s. NA. INDUSTRIES, KARACHI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONEA, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 17 = 1993 SLD 17 = 1993 PTD 46 = (1993) 67 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Levy of Surcharge and Definition of Retained Income\nSections: S.10 & First Schedule Part III, Para A (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979); S.4 & First Schedule [amended by Ordinance II of 1978] (Finance Act, 1977)\nConclusion:\nThe provision/liability for tax qualifies as income retained for meeting working capital requirements and, as such, is excluded from the total income for calculating surcharge. This clarification aids in determining what constitutes retained income for tax purposes.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. The Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., 1988 PTD 66 fol.\n(b) Working Capital – Definition\nConclusion:\nWorking capital is defined as the difference between current assets and current liabilities, a crucial factor in evaluating financial health for taxation.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. The Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., 1988 PTD 66 ref.\n(c) Current Liabilities – Scope\nConclusion:\nThe term current liabilities includes liabilities to pay advance tax and provisions for taxation. This inclusion reflects a comprehensive approach to understanding liabilities under tax law.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. The Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., 1988 PTD 66 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10First SchedulePartIII Finance Act, 1977=4,FirstSchedule ", + "Case #": "ITR No.109 of 1987, decision dated: 29-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI MAD KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Sirajul Haque for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE 'B', KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. OF PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 18 = 1993 SLD 18 = 1993 PTD 50 = (1993) 67 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Penalty for Non-Payment of Tax and Rectification of Mistakes\nSections: Ss. 85, 91, & 156 (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979); Income Tax Rules, 1982, I.T. 30\nConclusion:\nPenalties imposed for defaults in payment of additional tax were invalid because the additional tax was computed through I.T.30, which is not considered a formal order under S.156. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) correctly deleted the penalties, emphasizing that rectification applications under S.156 must be based on valid orders.\nCitations: 1982 PTD 394 ref.\n(b) Legality of Demand Notices\nSections: Ss. 85 & 91\nConclusion:\nA demand notice must arise from a valid order. Since I.T.30 calculations do not constitute formal orders, any demand based on them is legally untenable. Without a proper demand, no default exists to justify penalties.\nCitations: 1987 PTD 249 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=85,91,156 Income Tax Rules, 1982=30 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 2055/LB to 2057/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 5-03-1992, hearing DATE : 2-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Appellant. Sarfraz Ahmad, F.CA. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 19 = 1993 SLD 19 = 1993 PTD 54 = (1993) 67 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Shops – Nature of Transaction\nSection: S.22 (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\nConclusion:\nThe case examined whether the sale of shops constructed on a residential plot constituted a trading activity. The Tribunal held that the facts demonstrated an intention to trade, as the assessee sold portions of the property to finance further construction. The proceeds from the sales supported future investments, confirming that the activity was in the nature of trade. While the assessee aimed to secure long-term investment, the transactions were deemed trading activities, emphasizing the importance of intentions and actions in tax assessments.\nCitations: 1988 PTD (Trib.) 354; 1989 PTD (Trib.) 460; 1991 PTD (Trib.) 786; PLD 1977 Lah. 753; 1990 PTD (Trib.) 671; (1980) 1 WLR 1196; (1965) 1 WLR 663 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22 ", + "Case #": "ITAs Nos.194(IB) and 195(IB) of 1989-90, decision dated: 3rd October, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MUKHTAR ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Zareen Saleem Ansari, DR for Appellant. Khalid Waheed for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 20 = 1993 SLD 20 = 1993 PTD 58 = (1993) 67 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appeal Limitation and References to High Court\nSections: Ss. 134(3), 135, & 136 (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal dismissed a departmental appeal as time-barred based on the service date of the appellate order on the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The department argued that the limitation period should be calculated from the service date on the Commissioner. The High Court held that the issue was a valid question of law requiring the Tribunal to refer the matter. This highlights procedural nuances in computing appeal limitations.\n(b) Time-Barred Appeals\nSection: S.134\nConclusion:\nAn appeal, even if time-barred, remains an appeal within the meaning of S.134(1). The dismissal of such appeals is still considered an order in appeal, emphasizing the procedural integrity of appellate processes.\nCitations: AIR 1932 PC 165; 1954 SCR 384, 388; AIR 1921 Cal. 415 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(3),135,136,136(1),134,136(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.134 of 1987, decision dated: 2-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Sirajul Haq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONEC, KARACHI\nVs\nM/s. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 21 = 1993 SLD 21 = 1993 PTD 61 = (1993) 67 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Cash Reward to Informers – Scope and Payment Structure\nConclusion:\nInformers are entitled to half the reward after assessment completion and the balance after the evaded tax is confirmed in appeal or revision. If no appeal or revision is filed, the balance is payable after establishing tax evasion.\n(b) Role of Informers and Tax Recovery\nConclusion:\nThe scheme does not mandate that tax recovery follows the information provided. Informers are rewarded for their role in detecting evasion, irrespective of immediate recovery.\n(c) Evasion vs. Avoidance – Conceptual Distinction\nConclusion:\nEvasion involves illegal methods to reduce or eliminate tax liability, constituting a breach of law. Avoidance, in contrast, uses legitimate means within the law to minimize tax obligations. The distinction ensures clarity in applying legal and moral principles to taxation.\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary; Ballentine's Law Dictionary; Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn.; The Double Day Reget's Thesaurus.\n(d) Informer's Reward and Loss Cases\nConclusion:\nInformers are not entitled to rewards when discrepancies result only in reduced losses for the assessee, as the scheme focuses on quantifiable tax evasion. Without measurable evasion, no reward is justified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=4 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 595-K and 596-K of 1990, decision dated: 25-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Muhammad Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaque Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CA. 596-K of 1990). Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in CA. No. 595-K of 1990)", + "Party Name:": "THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, Income Tax COMPANIES II, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 22 = 1993 SLD 22 = 1993 PTD 69 = (1992) 66 TAX 246 = 1993 SCMR 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Income from House Property\nSection: S. 12(3)\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held that a lessee who rebuilt a property after demolishing the original structure could not be considered the owner for tax purposes under S.12(13) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The appellant lessee had received substantial non-refundable amounts from tenants and was taxed by the Assessing Officer under S.12(13). While the High Court upheld the taxation based on ownership, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, emphasizing that ownership must be explicit and cannot be inferred solely from reconstruction. This judgment highlights the principle that tax liability must align with clear statutory definitions.\nCitations: Bechu Bai F.E. Dinshaw, Karachi v. Commissioner of Income-Tax 1967 PTD 170; S.O. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1972) 83 ITR 700; Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar v. Lawlys Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 369 rel.\n(b) Definition of 'Owner' for Tax Purposes\nSection: S. 12(13)\nConclusion:\nA lessee may be treated as the owner if ownership rights over the structure or building are vested in them, either through the lease agreement or other arrangements.\n(c) Interpretation of Tax Statutes\nConclusion:\nFiscal statutes imposing pecuniary burdens must be construed with clarity and precision. Doubts or ambiguities in taxing provisions are resolved in favor of the taxpayer, reinforcing fairness in the interpretation of tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12(3),12 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.25-K of 1992, decision dated: 21st October, 1992. (On appeal from the judgment dated 27-1-1992 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in I.T.R. No.71 of 1987), hearing DATE : 7-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq Memon, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MEHRAN ASSOCIATES LIMITED\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 23 = 1993 SLD 23 = 1993 PTD 83 = (1993) 67 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Limitation Period for Reference Applications\nSections: S. 66(1) (Income Tax Act, 1922); Ss. 136(1) & 166(2) (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal correctly applied the 60-day limitation period under S.66(1) of the repealed Income Tax Act, 1922, despite the application being filed after the promulgation of the 1979 Ordinance, which allows a 90-day period. Savings provisions under S.166(2) mandate that proceedings initiated under the repealed Act continue under its provisions, ensuring procedural continuity.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone ‘B’, Karachi v. M/s. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. 1988 PTD 227; Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.M. Naseem Allahwala 1991 PTD 843 rel.\n(b) Condonation of Delay\nConclusion:\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal lacks the discretion to condone delays in filing reference applications beyond the prescribed time.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),166(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.99 of 1984, decision dated: 12-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Ibrahim Pishori for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE C', KARACHI\nVs\nHABIB BANK LTD. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 24 = 1993 SLD 24 = 1993 PTD 85 = (1992) 66 TAX 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Exemption for Foreign Employees\nSections: S. 4(3)(ii) (Income Tax Act, 1922); Second Sched., Part I, cl. 7 (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\nConclusion:\nThe rejection of exemption applications for foreign technicians due to non-production of certificates from foreign revenue authorities was unwarranted, as neither the repealed nor the current provisions mandate such documentation. Historical acceptance of the assessee’s exemption applications further supported their validity.\nCitations: C.B.R. Circular No. 1(7)-IT-V/77, dated 5-7-1977; C.B.R. Circular No. 18 of 1986, dated 21-10-1986.\n(b) Definition of 'Approved Undertaking'\nConclusion:\nContractors or subcontractors already recognized as approved undertakings under earlier guidelines remain unaffected by subsequent restrictive conditions, reaffirming the principle of continuity in administrative classifications.\n(c) New Pleas in Constitutional Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nThe High Court declined to consider a new departmental plea regarding exemption limits, as it was not addressed in the initial proceedings.\n(d) Effect of Setting Aside Reassessment Orders\nConclusion:\nWhen reassessment orders are predicated on decisions later overturned, the entire foundation of such reassessments collapses. The reassessment orders against the assessee for the years 1982–1987 were invalidated.\nCitations: Yousuf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia PLD 1958 SC 104; Jeson International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1989 PTD 1141 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(ii),4(3)(xii) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.PartI,cl.(7) ", + "Case #": "C.P. No. 96 of 1992, decision dated: 24-09-1992. dates of hearing: 7th, 9th, 14th,15th and 16-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID C.J. AND AKHTAR ALI G. KAZI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sharif and Salim Zulfiqar Khan for Petitioner. Shaik Haider for Respondent. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, Dy. A.G. (on Notice)", + "Party Name:": "SCHLUMBERGER SEACO INC., ISLAMABAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (COMPANIES II), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 25 = 1993 SLD 25 = 1993 PTD 104 = (1992) 66 TAX 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Subsidies and Asset Cost Reduction\nConclusion:\nGovernment subsidies cannot be deducted from the actual cost of assets when computing depreciation or development rebates. Divergent views among High Courts necessitated certification for appeal to the Supreme Court.\nOutcome: Subsidies are not deductible from asset costs for tax purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 30235 and 32096 of 1989 in I.T.Rs. Nos. 152 and 153 of 1985, decision dated: 25-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " KS. PARIPOORNAN AND DJ, JAGANNADHA RAJU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nKERALA STATE DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (N0.2)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 26 = 1993 SLD 26 = 1993 PTD 110 = (1993) 67 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Conflicts in Reference Applications\nSections: Ss. 66(1) (Income Tax Act, 1922); Ss. 136(1) & 166(2) (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\nConclusion:\nDifferences in limitation periods for reference applications under the repealed Act and the new Ordinance led to conflicting High Court rulings. A larger bench was constituted to resolve the issue, ensuring uniform application of procedural laws.\nCitations: The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and another 1989 PTD 1240 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),166(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.25 of 1984, decision dated: 7-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Respondent\nWaheed Farooqui for Applicant. Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Respondent.INDUSTRIES, KARACHI", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI\nVs\nWaheed Farooqui for . Rehan Hasan Naqvi for .INDUSTRIES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 27 = 1993 SLD 27 = 1993 PTD 114 = (1992) 66 TAX 275 = 1993 PTCL 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Taxation of Income from Non-Taxable Territories\nSections: Ss. 3, 4, 4-A & 4-B (Income Tax Act, 1922)\nConclusion:\nThe assessee, despite conducting business in Swat State (a non-taxable territory), was deemed a resident of Pakistan based on their presence and property in Karachi. The Supreme Court upheld the taxation of income earned in Swat State along with property income from Karachi, highlighting the principle of sufficient territorial nexus for tax liability.\nCitations: Muhammad Hayat Khan v. Yar Muhammad Khan PLD 1966 SC 612 rel.\n(b) Residential Status\nConclusion:\nFindings of residency based on dwelling ownership and physical presence were upheld as factual determinations not open to legal challenge.\n(c) Definition of 'Total Income'\nConclusion:\n Total income encompasses all earnings attributable to a taxpayer, irrespective of the source's location, provided a sufficient nexus exists.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,4A(i)(ii),(iii) & 4B(a),66,2(15) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=223,240 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.38-K, 39-K, 40-K and 41-K of 1982 and 874-K of 1990, decision dated: 1st October, 1992 hearing DATE : 26-12-1991(On appeal from the judgment, dated 23-12-1981, of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in I.T.C. No.68/1971, 69/1971, 782/1972 and 162/1974)", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mrs. Majida Rizvi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CAs. No. 38-K to 41-K of 1982). Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by AA. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in C.As. 38-K to 41-K of 1982). Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A.Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record the Appellant (in CA. 874-K of 1990). Nasrullah Awan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Haji IBRAHIM ISHAQ JOHRI\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 28 = 1993 SLD 28 = 1993 PTD 125 = (1993) 67 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Scope of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's Powers\nSection: S. 66-A (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\nConclusion:\nInspecting Assistant Commissioners cannot invoke S.66-A in cases where assessments are based on agreements between the ITO and the assessee.\nCitations: 1988 PTD (Trib.) 222; Qamaruzzaman and another v. State PLD 1981 Lah. 543 rel.\n(b) Legitimacy of Agreed Assessments\nConclusion:\nAgreed assessments, while not explicitly provided for in the Ordinance, derive their authority from contract law, which validates agreements made under binding terms.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A,2(h) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 592/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 8-08-1992, hearing DATE : 14-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. M. Arshad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 29 = 1993 SLD 29 = 1993 PTD 147 = 1993 PTCL 357 = (1993) 67 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Simplified Assessment Procedure Scheme - Amendment of Notification\nSection: S. 59-B (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979); S. 21 (General Clauses Act, 1897)\nConclusion:\nThe Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) has the authority to amend or modify notifications under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, such power is limited by the principle of locus poenitentiae, which prevents the withdrawal of rights that have already vested. In this case, the assessee filed returns under the Simplified Assessment Procedure Scheme before the issuance of C.B.R. Circular No.19 (1988), which excluded cases of succession. The Tribunal held that vested rights under the original scheme could not be retrospectively invalidated by a subsequent amendment.\nCitations: Venktech Yesheant v. M. Preb AIR 1938 Nag. 513; Shahbaz v. The Crown PLD 1956 FC 46; Black's Law Dictionary ref.\n(b) Effect of Filing After Notification\nConclusion:\nThe assessee's returns filed after the amendment of the notification (Circular No.19) did not attract the principle of locus poenitentiae, as no vested rights existed prior to the filing. The appeal was dismissed as the amended circular applied.\n(c) History and Chronology of Simplified Assessment Procedure Scheme\nConclusion:\nThe Tribunal traced the procedural history and amendments to the Simplified Assessment Scheme, clarifying its evolution and applicability in various scenarios.\n(d) Definition of Vested Right \nConclusion:\nA vested right is a present and enforceable right, which cannot be invalidated retroactively.\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary ref.\n(e) Rule of Locus Poenitentiae\nConclusion:\nThe rule restricts administrative authorities from rescinding vested rights under amended notifications.\nCitations: Shahbaz v. The Crown PLD 1956 FC 46; Mahboob Rabbani v. The Government of West Pakistan PLD 1963 Lah. 53 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59B General Clauses Act, 1897=21 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. No.768/LB and 769/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 27-04-1992, hearing DATE : 16-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, AA. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Riaz Hussain for Appellant. Muhammad Ishaque, Legal Advisor and Afzal Naubahar Kayani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 30 = 1993 SLD 30 = 1993 PTD 162 = (1992) 196 ITR 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Delay in Filing Returns - Mens Rea Not Required\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court held that under S.271(1)(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, the department is not required to prove mens rea before imposing penalties for delayed return filings. The onus is on the assessee to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay. This decision reversed earlier rulings requiring the establishment of mens rea and reinforced the principle of strict compliance with filing deadlines.\nCitations: Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 455 (SC); CIT v. Kalyan Das Rastogi (1992) 193 ITR 713 (SC) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2626 to 2628 of 1979, decision dated: 28-04-1992. (Appeals from the judgment and order, dated May 3, 1976, of the Gujarat High Court in ITR No.24 of 1973)", + "Judge Name:": " S. MOHAN AND G.N. RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra, P. Parameswaran and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant.P.H. Parekh and Sunil Dogra, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDITIONAL)\nVs\nI.M. PATEL & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 31 = 1993 SLD 31 = 1993 PTD 167 = (1992) 196 ITR 269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains - Date of Transfer and Definition of Capital Asset\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling that agricultural land requisitioned and subsequently acquired by the government is a capital asset for tax purposes if the village population is less than 10,000 but lies within municipal limits. The transfer date for capital gains taxation is the date of publication of the acquisition notification in the Official Gazette.\nCitations: S. Hidhayathullah Sahib v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 20 (Mad.) approved; CIT (Addl.) v. G.M. Omarkhan (1979) 116 ITR 950 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2830 of 1977, decision dated: 28-08-1991. (Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 27, 1977, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R. No.18 of 1976 and C.M.P. No.9787 of 1977)", + "Judge Name:": " MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.L. Taneja and K.L. Taneja, Advocates for Appellant. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "G.M. OMER KHAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 32 = 1993 SLD 32 = 1993 PTD 188 = (1992) 197 ITR 422", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure - Betterment Charge\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court classified betterment charges paid under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, as capital expenditure. Although these charges enhanced business facilities, their direct impact on land value and absence of operational nexus with day-to-day business activities justified their classification as capital expenses.\nCitations: CIT (Addl.) v. Rohit Mills Ltd. (1976) 104 ITR 132 (Guj.); Dollar Co. v. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 455 (Mad.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1836 of 1977, decision dated: 21st July, 1992. (Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 9, 10, 1977, of the Gujarat High Court in ITR No.197 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " S. MOHAN AND GN. RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish. N. Salve, Senior Advocate with P.H. Parekh, Vibhu Bhakru and U. Sagar, Advocates for Appellant.B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate with Manoj Arora, P. Parameswaran and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ARVIND MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 33 = 1993 SLD 33 = 1993 PTD 199 = (1992) 196 ITR 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Succession vs. Change in Constitution\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that the dissolution of a firm and the formation of a new partnership constituted succession rather than a mere change in constitution. Income from two distinct periods was not clubbed, preserving the distinction between succession and continuity.\nCitations: Wazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 761 (SC); Bhausa Ganusa Pawar & Co. v. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 75 (Bom.) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.402 of 1977, decision dated: 21st January, 1992. (Appeal from the judgment and order, dated February 2, 1976 of the Gujarat High Court in ITR No. 144 of 1974)", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, V RAMASWAMI AND S. MOHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Rammurthy, Senior Advocate with Ranbir Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Appellant. Bishamber Lal Khanna and S.C. Patel, Advocates for the Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAMRITLAL NIHALCHAND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 34 = 1993 SLD 34 = 1993 PTD 206 = (1992) 66 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Application of Qanun-e-Shahadat to Tax Proceedings\nConclusion:\nIncome-tax proceedings are quasi-judicial and thus subject to the Qanun-e-Shahadat (Law of Evidence). This reinforces procedural fairness in adjudication.\n(b) Reference Questions - Purely Factual Issues Not Agitated\nConclusion:\nFactual questions, such as whether requisite copies were sent to the assessee, cannot be agitated before the High Court under S.136 of the Income Tax Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=l(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "PTRs. Nos. 12 to 20 of 1991, decision dated: 8-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ut-Din Khalid for Applicant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. RANI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 35 = 1993 SLD 35 = 1993 PTD 209 = (1993) 67 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Confidentiality and Principles of Natural Justice in Tax Proceedings\nConclusion:\nAssessing Officers must confront taxpayers with material used against them and allow rebuttal opportunities, balancing confidentiality with fairness. Reliance on parallel cases requires transparency about essential facts, ensuring that assessments are conducted equitably.\nCitations: Seth Gurmukh v. CIT, Punjab (1944) 12 ITR 393; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=150,156 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 628/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 1st December, 1992, hearing DATE : 30-11-1992.", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amin-ud-Din Ansari for Appellant. Noor Muhammad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 36 = 1993 SLD 36 = 1993 PTD 234 = (1993) 67 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes in Tax Orders\nConclusion:\nAuthorities can rectify apparent mistakes in tax orders under S.156, but they cannot reassess evidence or create new controversies. Orders passed during pending appeals or without statutory backing are void and should be ignored.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Food Laboratories 1992 PTD 570 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,132,62 ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos. 480/113 to 482/IB, 677/IB to 679/IB of 1991-92, decision dated: 26-10-1992, hearing DATE : 26-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND MUKHTAR ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sikandar Hayat Khan for the Assessee. Pervez Akhtar, D.R. for the Department", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 37 = 1993 SLD 37 = 1993 PTD 245 = (1993) 67 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income – Procedure\nSection: S. 111(2)(c), S. 13, S. 116 (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\nConclusion:\n•\nThe term “may” in S. 111(1) indicates discretion for the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to impose penalties for concealment.\n•\nPenalties cannot be automatic upon income addition under S. 13; A.O. must provide a show-cause notice and consider the assessee's explanation before deciding.\n•\nThe penalty is warranted only if it is conclusively shown that the concealment was deliberate or involved inaccurate particulars provided knowingly.\n•\nIn this case, the difference in the cost of construction estimates (Rs.200 per sq. ft. vs. Rs.150 declared) was deemed a difference of opinion, not deliberate concealment.\n•\nThe small addition (Rs.7,500) and penalty imposed (Rs.2,075) lacked material to prove intent to conceal. Hence, the penalty was canceled.\nCitations: CIT v. Khonday Eswarse 83 ITR 369 (SC); CIT v. Muhammad Haneef 83 ITR 215 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111(2)(c),111,116 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.213/LB of .1987-88, decision dated: 16-09-1992, hearing DATE : 14-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant.D.R. Bilal Khan D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 38 = 1993 SLD 38 = 1993 PTD 249 = (1993) 67 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Avoidance of Double Taxation – Relief for Exempt Income\nConclusion:\n•\nRelief under double taxation agreements must be provided even if not initially claimed by the assessee, as equity and justice require avoiding taxation of exempt income.\n•\nA.O. is obligated to apply such exemptions suo motu if applicable before finalizing assessments, especially if legal changes occur after the return filing but before assessment completion.\n•\nIn this case, the A.O. failed to grant exemption under the Philippines-Pakistan Double Taxation Agreement published after the return filing, necessitating rectification to allow the exemption.\n(b) Rectification of Errors Under S. 156\nConclusion:\n•\nS. 156 allows rectification of apparent errors in assessment orders or proceedings.\n•\nA.O. must provide reasonable opportunities to the assessee if rectification increases assessment or reduces refunds.\nCitations: In re: K.N. Oil Industries (1983) 142 ITR 13; PLD 1964 SC 410 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=156 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 2966/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 3rd December, 1992, hearing DATE : 26-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Hasan, CA. for Appellant. F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 39 = 1993 SLD 39 = 1993 PTD 254 = (1993) 67 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Proceedings for Past Assessment Years\nSection: S. 56, S. 65, S. 166 (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)\nConclusion:\n•\nProceedings for prior years can be initiated under S. 56 if the conditions in S. 65 (such as escaping income within 10 years) are met.\n•\nErrors in notices or procedural irregularities generally constitute errors in jurisdiction, not void proceedings, and are curable.\n•\nTimely completion of proceedings (within one year of initiation) is mandatory. Delayed assessments are void.\n•\nIn this case, the proceedings for certain years (1975-76 onward) met the conditions, but the assessment was invalid due to delay in completion.\nCitations: 1992 PTD (Trib.) 1587; PLD 1963 Lah. 391 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56,65,166,166(2)(c)(ii),65(1) ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos.301 (IB) to, 310 (IB) of 1991-92 and 10(IB) to 14(IB) of 1992-93, decision dated: 19-11-1992, hearing DATE : 3rd November, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idris for Appellant (in ITAs. Nos.301(IB) to 310(IB) of 1991-92). Mrs. Zareen Saleem Ansari, D.R. for Appellant (in ITAs. Nos.301(IB) to 310(IB) of 1991.-92). Mrs. Zareen Saleem Ansari, D.R. for Appellant (in ITAs. Nos.10(IB) to 14(IB) of 1992-93). Hafiz Muhammad Idris for Respondent (in ITAs. Nos.10/IB to 14/IB of 1992-93)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 40 = 1993 SLD 40 = 1993 PTD 265 = (1993) 67 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of S. 65 Notice – Reopening Finalized Assessments\nConclusion:\n•\nA finalized assessment cannot be reopened under S. 65 based solely on a differing opinion by the A.O.\n•\nThe High Court allowed withdrawal of the petition on the assurance that the A.O. would first decide the jurisdictional issue and give the assessee an opportunity to contest it.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=194 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No.951 of 1991, heard on 10-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "IMTIAZ RAFI BUTT\nVs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 41 = 1993 SLD 41 = 1993 PTD 266 = (1993) 67 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officers\nSection: S. 5(4) (Income Tax Ordinance, 1979); S. 64(3) (Income Tax Act, 1922)\nConclusion:\n•\nAn A.O. does not become defunct upon jurisdictional objections. Objections must be addressed procedurally, with hearings granted as per principles of natural justice.\n•\nChallenges to jurisdiction over assessment proceedings can be appealed, but jurisdiction to assess a person lies within administrative processes.\n(b) Natural Justice\nConclusion:\n•\nNo one can be condemned unheard, and the right to a hearing is inherent, even if not explicitly provided in the statute.\nCitations: PLD 1992 Lah. 178; Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal v. CIT (1959) 36 ITR 9 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(4),5,13(1) Income Tax Act, 1922=64(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.7/KB to 10/KB and 466/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 10-06-1992, hearing DATE : 13-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": " M. MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL M. QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Masood Ahmed Abbasi and Aqueel Ahmed Abbasi for Appellant. Humayun Zaidi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 42 = 1993 SLD 42 = 1993 PTD 290 = (1993) 67 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Non-Obstante Clauses\nConclusion:\n•\nSections or statutes beginning with a non-obstante clause override conflicting provisions.\n•\nIn the Income Tax Ordinance, provisions of Part I and Part IV of the First Schedule operate independently.\n(b) Taxation of Non-Residents\nConclusion:\n•\nNon-residents are taxed only on income earned in Pakistan, unless they opt for assessment on their total world income.\n•\nAmbiguities in tax computation for non-residents opting for world income assessment need legislative clarification.\nCitations: PLD 1976 SC 463; Province of West Pakistan v. Mahbub Ali ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIPartIV,11,FirstSched.,PartIV,Para.A(3)(a)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.66(IB) of 1991-92, decision dated: 28-10-1992, hearing DATE : 4-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Majeed, F.CA. for Appellant. Noor Muhammad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 43 = 1993 SLD 43 = 1993 PTD 299 = (1993) 67 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Concealment of Income – Prosecution\nKey Issue: Determination of mens rea in prosecution for concealment of income.\nConclusion:\n•\nProsecution for concealment of income is not automatic in cases of inaccuracies in statements.\n•\nMens rea, or intent, must be established to prove the commission of an offense.\nCitations:\nP. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal (1984) 149 ITR 696 (SC); Sant Parkash v. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 732 (P & H); Parkash Chand v. ITO (1982) 134 ITR 8 ref.\n(b) Prosecution Delay\nKey Issue: Termination of criminal proceedings due to prolonged delay.\nConclusion:\n•\nA delay of 17 years from the occurrence and 8 years from acquittal justifies termination of proceedings.\nCitations:\nS. Guin v. Grindlays Bank Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 289 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.428-DBA of 1983, decision dated: 29-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " S.D.BAJAJ AND HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Mittal and S.G. Sandhawalia for Appellant. Raj Mohan Singh for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nVs\nRULIA RAM DEWAN CHAND THANESAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 44 = 1993 SLD 44 = 1993 PTD 302 = (1993) 67 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Concealment of Income – Penalty\nKey Issue: Burden of proof in penalties for deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal erred in canceling the penalty without considering detailed reasons provided by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.\n•\nFindings in quantum appeals, assessee's inconsistent explanations, and conduct are critical considerations for penalty cases.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC); D.M. Manasvi v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC); L.K. Shaik Mohd. Bross v. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 808 (Mad.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.17 of 1981, decision dated: 7-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " S.C AGRAWAL AND MRS. MOHINI KAPUR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Sighal for Applicant. V.K. Sighal for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nCHANDI PRASAD KHAITAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 45 = 1993 SLD 45 = 1993 PTD 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customer Deposits – Taxability\nKey Issue: Classification of customer deposits as taxable income for an electric company.\nConclusion:\n•\nDeposits obtained to secure future bill payments are loans, not advance payments, and are therefore not taxable as income.\n(b) Distinction Between Deposits, Advance Payments, and Loans\nConclusion:\n•\nDeposits are meant to secure obligations, loans are repayable with interest, and advance payments are prepayments for services.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "493 US 203, 107 L ED 2d 591, 110 S Ct 589 (No.88-1319), decision dated: 9-01-1990, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " BLACKMUN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Lawrence G. Wallace for Petitioner. Larry J. Stroble for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE\nVs\nINDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 46 = 1993 SLD 46 = 1993 PTD 323 = (1992) 197 ITR 703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVmTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Statute-Barred Assessments\nKey Issue: Whether the Commissioner’s initial determinations constitute assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1976.\nConclusion:\n•\nInitial determinations, even if no tax was payable, are assessments.\n•\nSubsequent assessments after the statutory limitation period are invalid.\nCitations:\nBetagol v. Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 109 C.L.R. 243; Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Grover (1987) 2 N.Z.L.R. 736 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1976=19,25(1) ", + "Case #": "May 20, 21/June 19,1991 (Appeal from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand)", + "Judge Name:": " LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD TEMPLEMAN, LORD, JAUNCEY OF TULLICHETTLE, SIR ROBERT MEGARRY AND SIR DAVID CROOM-JAHNSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sydney Kentridge O. C. and David Simcock (of the New Zealand Bar) for the taxpayer. P.J.H.Jenkin O.C. and Grant Pearson (both of the New Zealand Bar) for the Commissioner. Cur. Adv. vult. Solicitors. Linklaters and Paines; Allen and Overy.", + "Party Name:": "LLOYDS BANK EXPORT FINANCE LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 47 = 1993 SLD 47 = 1993 PTD 332 = (1993) 67 TAX 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Stay Orders – Validity\nConclusion:\n•\nStay orders take effect immediately upon issuance, and actions taken thereafter are nullities.\nCitations:\nHaji Abdul Jalil v. Javed Ahmad 1983 SCMR 869 ref.\n(b) Self-Assessment Scheme – Immunity from Audit\nKey Issue: Consequences of non-compliance by tax authorities.\nConclusion:\n•\nFailure of the Income Tax Officer to act within the statutory period under the Self-Assessment Scheme grants immunity to the assessee from normal audit.\nCitations:\nNagina Silk Mill v. ITO PLD 1963 SC 322; Chapal Builders v. ITO 1990 PTD 62 ref.\n(c) Constitutional Petition\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Courts can intervene where discretionary powers are exercised arbitrarily by tax authorities.\nCitations:\nHamdard Dawakhana v. CIT 1990 PTD 955 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(4),61,59 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4547 of 1990, decision dated: 7-12-1992, hearing DATE : 2-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 48 = 1993 SLD 48 = 1993 PTD 343 = (1992) 66 TAX 140 = 1993 PTCL 692", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Leave to Appeal – Public Importance\nConclusion:\n•\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to decide the interpretation of retained income for surcharge levy.\n(b) Nature of Payments Under S.18-A\nConclusion:\n•\nPayments under S.18-A are prepayments to the Central Government and not actual taxes until assessed.\nCitations:\nM/s. Novitas International v. ITO 1991 PTD 968 ref.\n(c) Retained Income – Levy of Surcharge\nConclusion:\n•\nAmounts set aside for future tax liabilities are retained income and can be included in computing working capital for surcharge purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A,53 Finance Act, 1977=ScheduleI,PartIII ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 325-K of 1990, dates of hearing: 18th and 19-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J, NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaik Haider and Nasarullah Awan, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all appeals).\nSirajul Haq Memon, Advocate Supreme. Court instructed by N.C. Motiani, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents (in C.As.Nos.527-K, 651-K, 668-K of 1990 and 147-K of 1991).\nKhalifa Salah-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents (in C.As.Nos. 325-K, 326-K, 528-K, 529-K, 652-K, 685-K, 812-K of 1990, 72-K, 131-K, 133-K, 134-K and 204-K of 1991).\nKazmi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record‘ for Respondents (in C.As.Nos. 530-K and 677-K of 1990).\nRehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents (in CAs. Nos. 655-K and 686-K of 1990).\nR.F. Virji, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in CA. Nos. 664-K of 1990)..\nA.A. Sharif, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Naim Advocate Supreme Court and AA. Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 666-K, 654-K and 817-K of 1990).\nIqbal Nairn Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 653-K. and 831-K, 832-K, 859-K, 554-K of 1990 and 186-K of 1991).\nMansoor Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C-As. Nos. 805-K and 868-K of 1990).\nIqbal Naim Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in CA. No. 179-K of 1991).\nFatehali W. Vellani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in CA. Nos. 244-K of 1991).\nNasim Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents (in CA. No. 230-K of 1991).\nShaik Haider and Nasarullah Hussain, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all the Petitions).\nMansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos. 48-K and 89-K of 1992).\nFatehali W. Velliani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents (in C.P. No. 134-K of 1992).\nM/s. FORBES FORBES CAMPBELL AND CO. LTD.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs.\nM/s. HABIB SUGAR MILLS LTD\nCivil Appeal No.326-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. JAMIA INDUSTRIES LTD\nCivil Appeal No.526-K of 10\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMARITIME TRADING CORPORATION\nCivil Appeal No.527-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PASHTANY FARWARDING CO. LTD.; KARACHI\nCivil Appeal No.528-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BEECHAM (PAKISTAN) LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.529-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. HOECHST PHARMACEUTICAL PAKISTAN LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.530-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. CYNAMID (PAKISTAN) LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.554-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCHEMDYES PAKISTAN LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.604-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. CRESCENT CORPORATION LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.648-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY\nCivil Appeal No.649-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. IDEAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.650-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. W. WOODWARD (PAK) LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.651-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. FACTO. SUGAR MILLS LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.652-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. HOECHST (PAKISTAN) LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.653-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MULLER AND PHIPPS (PAK.) LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.654-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BAYER PHARMA LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.655-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. HYDERI INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.656-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. WILLAYAT SONS LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.657-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. GRINDWHEEL (PAK.) LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.658-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BAWANY SUGAR MILLS LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.659-K of 1\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SPENCER AND COMPANY (PAK.) LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.660-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MUSLIM COMMERCIAL AGENCY LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.661-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MODerN MOTORS LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.662-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.663-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. OPAL LABORATORIES LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.664-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. FORBES FORBES CAMPBELL AND CO. LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.665-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. CENTRAL MERCANTILE COMPANY LTD.\nCivil Anneal No.666-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. LUCAS SERVICES (PAK.) LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.667-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SHAHBAZ GARMENTS LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.668-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SUPREME ENGINEERING LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No 669-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCHARTERED BANK LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.670-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCHARTERED BANK LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No. 671-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. HUSSAIN EBRAHIM AGENCY LTD.\nCivil Appeal No 672-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONFER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. GLOBAL TRADERS LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.673-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONPIR OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. ASBESTOS CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD.\nvs\nM/s. PAKIMEX LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.675-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BURMAH OIL MILLS LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.676-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKARACHI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.677-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCYNAMID PAKISTAN LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.678-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.679-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.680-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMETAL INDUSTRIES LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.681-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. EASTERN ENTERPRISES LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.682-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. GERRY‘S TRAVEL AGENCY LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.683-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SIKANDAR LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.684-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. R. LINTAS LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.685-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAK. CHEMICALS LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.686-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. FEEDAI AGENCIES LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.687-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. R.B. INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.805-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. WOOD WARDS PAKISTAN LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.812-K f 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS LIMITED.\nCivil Appeal No.813-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. INTER AGENCIES LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.814-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. ORIENTAL INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD\nCivil Appeal No.815-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. CITI BANK, N.A. KARACHI\nCivil Appeal No 816-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MERCANTILE FINANCE CORPORATION .LTD, \nCivil Appeal No.817-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAK OCEAN SHIPPING CO.\nCivil Appeal No.831-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. EXXON CHEMICAL (PAK.) LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.832-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. EXXON CHEMICAL (PAK.) LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.859-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. EXXON CHEMICAL (PAK.) LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.868-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BOOTS COMPANY PAKISTAN LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.72-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BANK OF TOKYO LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.131-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAK. CHEMICAL LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.132-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. ALGEMENE BANK NETHERLAND (NA.)\nCivil Appeal No.133-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAKISTAN CABLES LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.134-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAKISTAN CABLES LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No 147-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MUGHAL TOBACCO CO. LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.179-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. LEVER BROS. PAKISTAN LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.183-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SHAHAB INDUSTRIES LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.184-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. JAFFAR BROS. LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.185-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SHAHAB INDUSTRIES LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.186-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. GRINDWHEEL PAK. LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.201-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MONOTYPE CORPORATION\nCivil Appeal No 203-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PREMIER OIL CO. LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.204-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BROOKE BOND PAKISTAN LTD.\nCivil Appeal No.209-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. FATEH ALLY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES\nCivil Appeal No.114-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAKISTAN OXYGEN LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.230-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. CITI BANK NA.\nCivil Anneal No.239-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. EASTERN ART LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No.244-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\n(Sic)\nCivil Appeal No.326-K of 1991\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SECURITY PAPER LIMITED\nCivil No.36-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAKISTAN PETROLIUM LTD.\nCivil No.45-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. INTERNATIONAL TANK TERMINAL LTD.\nCivil No.46-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MOGHAL TOBACCO CO. PAKISTAN LTD.\nCivil No.47-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. ASPRO NICHOLAS PAKISTAN LTD.\nCivil No.48-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BOOTS CO. (PAKISTAN) LTD.\nCivil No.49-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS\nCivil No.50-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. FATEHALLY CHEMICALS LTD.\nCivil No.51-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. METALEX CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No. 52-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BENGAL VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES LTD.\nCivil No.66-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nAWAMI AUTOS LTD.\nCivil No.67-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BAWANY SUGAR MILLS LTD.\nCivil No.68-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. NAYA DAUR MOTORS LTD\nCivil No.69-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. EXXON CHEMICAL (PAKISTAN) LTD.\nCivil No.75-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. NORINPACE LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.76-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nTHE INDUSTRIAL AIR CONTROL LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.77-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. METROPOLITAN AGENCIES LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No 78-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAKISTAN VITAMIN PRODUCTS LTD.\nCivil No 79-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. HOMIE JAMSHED NASSERWANJEE LTD.\nCivil No 81-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MECO SALES LIMITED, KARACHI\nCivil No 82-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MUGHAL TOBACCO CO. LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.83-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MAKERWAL COLLIERIES LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.84-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO., LTD.\nCivil No.88-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MARCK SHARP & DHOME (PAKISTAN) LTD.\nCivil No.89-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. GUEST KEEN AND NETTLE FOLDS IN PAKISTAN, LTD.\nCivil No.90-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. I.C.I. PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No 93-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. E.M.I. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.94-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MUHAHID INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.98-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAKISTAN BURMAH, SHELL LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.99-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. DADABHOY CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD.\nCivil No.106-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. BEECHAM PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.117-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. FREYSINET (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.118-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SERVICE AND SALE (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.119-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. SHAMS TRADING COMPANY LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.120-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAK CHEMICAL LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.122-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. MAY & BAKERS LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.123-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. F.D. METTA & CO. LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.133-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. INLAND TRADING CORPORATON LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.134-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.136-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. COMMODITIES TRADING LTD., KARACHI\nCivil No.147-K of 1992\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nM/s. PAKISTAN AUTOMOBILE CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 49 = 1993 SLD 49 = 1993 PTD 374", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Commissioner’s Authority to Request Information\nKey Issue: Whether the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had statutory authority to require information on unidentified taxpayers.\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 17(1) of the Inland Revenue Department Act, 1974, allows the Commissioner to request information on potential taxpayers.\n•\nThis authority includes unnamed or unidentified classes of taxpayers, provided the information is necessary for tax administration and enforcement.\nCitations:\nClinch v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1974) QB 76 applied.\n(b) Right to Be Secure Against Unreasonable Search\nKey Issue: Whether requiring such information infringes on taxpayers' rights under Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Commissioner’s actions were not deemed unreasonable.\n•\nCollecting such data does not violate the right to security against unreasonable search or seizure.\nCitations:\nAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223 cited.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "Appeal from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, decision dated: 1st July, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD BRANDON OF OAKBROOK LORD TEMPLEMAN, LORD OLIVER OF AYLMERTON AND SIR ROBERT MEGARRY", + "Lawyer Name:": "George Barton Q. C., R. A. Dobson and R.J. Cullen (all of the New Zealand Bar) for Plaintiffs. J.J. McGrath Q. C., SG., New Zealand, Grant Pearson and Angela Satterthwaite (all of the New Zealand Bar) for the Commissioner Cur. Adv. volt", + "Party Name:": "NEW ZEALAND STOCK EXCHANGE and another Vs COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 50 = 1993 SLD 50 = 1993 PTD 383 = (1993) 67 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Leave to Appeal for Deduction Under S.10(2)(xvi)\nKey Issue: Whether deductions claimed under Section 10(2)(xvi) are legitimate for technical assistance fees.\nConclusion:\n•\nLarger payments due to currency devaluation are allowable as permissible deductions.\nCitations:\nRadio Picture Limited v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue 22 Tax Cases 106 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185.3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 722-K of 1990, decision dated: 18th January 1993. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-1-1989 of the Sindh High Court, Karachi in Civil Reference No.25 of 1979)", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM HASAN SHAH, AJMAL MIAN AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaik Haider, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES II, Income Tax BUILDING, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 51 = 1993 SLD 51 = 1993 PTD 386 = (1993) 67 TAX 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation for Dissolved and Reconstituted Firms\nKey Issue: Allocation of depreciation for firms dissolved and reconstituted within the same assessment year.\nConclusion:\n•\nDepreciation should be allowed for each period as a separate entity rather than as a combined single unit.\nCitations:\nRivoli Theatres v. CIT 1971 SCMR 621; CIT v. S.K. Sahana & Sons AIR 1946 Pat. 414 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=10(2)(vi) Income Tax Rules, 1922=R.9 ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No.25 of 1979, decision dated: I5-02-1993, hearing DATE : 19-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " IRSHAD HASAN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Syed Zameer Tirmizey for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE (NOW AT MULTAN)\nVs\nMessrs FIVE STAR CALICO, PRINTING WORKS, LYALLPUR (NOW FAISALABAD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 52 = 1993 SLD 52 = 1993 PTD 392 = (1993) 67 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Refund of Taxes in Time-Barred Assessments\nKey Issue: Whether taxes paid as advance tax or deducted at source can be refunded when regular assessments are annulled or time-barred.\nConclusion:\n•\nTaxes collected through advance tax or self-assessment remain valid even if regular assessments are time-barred or annulled.\n•\nThe refund is not automatically granted unless excess payment is proved.\nCitations:\nAssistant Collector of Central Excise v. National Tobacco Co. AIR 1972 SC 2563 ref.\n(b) Liability for Tax Based on Declared Income\nKey Issue: When does the liability to pay tax arise?\nConclusion:\n•\nLiability arises as soon as tax rates are enacted, not contingent on the completion of assessment.\nCitations:\nBaroda Board and Paper Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1976) 102 ITR 153 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 6656 of 1987 and connected Special Civil Applications Nos. 1638 of 1980, 5944 of 1987 and 7835 of 1988, decision dated: 28-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " R.C. MANKAD ACTG. C.J., S.B. MAJMUDAR AND R.K ABICHANDANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.M. Thakore, Advocate-General and K.H. Kaji for the Petitioner (in S.CA. No. 6656 of 1987).K.H. Kaji for Petitioner (in S.CA. No. 5944 of 1987). J.P. Shah for Petitioner (in S.CA. No. 1638 of 1980). K.C. Patel for Petitioner (in S.CA. No. 7835 of 1988).Mihir J. Thakore instructed by M.R. Bhatt for R.P. Bhatt & Co. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SAURASHTRA CEMENT AND CHEMICAL INDSUTRIES LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 53 = 1993 SLD 53 = 1993 PTD 418 = (1992) 194 ITR 581 = (1993) 67 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation – Extra Shift Allowance\nKey Issue: Application of extra shift allowance to plant and machinery.\nConclusion:\n•\nExtra shift allowance applies to the entire plant and machinery used by the concern, regardless of the number of days each machine operates in double or triple shifts.\nCitations:\nCBDT Letter No. 10/83/69-II(A-II), dated 28-9-1970.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.12 of 1980, decision dated: 14-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. MANKAD AND R. K ABICHANDANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.J. Shelat, instructed by R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner J.P. Shah for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTRANSPEK INDUSTRY PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 54 = 1993 SLD 54 = 1993 PTD 420 = (1992) 194 ITR 282 = (1993) 67 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Doubtful Loans – Accrual of Income\nKey Issue: Whether interest on doubtful loans is includible in income when suits for recovery are pending.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest does not accrue during the pendency of suits since awarding of such interest is at the discretion of the Court.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Naskarpara Jute Mills Co. (1983) 141 ITR 384 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.1083 of 1978 connected with Income-tax Reference No.106 of 1979, decision dated: 14-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND S.R SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 55 = 1993 SLD 55 = 1993 PTD 425 = (1965) 56 ITR 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Capital for Business Property\nKey Issue: Whether interest paid on the instalments for the purchase of property used in business is allowable as a deduction under Sections 10(2)(iii) and 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest is not deductible unless it is incurred as part of an integrated scheme for carrying on the business.\n•\nIf the property is acquired more in the capacity of an owner than as a trader, the interest paid is not allowable under either provision.\nCitations:\nMetro Theatres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1946) 14 ITR 638 applied; State of Madras v. Coelho (1964) 53 ITR 186 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii),10(2)(xv) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1964, decision dated: 7-10-1964", + "Judge Name:": " J.M. SHELAT, C.J. AND P.N. BHAGWATI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.M. Thakore, Advocate-General with M.M. Thakore and M.G. Doshit for the Commissioner. I.M. Nanavati for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, GUJARAT\nVs\nSANDESH LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 56 = 1993 SLD 56 = 1993 PTD 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Cash Reward to Informers Scheme, 1974\nKey Issue: Interpretation and scope of the scheme rewarding informers of tax evasion.\nConclusion:\n•\nRewards are based on the quantification of tax evaded, not merely on information provided.\n•\nInformation must lead to assessment quantifying the tax sought to be evaded.\nCitations:\nAruna v. State of Mairas 55 ITR 642; Latilla v. IR 11 ITR Suppl. 78 (HL) ref.\n(b) Evasion in Taxation Laws\nKey Issue: Difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax evasion involves illegal manipulation to reduce or eliminate tax liability, while tax avoidance uses lawful methods to minimize tax.\nCitations:\nBlack's Law Dictionary; Howard v. IR 25 TC 121 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 595-K and 596-K of 1990, decision dated: 25-10-1992 hearing DATE : 25-10-1992(On appeal from the judgment dated 8-11-1989 passed by the Sindh High Court, Karachi, in C.P. No.293 of 1989)", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in CA. No. 595-K of 1990).S. Muhammad Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court with Akhlaque Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CA. No. 596-K of 1990).Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES II, KARACHI and others\nVs\nS. SULTAN ALI JEOFFREY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 57 = 1993 SLD 57 = 1993 PTD 452 = (1993) 67 TAX 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Prosecution for Alleged Tax Evasion\nKey Issue: Whether proceedings for tax evasion can be quashed based on a lack of detailed proof.\nConclusion:\n•\nIf the complaint provides prima facie evidence of the alleged offense, prosecution cannot be quashed.\n•\nDetailed proof is to be examined during the trial.\nCitations:\nS. Vaidyanathan, I.T.O. v. Dr. B. Mathuram and Sons (1989) 179 ITR 463 (Mad.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.M. Petitions Nos.9493 and 9495 of 1986, decision dated: 4-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " ARUNACHALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramachandran with K. Sridhar and Kumar for Petitioner. K. Ramaswami for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "S.P. MURUGAPPAN\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 58 = 1993 SLD 58 = 1993 PTD 459 = (1993) 67 TAX 174 = 1993 SCMR 1276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Reference Applications in Tax Matters\nKey Issue: Whether the extended limitation period under Section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, applies to cases initiated under the repealed Income Tax Act, 1922.\nConclusion:\n•\nProcedural laws have retrospective application; hence, the extended limitation under the Ordinance applies unless the limitation had already expired under the earlier law.\nCitations:\nS.M. Junaid v. President of Pakistan PLD 1981 SC 12 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),136(1)(2),166(2),1662(a),(i) ", + "Case #": "(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 4-11-1987 passed in ITR No.40/84 and ITR No.43/84)hearing DATE : 21st April, 1992 Civil Appeals Nos.261-K, 262-B of 1990 and 231-K, 205-K of 1991, decision dated: 11-01-1993, hearing DATE : 21st April, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaik Haider, Advocate instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CA. No. 261-K of 1990).\nShaik Haider, Advocate instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CA. No. 262-K of 1990).\nS.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CAs. Nos.231-K and 205-K of 1991).\nSirajul Haq Memon, Advocate for Respondent (in C.As. Nos.261-K and 262-K of 1990).\nM.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in CA. No. 231-K of 1991).\nA. S. K. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record. for Respondent (in CA. No. 205-K of 1991).", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nVs\nM/s. ASBESTOS CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KARACHI\nCivil Appeal No.231-K of 1991\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES III, KARACHI\nVs\nM/s. INTERNATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI\nCivil Appeal No 205-K of 1991\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES II, KARACHI\nVs\nM/s. STERLING PRODUCTS PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 59 = 1993 SLD 59 = 1993 PTD 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debt and Business Deductions\nKey Issues:\n(a) Deduction for Bad Debts: A debt cannot be written off until litigation concludes.\n(b) Time-Barred Debts: Deduction is allowed for irrecoverable debts if no legal remedies exist.\nCitations:\n1965 PTD 515; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Bank Limited ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xi),10(4)(d),6,10(2)(iii) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.1435/KB of 1973-74, decision dated: 25th November 1974", + "Judge Name:": " M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND M.Z FARRUKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "MA. Noorani, I.T.P. for Appellant. Miss Razia Bano, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 60 = 1993 SLD 60 = 1993 PTD 471", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Assets and Dividend Income\nKey Issue: Whether gains from the sale of assets and dividend income are taxable under the same provisions.\nConclusion:\n•\nStock-in-trade is not a capital asset; its gains fall under Section 12-B, while income from dividends is assessed under Section 10.\nCitations: None explicitly noted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(4A) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.802(KB) to 806(KB) of 1978-79, decision dated: 5-03-1979", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. DARESHANI, PRESIDENT AND AA. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Feroz Shah, D.R. for Appellant. K. Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 61 = 1993 SLD 61 = 1993 PTD 472 = (1993) 67 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Treatment for Public Companies\nKey Issue: Whether a corporate body owned 60% by a provincial government qualifies as a public company for tax purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nCorporate bodies with at least 50% government ownership are public companies under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nCitations:\nITA No.4509(LB) of 1986-87 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.I,PartIV,Para.B(2)(a),23(1)(xvui),23(1)(vii)(xviii) General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997=3(21) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.9961/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 6-02-1993, hearing DATE : 17-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Shuja Khan, Naeem, Advocate Akhtar CA. and Muhammad Khalid, Advocate for Appellant. Ilyas Khan, CA., Munir A. Sheikh, IAC/DR and Abid Hussain, ITO for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 62 = 1993 SLD 62 = 1993 PTD 508 = (1973) 28 TAX 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction in Tax Assessments\nKey Issue: Validity of assessments made by an officer without jurisdiction.\nConclusion:\n•\nObjections to jurisdiction must be referred to the Commissioner.\n•\nAssessments made without resolving jurisdictional disputes are unsustainable.\nCitations: None explicitly noted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=64(3),66,33 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No.118 of 1972, decision dated: 26-01-1973", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Lone for the Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nVs\nMalik ABDUL KARIM TRANSPORT CO. LTD., GUJRAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 63 = 1993 SLD 63 = 1993 PTD 511 = (1993) 67 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Interest on Borrowed Capital\nKey Issue: Admissibility of interest deduction under Sections 23(1)(vii) and (xviii) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\n•\nDeduction is allowed only if the borrowed funds are used for business purposes and not for acquiring capital assets.\nCitations:\nAssam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)(vii)(xviii) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.809/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 20-01-1993hearing DATE : 12-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehtab Ahmed Khan, I.T.P. for Appellant. Noor Muhammad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 64 = 1993 SLD 64 = 1993 PTD 518 = (1991) 190 ITR 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Ownership of Assets\nKey Issue: Whether an assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, without being the owner of the asset.\nConclusion:\n•\nDepreciation is admissible only when the assessee is the owner of the asset. Ownership is a necessary condition precedent for claiming this benefit.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 191 of 1979, decision dated: 23rd January, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND G.D. DUBE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUNITED MOTOR TRANSPORT SERVICE ASSOCIATION\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUNITED MOTOR TRANSPORT SERVICE ASSOCIATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 65 = 1993 SLD 65 = 1993 PTD 520 = (1991) 190 ITR 24 = (1993) 67 TAX 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court for Common Legal Questions\nKey Issue: Whether a single reference application is maintainable for common legal questions arising from a single appellate order concerning different assessment years or parties.\nConclusion:\n•\nA single reference application is maintainable if common questions of law arise from one order by the Tribunal, irrespective of whether it pertains to multiple years or parties.\nCitations:\nCIT v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (1975) 99 ITR 552 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.169 of 1989, decision dated: 22-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL, MRS. SUNANDA BHANDARE AND MRS. SANTOSH DUAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S. Syali, Satyen Sethi and Ms. S. Mathur for the Petitioner. B. Gupta and R.C. Pandey for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KUSUM ANSAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 66 = 1993 SLD 66 = 1993 PTD 580 = (1993) 67 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Notice of Increased Tax Liability\nKey Issue: Whether the affected party must be given an opportunity to be heard before an order increasing tax liability is passed under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\n•\nNo order increasing tax liability can be passed without giving the affected parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard.\n(b) Objection to Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\n•\nObjections to jurisdiction must be raised before the authority exercising the power.\n(c) Speaking Order Requirement\nConclusion:\n•\nCommissioners must issue a speaking order addressing jurisdictional objections after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.\n(d) Judicial Review of Commissioner’s Order\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Commissioner’s order is subject to judicial review if the petition for review is maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156(1)(2),156 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3218 of 1992, heard on 19-01-1993hearing DATE : 19-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram and Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SHEIKHUPURA FEEDS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (COMPANIES), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 67 = 1993 SLD 67 = 1993 PTD 582 = (1993) 67 TAX 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Refunds and Compensation for Delays\nKey Issue: Whether an assessee is entitled to compensation for delays in receiving refunds.\nConclusion:\n•\nUnder Section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the assessee is entitled to compensation at 15% per annum for delayed refunds. This provision is self-executory and does not require additional directives.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11290 of 1992, heard on 26-01-1993hearing DATE : 26-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fayyaz Ahmad Ch. for Petitioner\nNemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NOOR AND SONS\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 68 = 1993 SLD 68 = 1993 PTD 623 = (1993) 67 TAX 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Certified Copies in Reference Applications\nKey Issue: Whether failure to file a certified copy of the Appellate Tribunal’s order invalidates a reference application.\nConclusion:\n•\nFiling certified copies is not mandatory under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, unless explicitly required by law.\n(b) Reassessment Without Limitation\nConclusion:\n•\nIn the absence of a limitation period, reassessments under Sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, can be made at any time.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22(4),23(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,135 ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 39 of 1988, decision dated: 23rd February, 1993hearing DATE : 21st February, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " IRSHAD HASAN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaque for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CH. MUHAMMAD DIN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ZONE B', LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 69 = 1993 SLD 69 = 1993 PTD 627 = (1993) 67 TAX 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Appeal Rights\nKey Issue: Whether an assessee who invokes revisional jurisdiction can later assert their right to appeal.\nConclusion:\n•\nWaiving the right to appeal by invoking revision bars the assessee from subsequently asserting that right.\nCitations:\nMrs. Shama Ahsan v. Province of Sindh PLD 1984 Kar. 195 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,138 ", + "Case #": "MA. (EH) No.106/KB, TTA No.8121/KB and ITA No.8122/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 30-11-1992 hearing DATE : 22-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASIM SABIR SYED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant. Israr Rauf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 70 = 1993 SLD 70 = 1993 PTD 635 = (1992) 65 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Certified Copy in Reference Applications\nKey Issue: Maintainability of a reference application without a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.\nConclusion:\n•\nFiling a certified copy is mandatory under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and its absence renders the application invalid.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi v. Mian Javid A. Sheikh 1989 PTD 525 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.109 of 1973, decision dated: 10-02-1991 hearing DATE : 10-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Applicant\nNemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nVs\nFAZAL MUHAMMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 71 = 1993 SLD 71 = 1993 PTD 637 = (1993) 67 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Minimum Tax under Section 80-D\nKey Issue: Applicability of minimum tax on aggregate turnover.\nConclusion:\n•\nMinimum tax under Section 80-D is applicable when tax paid is less than 0.5% of total turnover from all sources. Tax on specific blocks of income (e.g., Section 80-C) must also be considered to determine the applicability.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D.80C,80D(1) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 805/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 20-10-1992 hearing DATE : 17-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Musharraf Akhund, D.R. for Appellant. Abdul Aziz for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 72 = 1993 SLD 72 = 1993 PTD 678 = (1992) 194 ITR 442 = (1993) 67 TAX 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Applicable Law\nKey Issue: Applicability of penalty provisions based on the law in force at the time of initiation.\nConclusion:\n•\nProcedural laws, including those governing penalty, apply retrospectively. Penalty proceedings initiated after amendments are subject to the amended law.\nCitations:\nBrig Mohan v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 980 of 1978, decision dated: 19-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND S.R SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "RAMPUR FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 73 = 1993 SLD 73 = 1993 PTD 685 = (1993) 67 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit for Installed Machinery\nKey Issue: Timing of tax credit for machinery installation under Section 107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax credit is available only in the year of machinery installation. Excess credit can be carried forward but only applies to the year of installation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107(5),107,107(3),65 ", + "Case #": "ITAS Nos.57/KB to 61/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 17-12-1992, hearing DATE : 14-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ibrahim Dahudwala, CA. for Appellant. Naseer Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 74 = 1993 SLD 74 = 1993 PTD 689 = (1993) 67 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment and Deemed Income\nKey Issue: Conditions for selecting a case for audit under the Self-Assessment Scheme.\nConclusion:\n•\nSuspicion of understatement of income, based on material evidence, is sufficient for audit selection. Deemed income from understated property investment must be assessed in the year of purchase.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,62,59 ", + "Case #": "MA. (Stay) No.7/KB, and I. T. As. Nos. 7310/KB and 7311/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 17-01-1993 hearing DATE : 13-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid for Appellant. Naseer Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 75 = 1993 SLD 75 = 1993 PTD 697 = (1991) 64 TAX 116 = (1993) 67 TAX 222 = 1993 SCMR 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Review of Assessment under Section 65\nKey Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in invoking Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for items overlooked by the Assessing Officer despite all relevant information being available.\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 65 cannot be invoked if the Income Tax Officer consciously applied his mind to all facts and concluded the assessment. This section applies only to unconscious omissions or newly discovered facts.\nCitation: Edulji Dinshaw Limited v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1990 SC 399.\n(b) Definition of Perquisites \nKey Issue: Interpretation of perquisites in light of Sections 23 and 24 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe term perquisites includes benefits like rent-free accommodation, concessions, and employer contributions toward insurance or annuities. Claims must be thoroughly reviewed by the department.\nAnalysis: The department is the proper forum for fact-checking claims under the Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,23,24,16(2) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.120-K and 121-K of 1991, decision dated: 3rd June, 1992 hearing DATE : 3rd June, 1992(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 31-1-1991 passed in C.P. No.D-1044 and C.P. No.1045 of 1989)", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH AND SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq Memon, Advocate Supreme Court and Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate- on-Record for Appellants. Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 76 = 1993 SLD 76 = 1993 PTD 702 = (1993) 67 TAX 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Retrospective Application of Legal Fictions\nKey Issue: Can legal fictions in tax law be applied retrospectively?\nConclusion:\n•\nLegal fictions cannot be applied retrospectively unless explicitly stated by the law.\n(b) Definition of Body Corporate \nKey Issue: What constitutes a body corporate ?\nConclusion:\n•\nA body corporate is an association of persons formed under law with separate legal status, perpetual succession, and the ability to sue or be sued.\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary; Wharton's Law Lexicon.\n(c) Modarabas as Companies\nKey Issue: Whether Modarabas qualify as companies under the Income Tax Ordinance before the 1992 amendments.\nConclusion:\n•\nModarabas were treated as companies (bodies corporate) under the Modaraba Ordinance even before the 1992 amendment and enjoyed corresponding tax exemptions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,cl.116,S.2(16)(cc) Companies Ordinance, 1984=2(4) ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 8095/KB and M.A.No. 8/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 26-12-1992 hearing DATE : 9-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akber G. Merchant, CA. and Miss Yasmeen Ajani, CA. for Appellant. Musharraf Akhund, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 77 = 1993 SLD 77 = 1993 PTD 717 = (1993) 68 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Limitation on Assessment\nKey Issue: Whether the Income Tax Officer’s inclusion of an overlooked accounting period was time-barred.\nConclusion:\n•\nInclusion was not time-barred since objections to limitation were not pressed before the Tribunal, and the return for the omitted period was processed according to law.\n(b) Premature Assessment under Section 25\nKey Issue: Scope of Section 25 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, regarding premature assessments.\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 25 allows assessments for periods up to the discontinuance of a business, even before the completion of the accounting year. This provision is an exception to the general rule of annual assessments.\nCitations: CIT v. Surinivasan and Gopalan (1958) 23 ITR 87 (CS).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34(2),25(1),25,3 ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No. 119 of 1974, decision dated: 24-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " IRSHAD HASAN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadir for Applicant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs TUFAIL MUHAMMAD & BROTHERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI, ZONE, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 78 = 1993 SLD 78 = 1993 PTD 722 = (1993) 67 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interest on Borrowed Funds\nKey Issue: Deductibility of interest on borrowed funds used for business operations in Pakistan.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest deductions require compliance with Section 50, including tax deduction at source, unless explicitly exempt.\n(b) Definition of Paid \nKey Issue: Interpretation of paid in accounting.\nConclusion:\n•\n Paid includes actual payment or amounts recorded in accordance with the accounting method employed by the assessee.\n(c) Interrelation of Sections 23 and 50\nConclusion:\n•\nClaims under Section 23 must comply with Section 50, and these sections influence each other in determining allowable deductions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50,23(1)(xx),Explanation(b),18,24,31,50(3),23(1)(vii) ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos. 1449/KB, 1450/KB, 1451/KB of 1985-86, 4263/KB, 4264/KB of 1987-88, 230/KB, 72/KB of 1989-90 and 1395/KB of 1990-91, decision dated: hearing DATE : 9-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Appellant. Naseer Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 79 = 1993 SLD 79 = 1993 PTD 728 = (1993) 67 TAX 398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Jurisdiction in Appeals\nKey Issue: Can jurisdictional challenges be raised during appellate proceedings?\nConclusion:\n•\nJurisdictional objections can be raised at any stage before the appellate forum.\n(b) Principal Place of Business\nKey Issue: Determination of jurisdiction based on the principal place of business.\nConclusion:\n•\nJurisdiction disputes must be referred to the Regional Commissioner or Central Board of Revenue for resolution.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(4),134,5(3) ", + "Case #": "CA. No. 331 of 1992 in W.P. No. 7776 of 1992, heard on 3rd March, 1993 hearing DATE : 3rd March, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND SHEIKH ABDUL MANNAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "M/s. BOMBAY CLOTH HOUSE, LAHORE\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, ZONE A, LAHORE and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 80 = 1993 SLD 80 = 1993 PTD 730 = (1993) 67 TAX 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty on Modified Assessments\nKey Issue: Is penalty sustainable when the original assessment is modified on appeal?\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalties cannot be imposed based on an original assessment if it has been modified on appeal. New demands must be issued for penalties to be valid.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Begum Mumtaz Jamal PLD 1976 Lah. 761.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=91 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 44 of 1988, decision dated: 20th January; 1993", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, CJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Sirajul Haq for Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nJAVED KHALIQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 81 = 1993 SLD 81 = 1993 PTD 731 = (1993) 67 TAX 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reasoned Decisions in Appeals\nKey Issue: Must appellate authorities provide detailed reasons for their decisions?\nConclusion:\n•\nAppellate orders must contain detailed reasoning. Use of pre-printed orders with blanks filled creates an impression of bias and undermines justice.\nCitation: Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=132 ", + "Case #": "I TAs. Nos. 161(IB) and 162(IB) of 1992-93, decision dated: 23rd February, 1993 hearing DATE : 23rd February, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant\nMrs. Zarreen Saleem Ansari, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 82 = 1993 SLD 82 = 1993 PTD 734 = (1993) 67 TAX 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Conditions for Exemption under Second Schedule Clause 94\nKey Issue: What conditions must be satisfied to claim exemption under Clause 94 of the Second Schedule?\nConclusion:\n•\nTo qualify for exemption, the entity must be a religious or charitable institution.\n•\nThe income must derive from voluntary contributions, donations, subscriptions, house property, or investments in government securities.\n•\nSuch income must be solely applied for the institution's religious or charitable purposes.\n(b) Applicability of Clause 94 Proviso\nKey Issue: Does the proviso to Clause 94 apply to all entities?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe proviso specifically pertains to private religious trusts. Non-religious trusts are not subject to the proviso but must meet the primary conditions of Clause 94.\n(c) Definition of Charitable Purposes \nKey Issue: What is encompassed within charitable purposes ?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe definition is inclusive, aiming to expand rather than limit its ordinary meaning. Charitable purposes are not restricted to explicitly stated categories.\n(d) Claiming Exemption under Clause 94 and Section 47(1)(d)\nKey Issue: Does the object of an institution affect its exemption claim?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe object need not directly benefit the public. Approval by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) under Section 47(1)(d) is sufficient.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs West Pakistan Management Association 1985 PTD 287 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,cl.94,2(14),47(1)(d) ", + "Case #": "Const. Petition No. D-856 of 1992, decision dated: 14-01-1993.hearing DATE : 14-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON QAZI AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aga Faquir Muhammad for Appellant. Shaik Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN SEAMEN CONTRIBUTORY WELFARE FUND, KARACHI\nVs\nIncome Tax TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 83 = 1993 SLD 83 = 1993 PTD 739 = (1993) 68 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Double Taxation Convention and Industrial/Commercial Profits\nKey Issue: Was the consultancy fee earned by a Swiss company exempt from tax in Pakistan?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe consultancy services were part of the company’s normal commercial activity.\n•\nUnder the Convention for Avoidance of Double Taxation between Pakistan and Switzerland, such income was categorized as industrial or commercial profits and was not taxable in Pakistan.\n(b) Permanent Establishment under Double Taxation Agreement\nKey Issue: Did the Swiss company have a permanent establishment in Pakistan?\nConclusion:\n•\nOccasional visits by personnel did not constitute a permanent establishment.\n•\nThe services were performed entirely in Switzerland, and remuneration was received abroad. Thus, the company was entitled to tax exemption.\n(c) Technical Services and Fee Classification\nKey Issue: Distinction between technical services and industrial profits.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe consultancy services were part of normal commercial profits, not fee for technical services.\n(d) Scope of Section 80-AA and Non-Resident Tax Liability\nKey Issue: Application of Section 80-AA to income accrued abroad.\nConclusion:\n•\nIncome earned and received abroad by a non-resident company is exempt from Pakistani tax if no permanent establishment exists.\n(e) Authority of Section 163 in Double Taxation\nKey Issue: Priority of Double Taxation Agreements over domestic law.\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 163 empowers agreements that override the Income Tax Ordinance when addressing double taxation.\nCitations: Glaxo Group Ltd. 1992 PTD 636, Abbott Finance Company SARL 1982 PTD 31.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=163,80AA ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1660/LB to 1663/LB of 1992-93 decided on 21st March, 1993 hearing DATE : 21st February, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nawaz Khan, I.T.P. for Appellant.Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 84 = 1993 SLD 84 = 1993 PTD 758 = (1993) 68 TAX 19 = 1993 SCMR 1224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interest Deduction on Pre-Production Stage Loan\nKey Issue: Should interest on a loan for machinery purchase during pre-production be deductible?\nConclusion:\n•\nIf the loan was for ongoing business improvement rather than starting a new product line, the interest qualifies as a business expense.\n•\nDeduction applies regardless of the stage (pre-production or production).\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Khairpur Textile Mills Ltd. 1989 SCMR 61.\n(b) Applicability of Sections 10(2)(iii) and (xvi)\nKey Issue: Differentiation in deductions based on usage.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest paid for machinery to enhance existing business operations falls under Section 10(2)(xvi).\n•\nFull deduction is allowable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii),(xvi) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.238-K of 1991, decision dated: 7-04-1993(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, dated 29-8-1991 passed in 1TR No.12 of 1983)hearing DATE : 17-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM HASSAN SHAH, AJMAL MIAN AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque Memon, Advocate Supreme Court and Naraindas C. Motiani, Advocate- on-Record for Appellant.\nShaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PACKAGES LIMITED\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 85 = 1993 SLD 85 = 1993 PTD 766 = (1993) 68 TAX 86 = 1993 SCMR 1232 = 1993 SCC 1049", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Importance of Legal Questions in Appeals\nKey Issue: Granting leave to appeal based on significant legal questions.\nConclusion:\n•\nSubstantial legal questions with wider implications justify granting leave to appeal.\n(b) Conflict between Exemptions and Taxable Income\nKey Issue: Applicability of Section 14 (exemptions) and Section 26 (insurance business).\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 26, being specific to insurance, overrides Section 14 exemptions.\n•\nIncome from Khas Deposit Certificates/Defence Saving Certificates is taxable when part of insurance business profits.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.G. Chapman PLD 1985 SC 329.\n(c) Impact of Definite Information on Reassessment\nKey Issue: What constitutes definite information under Section 65?\nConclusion:\n•\n Definite information includes factual data or binding legal rulings, not administrative opinions.\n•\nReopening assessments based on CBR circulars is invalid.\nCitations: Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1990 PTD 155.\n(d) Role of CBR in Tax Law Interpretation\nKey Issue: Extent of CBR’s interpretative authority.\nConclusion:\n•\nCBR’s interpretations are administrative and not binding on judicial forums.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan v. Noor Hussain PLD 1964 SC 657.\n(e) Interaction Between Sections 14, 26, and Definite Information\nKey Issue: Use of CBR circulars in reassessments.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdministrative interpretations cannot constitute definite information. \n•\nReopening based on such circulars is legally invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=3,3(a),4,5,8,14,17,26,26(b),29,65(1)(a),65(1)(b),134,136,137,Second Schedule,itemNo.(72),Fourth Schedule,R.5,65 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10(7) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 605-K, 606-K of 1990, 12-K of 1991, 624-K, 625-K, 626-K and 628-K of 1990, decision dated: 4-04-1993, dates of hearing: 24th and 25-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM HASAN SHAH, AJMAL MIAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasim A. Farooqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.605-K, 606-K of 1990 and 12-K of 1991).\nFazal Ghani Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 62.1-K and 625-K of 1990).\nMansoor Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.G. Hasan, Advocate for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.626-K and 628-K of 1990). Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in all the Cases).", + "Party Name:": "M/s CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. and others\nVS\nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 86 = 1993 SLD 86 = 1993 PTD 801 = (1993) 68 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Jurisdiction of Regional Commissioner in Reopening Assessments\nKey Issue: Can the Regional Commissioner overrule the Commissioner's direction to drop proceedings under Section 65?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Regional Commissioner, being superior to the Commissioner, can interfere and validate notices under Section 65, even if the Commissioner directs the proceedings to be dropped.\n(b) Reopening Based on Subsequent Information\nKey Issue: Does reopening assessments under Section 65 require new information?\nConclusion:\n•\nIf the initial assessment did not involve conscious evaluation of property valuation and new information surfaces later, reopening is justified.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income-tax, Zone-D, Karachi v. Jennings Private School 1993 SCMR 96 applied.\n(c) Constitutional Petition Against Reopening Assessments\nKey Issue: Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a Section 65 notice?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessee must demonstrate undervaluation claims before the Income-tax Officer. The High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction does not typically intervene in ongoing tax proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. 824 of 1992, heard on 18-04-1993hearing DATE : 18-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner(s) by: Dr. Ilyas War\nRespondent(s) by: Muhammad Ilyas Khan", + "Party Name:": "AZMAT FAROOQ\nVS\nTHE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL REGION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 87 = 1993 SLD 87 = 1993 PTD 804 = (1993) 67 TAX 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Definite Information in Self-Assessment Scheme\nKey Issue: What qualifies as definite information for detailed scrutiny under C.B.R. Circular No. 22 of 1991?\nConclusion:\n•\nInformation must be material, not speculative or based on suspicion. Actions taken without substantial evidence are arbitrary and discriminatory.\n(b) Notice Prior to Scrutiny\nKey Issue: Is a prior notice to the assessee mandatory before scrutiny?\nConclusion:\n•\nNo prior notice is required before initiating scrutiny; the inquiry stage allows the assessee to present evidence.\n(c) Material Evidence Disclosure\nKey Issue: Must the material used to justify scrutiny be disclosed to the assessee?\nConclusion:\n•\nFailure to disclose such material renders scrutiny arbitrary and invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1)(1A),59 ", + "Case #": "Const. Petitions Nos. D-485, D-854, D-910, D-921, D-964, D-984 to D-987, D-1015, D-1016, D-1021, D-1122, D-1139, D-1195, D-1196, D-1320, D-1908 and D-2252 of 1992, decision dated: 18-03-1993. dates of hearing: 26th and 27-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Petitioners. Shaik Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY\nVs\nTHE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 88 = 1993 SLD 88 = 1993 PTD 819 = (1993) 199 ITR 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty and Limitation in Draft Assessment Orders\nKey Issue: Does limitation for penalty proceedings begin with the draft assessment order?\nConclusion:\n•\nLimitation begins when the assessment becomes final. Draft orders subject to revisions do not start the limitation period.\nCitation: CIT v. Mahabir Prasad Poddar (1974) 93 ITR 215 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 19 of 1980, decision dated: 25-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " A.P. MISRA AND DR. RR MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "SHIV SHANKER STTA RAM\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 89 = 1993 SLD 89 = 1993 PTD 823 = (1993) 199 ITR 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Assessability as a Question of Law\nKey Issue: Are questions of income receipt and assessability matters of law?\nConclusion:\n•\nWhether income is received by the assessee or assessable in their hands constitutes a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "O.P. No. 4922 of 1996-S, decision dated: 29-10-1991", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner None appeared for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nDR. K. GEORGE THOMAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 90 = 1993 SLD 90 = 1993 PTD 825 = (1993) 199 ITR 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Rectification Orders\nKey Issue: Does limitation for rectification orders depend on the appellate order?\nConclusion:\n•\nIf the original order is unaffected by an appeal, limitation for rectification starts from the original order date.\nCitation: Bengal Assam Steamship Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 327 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 360 of 1982, decision dated: 24-07-1989", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K.SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSHAW WALLACE & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 91 = 1993 SLD 91 = 1993 PTD 830 = (1993) 199 ITR 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Hospitality Expenditure\nKey Issue: Is providing mineral water to foreign clients a deductible business expense?\nConclusion:\n•\nIt qualifies as hospitality expenditure and is disallowable under Section 37(2A) of the Income Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Application No212 of 1991 connected with ITA No.213 of 1991, decision dated: 19-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " A .P. MISRA AND DR. R.R. MISRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "KRAFT PALACE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 92 = 1993 SLD 92 = 1993 PTD 833 = (1993) 199 ITR 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Timing of Income Under Section 41(1)\nKey Issue: When is refund income assessable under Section 41(1)?\nConclusion:\n•\nIncome is assessable only when the right to refund is finalized, not during pending disputes.\nCitation: CIT v. Rashmi Trading (1976) 103 ITR 312 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=41(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 292 of 1978, decision dated: 28-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " R. C MANKAD, ACTG. C.J. AND S.B. MAJUMDAR AND RK ABICHANDANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore, instructed by M.R. Bhatt for R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner. K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nBHARAT IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 93 = 1993 SLD 93 = 1993 PTD 846 = (1993) 199 ITR 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Deduction Prohibition\nKey Issue: Can depreciation and capital expenditure allowances both apply to the same asset?\nConclusion:\n•\nDouble deduction is not allowed; allowances under Section 35(1)(iv) preclude depreciation claims.\nCitation: CIT v. Indian Explosives Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 144 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 5537 to 5543 of 1980, 90, 1153, 3942, 3943, 3648 to 3652, 1688, 1689, 268 to 273, 1601, 5328, 1981, 3532 to 3536 of 1982 and 12135 of 1985, decision dated: 22-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bishamber Lal Khanna, S.K. Bansal, Dr. B.P. Aggarwal and Ms. Gitanjali Mohan, Advocates for the Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 90 of 1981). Dr. Debi Pal, Senior Advocate (S. Ganesh, Advocate and Ravinder Narain, Mrs. A.K. derma and Ms. Amrita Misra, of J.B. Dadachanji & Co. Advocates, with him), for the Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 1153 of 1981). S. Ganesh, Advocate and Ravinder Narain, Mrs. A.K. Verma and Ms. Amrita Misra, of J.B. Dadachanji and Co. Advocates for the Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos. 3942 and 3943 of 1981, 3648 to 3652 of 1981 and 12135 of 1985). Bishamber Lal Khanna, S.C. Patel and Ms. Gitanjali Mohan, advocate for the Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 1601 of 1981). A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao, Advocates for the Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos. 3532 to 3536 of 1982). S.C. Manchanda and B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocates (S. Rajappa, Manoj Arora and P. Parameswaran, Advocates,. with them) for the Respondents in all the Petitions).", + "Party Name:": "ESCORTS LTD. and others\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 94 = 1993 SLD 94 = 1993 PTD 865 = (1993) 68 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Impact of Appeal on Constitutional Petition\nKey Issue: Does pursuing statutory appeals affect the maintainability of constitutional petitions?\nConclusion:\n•\nOpting for statutory remedies precludes simultaneous constitutional petitions.\n(b) High Court’s Jurisdiction in Overlapping Appeals\nKey Issue: Can the High Court decide on matters under appeal?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court’s intervention in such cases is improper. Remedies should be exhausted within the statutory framework.\nCitation: Commissioner Income Tax v. Hamdard Dawakhana PLD 1992 SC 847.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,129,130,134,136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 752-K of 1990, decision dated: 1st January, 1993, hearing DATE : 31st January, 1993(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, dated 28-2-1990, passed in Const. Petition No.D-372 of 1987)", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaik Haider, Advocate Supreme Court, Muzaffar Hassan and S.M. Akbar, Advocates- on-Record for Appellants.Rehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and M. S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI and 2 others\nVs\nMessrs N.V. PHILIPS GLOEILAMPENFABRIAKEN, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 95 = 1993 SLD 95 = 1993 PTD 871 = (1993) 199 ITR 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure: Silver Jubilee Presents\nKey Issue: Can expenses for silver jubilee gifts to cooperative society members be deducted as business expenditure?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe expenses were incurred to preserve and augment business relationships and maintain goodwill among members, qualifying as deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=37 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 469 of 1990, decision dated: 28-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. MANKAD, S. B. MAJMUDAR AND R. K. ABICHANDANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "KARJAN COOPERATIVE COTTON SALES GINNING ND PRESSING SOCIETY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 256 = 1990 SLD 256 = (1990) 185 ITR 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Bonus Reserve Under Payment of Bonus Act\nKey Issue: Is setting aside money under Section 15 of the Payment of Bonus Act considered business expenditure?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe provision is not considered expenditure since the liability is contingent. Thus, it is not deductible under Section 37(1).\nCitations: Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": " K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, Justice(s).", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Mysore Lamp Works Ltd.\nv.\nCommissioner of IncomE tax*" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 97 = 1993 SLD 97 = 1993 PTD 892 = (1993) 199 ITR 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment Allowance for Construction Companies\nKey Issue: Can a construction company claim investment allowance under Section 32A?\nConclusion:\n•\nIf the company is found to be engaged in manufacturing or processing goods, as determined by the Tribunal, and the finding is unchallenged, the allowance is valid.\nCitations: CIT v. Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 674.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 5074 and 5075 of 1992, decision dated: 20th April 1992(Petitions against the judgment and order, dated May 3, 1991, of the Kerala High Court in Income-tax References Nos. 134 and 135 of 1988)", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND P.B. SAVANT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Petitioner. Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Sudhir Gopi and A.G. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nBHAGEERATHA ENGG. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 98 = 1993 SLD 98 = 1993 PTD 894 = (1993) 199 ITR 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Remission of Trading Liability Pending Appeal\nKey Issue: Can remission be invoked before a final appellate decision?\nConclusion:\n•\nRemission provisions apply only after a final decision on liability.\n(b) Change of Previous Year\nKey Issue: Can approval for changing the previous year be revoked?\nConclusion:\n•\nRevocation was improper since the department accepted the change for subsequent years, avoiding undue hardship.\nCitation: J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. O.S. Bajpai (1976) 105 ITR 864.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1111 of 1976, decision dated: 15-01-1992(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 17, 1975, of the Allahabad High Court in C.M. W.P. No. 494 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND N.D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellants. Harish N. Salve and Vibhu Bakhru, Advocates for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "UNION OF INDIA and another\nVs\nJ.K.SYNTHETICS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 99 = 1993 SLD 99 = 1993 PTD 896 = (1993) 199 ITR 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Purposes: Sports Facilities\nKey Issue: Are sports facilities for social welfare charitable?\nConclusion:\n•\nFacilities enhancing social welfare qualify as charitable, even if beneficiaries are not socially disadvantaged.\nCitations: Inland Revenue Commissioners v. McMullen (1979) 1 WLR 130.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "Appeal from the First Division of the Court of Session, decision dated: 27-02-1992. dates of hearing: 27th, 28th January and 27-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " J.E. DRUMMOND YOUNG Q.C. AND A.J. HAMILTON (BOTH OF THE SCOTS BAR) FOR THE EXECUTOR.", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.E. Drummond Young Q.C. and A.J. Hamilton (both of the Scots Bar) for the Executor.\nD.R.A. Emslie Q.C. and Patrick S. Hodge (both of the Scots Bar) and Launcelot Henderson for the Commissioners.\nSolicitors. Penningtons for Henderson and Jackson W.S., Edinburgh; Solicitor of Inland Revenue for Solicitor of Inland Revenue, Scotland, Edinburgh.", + "Party Name:": "GUILD (EXECUTOR NOMINATE OF THE LATE JAMES YOUNG RUSSEL)\nVs\nINLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 100 = 1993 SLD 100 = 1993 PTD 908 = (1993) 67 TAX 191 = (1994) 69 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Professional Tax as Business Expenditure\nKey Issue: Is professional tax deductible under Section 23 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?\nConclusion:\n•\nProfessional tax is not a tax on income and qualifies as a deductible expense.\nCitation: ITA No. 894/HQ of 1991 overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,23,24(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=163 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.955/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 29-04-1993, hearing DATE : 6-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, SYED KABIRUL HASSAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehtab Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Syed Humayun Zaidi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 101 = 1993 SLD 101 = 1993 PTD 915 = (1993) 199 ITR 606", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal's Power to Remand Cases\nKey Issue: Can the Tribunal remand a case to the Commissioner?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal has the authority to remand cases for fresh orders.\nCitation: Martin Burn Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 939.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 901 and 902 of 1980, decision dated: 8-10-1992(Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 8, 1978 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-Tax Reference No. 292 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " J.S. VERMA AND DR. A.S. ANAND, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vibhu Bakhru, Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Ms. Vijayalarmi Menon and Ms.L. Mridula Ray, Advocates for Appellant. S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MARTIN BURN LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 102 = 1993 SLD 102 = 1993 PTD 917 = (1993) 199 ITR 608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation: Effect of Currency Devaluation\nKey Issue: How is actual cost determined when machinery is purchased using pre-devaluation foreign currency?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe actual cost for depreciation purposes is the rupee equivalent at the post-devaluation exchange rate.\nCitation: Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 907.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4227 to 4230 of 1983, decision dated: 16th ,October,1992(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 3, 1978, of the Karnataka High Court in LT.R. Cs. Nos. 65 to 68 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " DR. T. KOCHU THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra, T.V. Ratnam and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant. G. Sarangan, Senior Advocate, (S. Ramabhadran and Mukul Mudgal, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nKIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 103 = 1993 SLD 103 = 1993 PTD 918 = (1993) 199 ITR 610", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty: Change of Law and Jurisdiction\nKey Issue: Does a change in the threshold for referring penalty proceedings to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) affect pending cases?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe IAC retains jurisdiction for cases validly referred before the amendment, as pending proceedings are protected under Section 6(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.\nCitations: CIT v. Royal Motor Car Co. (1977) 107 ITR 753 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1788 and 1789 of 1977, decision dated: 18-11-1992(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated December 5, 1975, of the Orissa High Court in S.J.C. Nos. 176 and 177 of 1974)", + "Judge Name:": " YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND DR. A.S. ANAND, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant\nNemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nDHADI SAHU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 104 = 1993 SLD 104 = 1993 PTD 927 = (1993) 67 TAX 296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Currency Devaluation: Revaluation Reserve\nKey Issue: Can the increased value from currency devaluation be included in the capital base as a reserve?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe increase in rupee value due to devaluation constitutes a reserve and is includible in the capital base.\nCitation: CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. (1986) 158 ITR 51.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 101 of 1976, decision dated: 30-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley, Mrs. Manjula Singh and K.C. Sidhwa for Applicant. NA. Dalvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nPFIZER LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 105 = 1993 SLD 105 = 1993 PTD 930 = (1991) 192 ITR 40 = (1993) 67 TAX 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Demurrage: Taxability for Non-Residents\nKey Issue: Is demurrage paid to non-residents taxable under Section 172?\nConclusion:\n•\nDemurrage is not taxable if it is not directly related to the carriage of goods by the ship.\nCitations: Union of India v. Gosalia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 307 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Appeals Nos. 1937 and 2013 of 1990, decision dated: 3rd June, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Chanderkumar and S.R. Shivaprakash for Appellants. S. Sarangan and K. Gajendra Rao for Respondent No. 1\nS.S. Naganand for Respondent No. 2", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and others\nVs\nCHOWGULE & CO. LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 106 = 1993 SLD 106 = 1993 PTD 939 = (1993) 68 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers' Welfare Fund: Industrial Establishment\nKey Issue: Does processing cloth qualify as manufacturing under the definition of industrial establishment ?\nConclusion:\n•\nCloth processing constitutes manufacturing, making the assessee liable for the Workers' Welfare Fund.\nCitations: Assistant Collector v. Orient Straw Board and Paper Mills Ltd. PLD 1991 SC 992.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=2 ", + "Case #": "ITA Nos. 151/LB and 152/LB of 1984-85, decision dated: 30-07-1992, hearing DATE : 15-06-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent Nemo for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 107 = 1993 SLD 107 = 1993 PTD 952", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deemed Income: Investment and Article Acquisition\nKey Issue: Does the difference between market value and recorded consideration constitute deemed income?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe difference is not taxable unless it is proven that the assessee expended more than the recorded amount.\nCitations: CIT v. National Food Laboratories (1992) 65 Tax 257.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(I)(d),58,13(2) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 467/LB and 1220/LB of 1991-92,decided on 7-10-1992, hearing DATE : 22-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant (in I.TA. No. 467/LB of 1991-92).\nQaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent (in T.A. No. 467/LB of 1991-92)\nQaiser M Yahya, D.R for Appellant (in I.TA. No. 1220/LB of 1991-92)\nZia H. Rizvi for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 1220/LB of 1991-92).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 108 = 1993 SLD 108 = 1993 PTD 960 = (1993) 68 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Compliance in Appeals\nKey Issue: Does failure to follow procedural rules invalidate appeal hearings?\nConclusion:\n•\nProcedural lapses, like not filing affidavits or sending appeal copies, do not necessarily preclude the Tribunal from exercising its discretion to hear the appeal.\nCitations: CIT v. Kohinoor Trading Company 1989 PTD 1047.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,55,62 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 6217/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 26th Septemlrer,1992, hearing DATE : 24-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Appellant. Hamid Chaudhry, C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 109 = 1993 SLD 109 = 1993 PTD 964 = (1993) 68 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistakes\nKey Issue: What constitutes a mistake apparent on record under Section 156?\nConclusion:\n•\nA mistake must be obvious without requiring investigation; reinterpreting evidence or introducing new facts does not qualify.\nCitations: Pakistan River Steamer Ltd. v. CIT 1971 PTD 204.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 211/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 2-12-1992, hearing DATE : 30-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Applicant. F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 110 = 1993 SLD 110 = 1993 PTD 970 = (1993) 68 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Gross Profit Rate Application\nKey Issue: Does applying a uniform gross profit rate in different cases raise a question of law?\nConclusion:\n•\nSuch application does not involve a question of law but remains a question of fact based on the evidence available.\nCitation: Uberoi Cooperative Sports Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 27 Tax 218.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1) ", + "Case #": "R.A. No. 279/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 8-10-1992hearing DATE : 27-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Ullah Kiyani for Applicant. F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 111 = 1993 SLD 111 = 1993 PTD 978 = (1993) 200 ITR 563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Notices: Saving Clause Interpretation\nKey Issue: Are reassessment proceedings valid under the old Act if notices were issued post-1962?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe meaning of issued in Section 297(2)(d)(i) is contextual, and its interpretation can constitute a question of law.\nCitation: Banarsi Debi v. ITO (1964) 53 ITR 100 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1591 to 1593 of 1977, decision dated: 27-08-1992(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 8, 1976 of the Gujarat High Court in I.T.As. Nos.68 to 70 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " J.S. VERMA AND DR. A.S. ANAND, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Decision of the Gujarat High Court reversed. Dr. S. Narayanan, Senior Advocate (Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate with him) for Appellant.S. Sukumaran, Advocate (of J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nBABABHAI PITAMBERDAS (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 112 = 1993 SLD 112 = 1993 PTD 980 = (1993) 200 ITR 567", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains: Fair Market Value\nKey Issue: Can fair market value alone justify invoking Section 52(2)?\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 52(2) applies only when there is evidence of understated consideration; mere market value differences are insufficient.\nCitation: K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1989) 131 ITR 597 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2875 of 1977, decision dated: 10-09-1992(Appeal by special leave against the order, dated December 10, 1976, of the Bombay High Court in 1TA No. 227 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " J.S. VERMA AND DR. A.S. ANAND, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamoorthy; Senior Advocate (T.V, Ratnam, P. Parameswaran and Ms. A. Subhashini with him) for Appellant. Harish N. Salve, Senior", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nGODAVARI CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 113 = 1993 SLD 113 = 1993 PTD 982 = (1993) 200 ITR 488", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Dividend Relief: Gross vs. Net Calculation\nKey Issue: Should management expenses be deducted from gross dividends for relief under Section 80M?\nConclusion:\n•\nProportionate management expenses must be deducted before calculating relief.\nCitation: Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2646 to 2648 of 1977, decision dated: 19-02-1993(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November, 30, 1976, of the Bombay High Court in Income Tax Reference No.72 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Anil Srivastava and P. Parameswaran with him) for Appellant. S. Ganesh and Mrs. Anjali K. Verma, Advocate (of M/s. Dadachanji & CO., Advocates) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nUNITED GENERAL TRUST LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 114 = 1993 SLD 114 = 1993 PTD 983 = (1993) 200 ITR 572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation and Reserves for Surtax\nKey Issue: How should excess depreciation impact general reserves for surtax computation?\nConclusion:\n•\nExcess depreciation reduces general reserves for surtax, irrespective of assessment completion date.\nCitation: CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 215.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Cite Appeals Nos. 1020 and 1021 of 1977 with Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 1977, decision dated: 6-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " M.N VENKATACHALIAH AND G.N. RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suman J. Khaitan for Appellant. Ms. A. Subhashini for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ZENITH LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 115 = 1993 SLD 115 = 1993 PTD 985 = (1993) 200 ITR 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Unabsorbed Depreciation: Registered Firms\nKey Issue: Can unabsorbed depreciation be carried forward by a firm if not fully set off by partners?\nConclusion:\n•\nUnabsorbed depreciation reverts to the firm for future computation.\nCitation: CIT v. Singh Transport Co. (1980) 123 ITR 698.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 3642 and 3643 of 1983, decision dated: 7-01-1993(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated 14-12-1979, of the Gauhati High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 16 of 1978)", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND G.N. RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. A. Subhashini for Appellant. N.R. Chaudhry for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSINGH TRANSPORT CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 116 = 1993 SLD 116 = 1993 PTD 986 = (1993) 200 ITR 588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Receipts and Expenditure\nKey Issue: Are disputed sales tax collections deductible under mercantile accounting?\nConclusion:\n•\nSales tax collected as revenue is deductible even if paid after the accounting period.\nCitations: Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2468 to 2471 of 1977, decision dated: 17-02-1993(Appeals by special leave against the judgment and order, dated June 18, 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.Cs. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 49 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for some Appellants. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "JONNALLA NARASHIMHARAO &, CO. and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (and other appeals)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 117 = 1993 SLD 117 = 1993 PTD 988 = (1993) 200 ITR 594", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adventure in Trade: Land Transactions\nKey Issue: Does the resale of plots by individuals constitute an adventure in trade?\nConclusion:\n•\nRapid resale of plots qualifies as an adventure in trade, making profits taxable under association of persons. \nCitation: Affirmed decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1980 of 1977, decision dated: 18-02-1993(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated August 25, 1976, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.C. No.24 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suruchi Aggarwal, Bharati Reddy, Pramila and T.V.S.N. Chari, Advocates for Appellants. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Smt. INDRAMANI BAI and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 118 = 1993 SLD 118 = 1993 PTD 990 = (1993) 200 ITR 611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Tax: Computation of Relief for Foreign Income\nKey Issue: How is tax relief computed when foreign income is non-remittable to India?\nConclusion:\n•\nRelief is calculated using the average rate derived from both Indian and foreign income clubbed together. Treating Indian income as total income for this purpose, as per Circular No. 25, is invalid as it contradicts statutory provisions.\nCitation: A.C. Paul v. TRO (1979) 117 ITR 412 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1615 of 1.978, decision dated: 7-01-1993(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 20-09-1977 of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 359 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. VANKATACHALIAH AND GN. RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Venkateshwar Rao and A.V. Rangam for Appellant. Ms. A. Subhashini for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "A.C. PAUL\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER, TIRUNELEVELI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 119 = 1993 SLD 119 = 1993 PTD 992 = (1993) 200 ITR 612", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains: Route Permits as Capital Assets\nKey Issue: Are proceeds from the sale of bus route permits taxable as capital gains?\nConclusion:\n•\nRoute permits qualify as capital assets; however, as no acquisition cost exists, their transfer value cannot be assessed as capital gains.\nCitation: CIT (Addl.) v. Ganapathi Raju Jogi, Sanyasi Raju (1979) 119 ITR 715 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1816 of 1977, decision dated: 17-02-1993(Appeal by special leave against judgment and order, dated September 8, 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Case Referred No.40 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATAACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Shukla and B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocates (P. Parameswaran, Advocate with them) for Appellant. A. Subba Rao for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)\nVs\nGANAPATHI RAJU JOGI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 120 = 1993 SLD 120 = 1993 PTD 993 = (1993) 200 ITR 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Surtax: Treatment of Reserves\nKey Issues:\n•\nHow to classify various allocations like depreciation fund excess and contingent liabilities?\n•\nCan the Tribunal rectify orders ignoring statutory explanations?\nConclusion:\n•\nDepreciation fund excess is a reserve; contingent liabilities, proposed dividends, and gratuity provisions are not reserves. The Tribunal has the power to rectify such errors.\nCitation: Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 559 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2231 and 2143 of 1977, decision dated: 1st December 1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.C AGRAWAL AND B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocate of J.B. Dadachanji & Co. for Appellant (in CA. No. 2231 of 1977) and Respondent (in CA. No. 2143 of 1977) (Assessee).\nJ. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Manoj Arora and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent (in CA. No. 2231 of 1977) (Commissioner).\nJ. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (P. Parameswaran, Advocate with him) for Appellant (in CA. No. 2143 of 1977) (Commissioner).", + "Party Name:": "KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND P. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 121 = 1993 SLD 121 = 1993 PTD 999 = (1993) 200 ITR 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surtax: Gratuity Reserve Exclusion\nKey Issue: Can ad hoc transfers to a gratuity reserve without estimating liability be included in capital computation?\nConclusion:\n•\nAd hoc transfers without an approved gratuity scheme or liability estimation are not reserves for capital computation.\nCitation: Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 559 applied.\n•\nCIT v. Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. (1977) 107 ITR 38 reversed on this point.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2516 to 2518 of 1980, decision dated: 20-11-1992(Appeals by special leave against the judgment and order dated July 30,1976, of the Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No.152 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " S.C AGRAWAL AND B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocate (of J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nFORBES FORBES CAMPBELL & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 122 = 1993 SLD 122 = 1993 PTD 1001 = (1993) 200 ITR 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Scope: Restricted to Revenue Benefit\nKey Issue: Can taxpayers raise unrelated issues during reassessment?\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment is limited to matters benefiting the Revenue; unrelated issues raised by the assessee cannot be entertained.\nCitation: CTT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4326 of 1984, decision dated: 6-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND G.N. RAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rajiv Bansal and Raju Ramachandran, Advocates for Appellant. Dr, M.B. Rao and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHETTINAD CORPORATION P. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 123 = 1993 SLD 123 = 1993 PTD 1002 = (1993) 200 ITR 483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Other Sources: Tax Paid by a Third Party\nKey Issue: Is tax paid by an Indian entity on behalf of a foreign worker taxable in the worker's hands?\nConclusion:\n•\nTax payments by the Indian company are part of the worker’s income. As the worker was not an employee of the Indian entity, the income is taxable under Income from Other Sources. \nCitation: Emil Webber v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 515 (Bom.) affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.3115 and 3116 of 1980, decision dated: 19-02-1993(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated June 15, 1978, of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No.458 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.U. Eradi, Advocate (for Khaitan & Co.) for Appellant. S. Rajappa and P. Parameswaran, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "EMIL WEBBER\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 124 = 1993 SLD 124 = 1993 PTD 1007", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme: Validity and Arbitrary Actions\nKey Issues:\n•\nHow should terms like definite information and material evidence in the Self-Assessment Scheme be interpreted?\n•\nAre arbitrary or unsupported actions valid?\nConclusion:\n•\nActions must rely on substantial evidence and cannot be arbitrary. The validity of action depends on disclosure of material evidence to the assessee. Arbitrary actions are liable to be quashed.\nCitation: Cannon Products Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1985 PTD 549 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1) & (lA) ", + "Case #": "Const. Petitions Nos. D-485, D-854, D-910, D-921, D-964, D-984 to D-987, D-1015, D-1016, D-1021, D-1122, D-1139, D-1195, D-1196, D-1320, D-1908 and D-2252 of 1992, decision dated: 18-03-1993 dates of hearing: 26th and 27-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "DeSmith on Judicial Review of Administrative Action ref. Muhammad Athar Saeed for Petitioner. Shaik Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "M/s. SPICECO INTERNATIONAL\nVs\nREGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SOUTHERN REGION, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 125 = 1993 SLD 125 = 1993 PTD 1019 = (1993) 200 ITR 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firms: Conditions and Interpretation\nKey Issue: Is the specific mention of partner shares in losses mandatory for firm registration?\nConclusion:\n•\nRegistration cannot be denied due to the absence of specific mention of partner shares in losses. The agreement and other relevant documents can ascertain shares. Losses are presumed to follow profit-sharing proportions unless stated otherwise.\nCitation: CIT v. Ithappiri and George (1973) 88 ITR 332 overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 49 of 1982, 586 of 1985, 4 and 40 of 1986 and 10 and 11 of 1987, decision dated: 21st January 1993", + "Judge Name:": " M. JAGANNADHA RAO, C.J., KS. PARIPOORNAN AND MRS. K.K USHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Krishnan and P. Raman for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KERALA PUBLICITY BUREAU\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 126 = 1993 SLD 126 = 1993 PTD 1041 = (1993) 200 ITR 536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes: Words in Fiscal Statutes\nKey Issue: How to interpret ambiguous words in fiscal statutes?\nConclusion:\n•\nWords must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Explanation (c) of Section 263 is retrospective and not limited to June 1, 1988.\n•\nThe doctrine of merger limits the Commissioner’s revision powers to parts of the ITO order not dealt with in appeal.\nCitation: Addl. CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service (1986) 157 ITR 327 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 52 of 1982, decision dated: 11th, November, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.S. SODHI, ACTG. C.J., N.C, JAIN AND G.C GARG, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee. R.P. Sawhney for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 127 = 1993 SLD 127 = 1993 PTD 1047 = 1993 TAX 49 = (1993) 68 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": " Discarded Assets and Trading Losses\nKey Issue: Can abandoned property losses be claimed under Section 10(2)(vii)?\nConclusion:\n•\n Discarded implies a voluntary act. Losses from compulsory acquisition of assets in Bangladesh post-recognition by Pakistan qualify under Section 10(2)(vii).\nCitation: CIT v. National Bank Limited (S.C. Ind.) (1965) 55 I.T.R.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10(2)(vii) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 60-K, 523-K of 1987, 573-K, 247-K to 252-K, 254-K to 258-K, 253-K, 568-K, 613-K, 710-K, 711-K of 1990 and 225-K of 1991, decision dated: 4-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J, NASIM HASSAN SHAH AND SHAFIUR REHMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate, Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Advocate and A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CA. No. 60-K of 1987).\nShaik Haider, Advocate, S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in CA. No. 60-K of 1987) and Appellant (in CAs. Nos.523-K, 247-K to 258-K, 568-K, 710-K, 711-K of 1990 and 225-K of 1991).\nMrs. Rashida Patel, Advocate/Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in CA.Nos. 573-K and 613-K of 1990).\nSirajul Haq, Advocate, M.I. Memon, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in CA. No. 573-K of 1990).\nSirajul Haq, Advocate and M.C. Motiani, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in CA. No. 613-K of 1990),\nFateh W. Vellani, Advocate, Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in CA. No. 225-K of 1991).", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN SERVICES LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (REVISION), KARACHI\nCivil Appeal No. 52‘3-K of 1987\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE \"\"B‘, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs ALI MUHAMMAD H.K. DADA\nCivil Anneals Nos. 573-K 247-K to 252-K and 254-K to 258-K of 1990\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMessrs UNITED BANK LIMITED and 11 others\nCivil Appeal No.253-K of 1990\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMessrs LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No. 568-K of 1990\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJENSON & NICHOLSON OF PAKISTAN LTD. (NOW CALLED BERGER PAINTS)\nCivil Appeal No. 710-K of 1990\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nPAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD. (Previously known ESSO Eastern Inc.)\nCivil A1212eal No. 711-K of 1990\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMessrs PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD.\nCivil Appeal No. 613-K of 1990\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMessrs UNITED BANK LIMITED\nCivil Appeal No. 225-K of 1991\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMessrs GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 128 = 1993 SLD 128 = 1993 PTD 1093", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Cases and Deemed Income\nKey Issue: What are the rights and procedural obligations in reopened cases?\nConclusion:\n•\nOnce reopened, all issues can be revisited. Approvals by the IAC are required only for disputed values. If the assessing officer omits approval, appellate authorities must still examine explanations for income sources.\nCitation: 1987 PTD (Trib.) 300 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(d),13(2),65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 509(IB), 510(IB), 513(IB), 552-A(IB) of 1988-89, decision dated: 10-10-1992 hearing DATE : 10-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Abbas Chatha and Miss Qamar-un-Nisa Hameed Qureshi for Appellant (in ITAs.Nos.509(IB), 510(IB) and 513(IB) of 1988-89).\nMrs. Zareen Saleem Ansari, D.R. for Respondent (in ITAs.Nos.509(IB), 510(IB) and 513(IB) of 1988-89).\nMrs. Zareen Saleem Ansari, D.R. for Appellant (in ITA No. 552A(IB) of 1988-89).\nG. Abbas Chatta and Miss Qamar-un-Nisa Hameed Qureshi for Respondent (in ITA No. 552-A(IB) of 1988-89).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 129 = 1993 SLD 129 = 1993 PTD 1100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Precedent: Resolving Inconsistent Decisions\nKey Issue: How should inconsistent precedents be treated?\nConclusion:\n•\nCourts of coordinate jurisdiction independently scrutinize the law when precedents conflict. A company is a public company only if 50% or more shares are directly held by the government.\nCitation: West Pakistan Transport Board v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1973) PTD 499.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIV,para.B(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 250/IB of 1989-90, decision dated: 14-09-1992 hearing DATE : 9-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Majid, FCA for Appellant Mrs. Zareen Saleem Ansari, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 130 = 1993 SLD 130 = 1993 PTD 1104 = (1993) 68 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income of Minors in Partnerships\nKey Issue: Can inherited partnership shares of minors be taxed under Section 16(3)?\nConclusion:\n•\nIncome derived from inherited shares cannot be taxed as minor’s admission to partnership lacks voluntariness, a key requirement under Section 16(3).\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. K.M.S. Lakshmanier 9 ITR 668.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Reference (TR) No. 107 of 1986, heard on 26-04-1993.hearing DATE : 26-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " M. MEHBOOB AHMAD C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD\nVs\nMst. GHULAM FATIMA GOJRA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 132 = 1993 SLD 132 = 1993 PTD 1113 = (1993) 68 TAX 160 = 1993 PTCL 641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments and Procedural Validity\nKey Issue: Can assessments be reopened due to procedural issues or change of opinion?\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessment reopening requires substantive grounds, not merely a change of opinion. Reopening under Section 66-A is invalid if the original assessment was appealed.\nCitation: Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1992 PTD 932.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=58,66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No.999 of 1992, heard on 31st March, 1993.hearing DATE : 31st March, 1993", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. ANJUMAN SHAHEEN, FILM ARTISTE\nVs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE A, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 133 = 1993 SLD 133 = 1993 PTD 1116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Right of Appeal: Scope and Procedural Objections\nKey Issue: When does an assessee’s right to appeal arise?\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals are only valid if the decision adversely affects rights. Procedural objections cannot form appeal grounds unless they impact the assessment’s outcome.\nCitation: Edulji Dinshaw Limited v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1990 SC 399.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,134 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 104/113 of 1992-93, decision dated: 21st December, 1992.hearing DATE : 14-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hassan Mehdi Rizvi for Appellant. Mrs. Zareen Saleem Ansari, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 134 = 1993 SLD 134 = 1993 PTD 1120 = (1993) 68 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Registration: Essentials and Determination of Genuine Firms\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhat are the essentials for the constitution of a partnership?\n2.\nHow is the genuineness of a partnership firm determined?\nConclusion:\n•\nA partnership requires a business, an agreement (express or implied), and shared business activities. Registration is optional but beneficial.\n•\nNon-contribution of capital by a partner or delayed notification to a bank does not automatically negate the genuineness of a firm. The cumulative circumstances must be evaluated.\nCitation: 1967 PTD (Trib.) 149.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=68 Partnership Act, 1932=4,5,6,69 ", + "Case #": "PTA No. 409/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 30-11-1992.hearing DATE : 23rd November, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Nau Bahar Kiyani, D.R. for Appellant. Mehmood A. Hashmi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 135 = 1993 SLD 135 = 1993 PTD 1134 = (1993) 68 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Change in Accounting Methods and Stock Valuation\nKey Issue: Can an assessee change their method of accounting or stock valuation?\nConclusion:\n•\nChanges in accounting methods or stock valuation are permissible if made in good faith, not for tax evasion, and are not casual.\n•\nConsistency is required for valuation across years to avoid confusion, and any deviations must satisfy the I.T.O. that they ensure accurate profit/loss computation.\nCitation: Indo Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT, Madras (1962) 44 ITR 22.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1727/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 27-04-1992.hearing DATE : 16-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Siddiqui, D.R. for Appellant. M.D. Gangat, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 136 = 1993 SLD 136 = 1993 PTD 1144 = (1993) 68 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals and Reasons for Decisions by CIT (Appeals)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nIs the CIT (Appeals) required to provide reasons for their decisions?\n2.\nWhat is the standard for such reasoning?\nConclusion:\n•\nCIT (Appeals) must provide reasons for decisions based on principles of natural justice.\n•\nThe reasoning need not be elaborate but should outline the issues and show consideration of relevant facts and arguments.\nCitation: Mulla Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=131,132 ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos.180/IB, 198/IB, 199/113, 205/113 and 206/113 of 1992-93, decision dated: 27-04-1993.hearing DATE : 12-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed A. Qureshi for Appellant. Zareen Saleem Ansari, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 137 = 1993 SLD 137 = 1993 PTD 1152 = (1993) 68 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Taxation and CBR Circulars\nKey Issues:\n1.\nCan income already taxed in one jurisdiction be taxed again?\n2.\nAre CBR circulars binding as statutory law?\nConclusion:\n•\nDouble taxation is impermissible; income taxed in Pakistan for the year ending 31-12-1970 cannot be taxed again in Bangladesh.\n•\nCBR circulars lacking statutory backing cannot override legislative provisions.\nCitation: Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. v. CIT PLD 1958 SC 125.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(14AA) ", + "Case #": "Reference Application No.3 of 1983, decision dated: 15-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. MAHMUDUR REHMAN AND SYED, J.R. MUDASSIR HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rafiqul Huq with Muhammad Mustifa Adil for Applicant. Muhammad Moksudur Rahman for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PHILIPS ELECTRICAL COMPANY LTD\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES (SOUTH) ZONE, DHAKA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 138 = 1993 SLD 138 = 1993 PTD 1157 = (1993) 68 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers' Welfare Fund and Total Income Definition\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhat constitutes total income for Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF)?\n2.\nIs income from non-industrial sources included?\nConclusion:\n•\nWWF is charged on total income as defined under the Income Tax Ordinance, including all global income.\n•\nNon-industrial income sources are also subject to WWF if derived by an industrial establishment.\nCitation: 1989 PTD 1004.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(44),11 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4,2(f) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3713/LB, 3714/LB and 3715/LB of 1985-86,decided on 13-06-1993.hearing DATE : 8-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN CHAIRMAN, A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar Paracha for Appellant. F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 139 = 1993 SLD 139 = 1993 PTD 1172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Commissioner’s Duty in Appeals\nKey Issue: Can a Commissioner set aside an addition for procedural deficiencies?\nConclusion:\n•\nIf an addition is unsustainable due to lack of mandatory approval, the Commissioner must delete it rather than return it for procedural correction.\nCitation: 1989 PTD (Trib.) 105.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 & 13(1)(aa) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 80/KB of 1990-91, decision dated: 2-03-1993.hearing DATE : 2-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. Muhammad Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 140 = 1993 SLD 140 = 1993 PTD 1175 = (1993) 68 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Slump Transactions: Definition and Tax Implications\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhat is a slump transaction?\n2.\nAre itemized valuations required to determine taxability?\nConclusion:\n•\nA slump transaction involves selling an entire business without itemized valuation. If itemized values can be attributed, it does not qualify as a slump transaction.\n•\nDoubts in valuation should benefit the assessee.\nCitation: CIT East v. Crescent Pak Soap and Oil Mills Ltd. 1985 PTD 3.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched.,Rr.7 & 8 ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 837/KB of 1991-92,decided on 28-10-1992.hearing DATE : 30-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASIM SABIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Appellant\nM. Musharraf Akhund, D.R. for Responden", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 141 = 1993 SLD 141 = 1993 PTD 1196 = (1993) 67 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Simplified Assessment Procedure Scheme and C.B.R. Circulars\nKey Issue: Compatibility of C.B.R. circulars with the original Simplified Assessment Procedure Scheme.\nConclusion:\n•\nCirculars issued post-original scheme cannot introduce extraneous matters incompatible with the scheme. Such circulars are inapplicable to assessee returns filed under the original scheme.\nCitation: 1990 PTD (Trib.) 988.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1441/HQ of 1989-90, decision dated: 9-10-1991.hearing DATE : 9-10-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Zakaria for Appellant. Nawal Rai N. Oad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 142 = 1993 SLD 142 = 1993 PTD 1198 = (1993) 68 TAX 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Nature of Tribunal Decisions as Questions of Fact or Law\nKey Issue: Can factual disputes become legal issues if tribunal and appellate decisions differ?\nConclusion:\n•\nFactual disputes remain questions of fact even if tribunal findings contradict those of the I.T.O., unless based on inadmissible evidence or devoid of evidence.\nCitation: 1987 PTD (Trib.) 561.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.R.T. No. 42 of 1986, decision dated: 15-12-1992.hearing DATE : 15-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " IRSHAD HASAN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin Butt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nM/s. SH. MUHAMMAD SAEED & BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 497 = 1993 SLD 497 = 1993 CLC 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Council's Jurisdiction in Family Matters\nKey Issue: Can the Arbitration Council adjudicate dower and dowry claims?\nConclusion:\n•\nArbitration Council lacks jurisdiction over dower and dowry claims; such matters must be addressed in competent legal forums. Maintenance claims remain within its purview.\nCitation: Manzoor Hussain v. District Collector, Sahiwal and others, 1992 CLC 246.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961=9 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 104-F-89/BWP decided on 5-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner. Abdul Qayyum Qureshi for Respondent No. 1", + "Party Name:": "MUSHTAQ AHMAD\nvs\nTAHIRA YASMIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 498 = 1993 SLD 498 = 1993 CLC 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Performance and Revision of Erroneous Decisions\nKey Issues:\n1.\nProof requirements for specific performance of a sale agreement.\n2.\nRevisability of erroneous factual decisions.\nConclusion:\n•\nProof of the agreement is essential for specific performance suits.\n•\nFactual decisions are revisable only when based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence, or are perverse.\nCitation: Muhammad Zahir Khan v. Zamir Khan, 1987 SCMR 1144.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=115 Specific Relief Act, 1877=12 ", + "Case #": "C.Rev. 65 of 1991, decision dated: 10-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Sarwar Abbasi for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "JURIO\nvs\nNAWAB NABI BUKSH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 499 = 1993 SLD 499 = 1993 CLC 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Khal and Constitutional Jurisdiction\nKey Issue: Can High Courts interfere with orders regarding Khal restoration?\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Courts will not interfere if water access from a sanctioned Khal is already provided and the Authority’s decision aligns with established procedures.\nCitation: Canal & Drainage Act (VIII of 1873), S. 68-A.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Canal and Drainage Act, 1873=68A,68 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1113 of 1991, decision dated: 3rd July, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUNIRA. SHEIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Abdul Sattar Goraya for Petitioner. M.M. Jamal for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Mohammad Sadiq H.V.C. Islam Division Pallah (present) for Respondent No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "SHAMSUDDIN\nvs\nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 500 = 1993 SLD 500 = (1993) 67 TAX 17 = (1992) 193 ITR 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Prima Facie Adjustments Under Section 143(1)(a)\nKey Issue: Can claims be disallowed for lack of supporting proof in returns?\nConclusion:\n•\nAdjustments are permissible only if inadmissibility is evident from the return. Proofs can be requested under Section 143(2), not summarily disallowed.\nCitation: CBDT Circular No. 549, dated 31-10-1989.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W. NO. 697 OF 1991, OCTOBER 25, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND ARUN KUMAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S. Syali for the Applicant. B. Gupta and R.N. Verma for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "S.R.F. Charitable Trust\nvs\nUnion of India" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 144 = 1993 SLD 144 = 1993 PTD 1208 = 1993 TAX 77 = (1993) 68 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUViTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Speculative Transactions and Loss Adjustments\nKey Issue: Are transactions settled without delivery speculative?\nConclusion:\n•\nBonus vouchers settled without delivery do not constitute speculative transactions and losses can be set off against other business income.\nCitation: Azad Friends Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 1970 PTD 465.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=24(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.8 of 1978, decision dated: 17-09-1987.hearing DATE : 17-09-1987", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN AND SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Salah-ud-Din for Applicant. Ali Athar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPARACHA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 145 = 1993 SLD 145 = 1993 PTD 1219 = (1993) 68 TAX 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Proceedings and Limitation Computation\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhen can a stay be granted?\n2.\nHow is limitation affected by stayed proceedings?\nConclusion:\n•\nStay requires notice to Law Officers and hearing. Limitation excludes periods during which proceedings are stayed.\nCitation: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.160(b).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=160(b),62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(4) ", + "Case #": "Const. Petition No.D-1564 of 1993, decision dated: 4-07-1993", + "Judge Name:": " G.H. MALIK AND AHMED YAR KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farogh Nasim for Petitioner. Nasrullah Awan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2\nM.G. Hasan for Respondent No. 3", + "Party Name:": "Messrs EASTERN POLITRY SERVICES\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 146 = 1993 SLD 146 = 1993 PTD 1221 = (1993) 68 TAX 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Income Tax for Mines and Oilfields\nKey Issue: Can High Courts review exemption refusals?\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Courts may remand exemption cases for reevaluation, particularly when delays affect resolution.\nCitation: C.B.R. Circular No. 18 of 1986.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 546 of 1986 and 404 of 1990, decision dated: 10-02-1993.hearing DATE : 10-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": " KHAN RIAZ-UD-DIN AHMED AND CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad I1yas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 147 = 1993 SLD 147 = 1993 PTD 1222 = (1993) 68 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Allowance for Motor Vehicles\nKey Issue: Requirements for claiming depreciation on motor vehicles.\nConclusion:\n•\nOwnership and active use during the year are prerequisites for depreciation. Registration is strong but not sole proof of ownership or use.\nCitation: (1954) 25 ITR 265.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(v),ThirdSched.,R.1,(1A)(2),(3) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.343/KB of 1992-93, decision dated: 14-06-1993.hearing DATE : 5-06-1993", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamar-ud-Din, D.R. for Appellant. Salman Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 148 = 1993 SLD 148 = 1993 PTD 1232 = (1993) 68 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioners\nKey Issue: Applicability of Section 66-A amendments to earlier assessments.\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 66-A amendments are not retrospective; orders merged in appellate decisions cannot be revised.\nCitation: Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, 1992 PTD 932.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66,135,62,65 ", + "Case #": "W.P. No.3892 of 1992, heard on 16-05-1993.hearing DATE : 16-05-1993", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. ANJUMAN SHAHEEN\nVs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RANGEIII and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 149 = 1993 SLD 149 = 1993 PTD 1236 = (1993) 68 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Appeals Before 1979\nKey Issue: Applicability of 1979 Ordinance to appeals filed earlier.\nConclusion:\n•\nLimitation for appeals predating 1979 is governed by Section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, prescribing a 90-day limit.\nCitation: CIT v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd., 1993 PTD 459.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1) ", + "Case #": "W.P. No.2070 of 1986, heard on 9-05-1993. dates of hearing: 8th and 9-05-1993", + "Judge Name:": " IRSHAD HASAN KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ARIF, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Petitioner. Rasheed Ahmed Sheikh for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAIZAZ MANSOOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 150 = 1993 SLD 150 = 1993 PTD 1246 = (1993) 199 ITR 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Prosecution for Failure to Deduct or Pay Tax\nKey Issues:\n1.\nLiability of company directors without designation as principal officers. \n2.\nRequirement to prove absence of reasonable cause for failure to deduct/pay tax.\nConclusion:\n•\nProsecution of directors is invalid unless they are designated as principal officers by the Assessing Officer.\n•\nReasonable cause must be proven by the Revenue to constitute an offense under Section 276-B.\nCitation: Manjunatha Tyre Retreading Works v. State of Mysore (1969) 23 STC 428.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2531-M of 1991, decision dated: 18-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " G.S. CHAHAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.L. Sibal and S.C. Sibal, Senior Advocates (Deepak Sibal,- R.K. Handa, K.M. Karen Randhawa with him) for Petitioners. R.P. Sahni for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GREATWAY (P) LTD. and others\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 151 = 1993 SLD 151 = 1993 PTD 1254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "G.P. Rate and Res Judicata in Tax Assessments\nKey Issue: Does the application of a lower gross profit (G.P.) rate in assessments constitute income assessed at too low a rate ?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe principle of res judicata does not apply to tax assessments; each year is independent, and the G.P. rate can vary based on business conditions.\nCitation: Law of Income Tax (4th edition) by Sampath Iyengar.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(b) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 486 and 487 (PB) of 1991-92, decision dated: 21st September, 1992.hearing DATE : 21st September, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " CH. IRSHAD AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Ahmed Sehgal for Appellant. Mukhtiar Ahmed Gondal D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 152 = 1993 SLD 152 = 1993 PTD 1281 = (1993) 200 ITR 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Enhanced Lease Rent\nKey Issue: Year of deduction for enhanced lease rent liability.\nConclusion:\n•\nLiability for enhanced rent arises in the year the agreement is reached and quantified. In this case, it was deductible in the assessment year 1973-74.\nCitation: CIT v. Teesta Valley Co. Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 657.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 54 of 1981, decision dated: 8-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K.SENGUPTA AND BHAGAPATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJUTE AND STORES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 153 = 1993 SLD 153 = 1993 PTD 1289 = (1993) 200 ITR 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Validity Based on Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 147\nKey Issues:\n1.\nCan a Section 147(a) notice be converted to a 147(b) notice without issuance of a fresh notice?\n2.\nIs a change of opinion sufficient for reassessment under Section 147(b)?\nConclusion:\n•\nSeparate notices are mandatory for invoking Section 147(a) or 147(b).\n•\nA change of opinion does not justify reassessment under Section 147(b).\nCitation: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.7 of 1986, decision dated: 3rd February, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.N. PHUKAN AND, J.M. SRIVASTAVA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Bhattacharjee, M.K. Sharma and A.K. Saraf for the Assessee. D.K. Talukdar and B.J. Talukdar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TARAJAN TEA CO. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 154 = 1993 SLD 154 = 1993 PTD 1303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Agreed Assessments\nKey Issue: Can an assessment settled by agreement be reopened for undisclosed income?\nConclusion:\n•\nDiscovery of incorrect profit declarations allows reopening of agreed assessments to include previously omitted income.\nCitation: Scorer v. Olin Energy Systems Ltd. (1984) 1 WLR 675.", + "Court Name:": "Chancery Division", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "abc", + "Judge Name:": " VINELOTT, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Alan Moses O.C. for the Crown. John Tallon for the Taxpayer. Solicitors. Solicitor of Inland Revenue; Dunham Brindley and Linn, Codsall.", + "Party Name:": "GRAY (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nVs\nMATHESON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 155 = 1993 SLD 155 = 1993 PTD 1314 = (1993) 199 ITR 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Draft Assessment Orders and Limitation\nKey Issues:\n1.\nValidity of supplementary draft assessment orders.\n2.\nClassification of income from film studios and rental properties.\nConclusion:\n•\nSupplementary draft orders are valid if no objections are raised within the stipulated time.\n•\nIncome from film studios is classified as business income, not property income.\n•\nConversion of personal assets to partnership assets does not bar depreciation claims.\nCitation: CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 211 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 163 to 165 of 1980 (References Nos. 123 to 125 of 1980), decision dated: 10-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND ABDUL HADI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Utham Reddi for the Assessee. N.V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SALEEM & CO\nVs\nIncome Tax AUTHORITIES\nB. NAGI REDDY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 156 = 1993 SLD 156 = 1993 PTD 1327 = (1993) 68 TAX 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Exchange Loss Treatment\nKey Issue: Is additional payment due to foreign exchange fluctuations revenue or capital in nature?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe treatment depends on whether the foreign exchange is linked to revenue or capital accounts. Revenue-linked losses are deductible, while capital-linked losses are not.\nCitation: Income Tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 10(2)(xvi).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.12 of 1981, decision dated: 14-02-1989.hearing DATE : 14th February,4989", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "AA. Sharif for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M/s. BAYER PHARMA LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax A RANGE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 157 = 1993 SLD 157 = 1993 PTD 1328 = (1993) 199 ITR 351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of the Appellate Tribunal\nKey Issue: Can the Tribunal allow additional grounds in appeal?\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal can permit additional grounds as long as they pertain to the subject matter of the tax proceedings and ensure the correct tax liability is determined.\nCitation: Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Nos.481 of 1976 and 45 of 1977, decision dated: 30-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR, B.N. DESHMUKH AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.E. Dastur with NA. Dalvi instructed by Messrs Mulla and Mulla Craigie, Blunt and Caroe for the Assessee. Dr. Balasubramanian and P.S. Jetley for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\n(I.T.R. No.481 of 1976)\nGODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\n(I.T.R. No.45 of 1977)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 158 = 1993 SLD 158 = 1993 PTD 1345 = (1993) 200 ITR 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Income or Capital - Reduction of Partner’s Share\nKey Issue: Nature of compensation received by a partner for the reduction of their share in a partnership firm.\nConclusion:\n•\nCompensation received for the reduction of a partner’s share in a partnership firm is a capital receipt if the trading structure is impaired, as it reflects impairment of the capital asset.\nCitation: Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.201 of 1978, decision dated: 12-08-1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.B. MAJMUDAR AND S.D. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "BJ. Shelat, Advocate instructed by M.R. Bhatt of R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner. K.C. Patel for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAJENDRA BABUBHAI MODI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 159 = 1993 SLD 159 = 1993 PTD 1352 = (1994) 69 TAX 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nKey Issue: Repayment of a loan raised for acquiring capital assets.\nConclusion:\n•\nPayments made to liquidate a loan raised for capital assets are capital expenditures and not deductible as revenue expenses.\nCitation: Hylam Ltd. v. CIT 87 ITR 310 (AP).\n_", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Application No.37 of 1984, decision dated: 18-06-1992.hearing DATE : 18-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " A.M. MAHMUDUR RAHMAN AND SYED, J.R. MUDASSIR HUSSAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakir Abdul Mannan for Applicant. Muhammad Moksudur Rahman for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "A.R. BHUIYAN & Co\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF TAXES, DHAKA (SOUTH) ZONE, DHAKA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 160 = 1993 SLD 160 = 1993 PTD 1365 = (1993) 200 ITR 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Stock\nKey Issue: Use of different valuation methods for accounts and tax purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe valuation method must be consistent; notional valuations solely for tax purposes can be rejected. Prior acceptance does not bind future assessments.\nCitation: CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 73 of 1989, decision dated: 25-07-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nUCO BANK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 161 = 1993 SLD 161 = 1993 PTD 1381 = (1993) 200 ITR 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firms - Minors as Partners\nKey Issue: Validity of firm registration with minors listed as partners.\nConclusion:\n•\nMinors cannot be full partners but may be admitted to the benefits of partnership. Firms violating this are ineligible for registration.\nCitation: CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. Cs. Nos. 70 and 71 of 1989, decision dated: 29-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.A. HAKEEM AND K, JAGANNATHA SHETTY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMANICKBAG GARAGE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 162 = 1993 SLD 162 = 1993 PTD 1388 = (1993) 200 ITR 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference and Precedent\nKey Issue: Issuance of a reference when the question is already settled by precedent.\nConclusion:\n•\nNo reference can be directed if the question is concluded by earlier High Court decisions.\nCitation: Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1991) 189 ITR 81 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.51 of 1992, decision dated: 11-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND MRS. SANTOSH DUGGAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja and Anurag Chawla for the Assessee\nNemo for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PUNJAB AUTO ENTERPRISES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 163 = 1993 SLD 163 = 1993 PTD 1390 = (1993) 200 ITR 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Diversion of Income by Overriding Title\nKey Issue: Statutory obligations diverting income from taxable revenues.\nConclusion:\n•\nAmounts credited under statutory obligations, like Molasses Storage Fund, are diverted by overriding title and are not taxable as income.\nCitation: CIT v. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.C.R. No. 90 of 1990, decision dated: 6-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA, C.J. AND SHIVARAJ PATIL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Raghavendra Rao for the Commissioner. Jayakumar S. Patil, Ramadas and K. Gajendra Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHIRANYAKESHI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KHARKHANE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 164 = 1993 SLD 164 = 1993 PTD 1391 = (1993) 200 ITR 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income from Undisclosed Sources\nKey Issue: Addition to income based on suppressed sales and stock discrepancies.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal findings based on factual evidence, like no suppressed sales, are final, and no question of law arises.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Before R.K Gulati and A.P. Singh, JJn No.49 of 1992, decision dated: 13-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": " R.K GULATI AND A.P. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVIGHYAN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 165 = 1993 SLD 165 = 1993 PTD 1393 = (1993) 200 ITR 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nKey Issue: Levy of penalty when additions to income are deleted.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty based on deleted additions is invalid.\nCitation: Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271(1)(c).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.187 of 1980, decision dated: 10-08-1992", + "Judge Name:": " OM PARKASH AND R.K GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBADRI PRASAD KASHI PRASAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 166 = 1993 SLD 166 = 1993 PTD 1394 = (1993) 200 ITR 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Received in Arbitration Awards\nKey Issue: Taxability of interest received on arbitration awards.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest awarded is a capital receipt and not taxable as revenue income.\nCitation: Govinda Chaudhury and Sons v. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 497 (Orissa).", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.J.C. Nos. 140 and 143 of 1988, decision dated: 13-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": " A. PASAYAT AND D.M. PATNAIK, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Kar for the Commissioner, S. Ray for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nB.N. AGARWALA & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 167 = 1993 SLD 167 = 1993 PTD 1395 = (1993) 200 ITR 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of the Appellate Tribunal\nKey Issue: Admission of fresh grounds and evidence during appeals.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal has discretion to permit new grounds and evidence if relevant to the appeal.\nCitation: CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 75 of 1982, decision dated: 15-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND P.N. BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Rajendra and R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner. S.N. Kumar, Senior Advocate with K.B. Soni for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMARALACSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 168 = 1993 SLD 168 = 1993 PTD 1401 = (1993) 200 ITR 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Commission Paid to Sales Agents\nKey Issue: Allowability of commission paid as a deductible expense.\nConclusion:\n•\nIf services are rendered and evidence supports the claim, the commission is deductible.\nCitation: Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 439 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 160 of 1991, decision dated: 25-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND MRS. SANTOSH DUGGAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta, R.K. Chaufla and D.C. Taneja for the Commissioner. S.K. Aggarwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMODI INDUSTRIES LTD. (NO.1)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 169 = 1993 SLD 169 = 1993 PTD 1404 = (1993) 200 ITR 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revision and Tribunal’s Powers\nKey Issue: Tribunal setting aside Commissioner’s order in revision.\nConclusion:\n•\nMixed questions of law and fact must be referred for determination.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos. 286 to 288 of 1991, decision dated: 12-08-1992", + "Judge Name:": " OM PARKASH AND R.K GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAHENDRA KUMAR BANSAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 170 = 1993 SLD 170 = 1993 PTD 1406 = (1993) 200 ITR 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure\nKey Issue: Deductibility of commission when no evidence supports the agent’s capability.\nConclusion:\n•\nExpenditure not wholly for business purposes is not deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 64 of 1982, decision dated: 6-08-1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND P.K BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "O.P. Vaish and S.K. Aggarwal for the Assessee. B. Gupta and R.C. Pandey for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MODI INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 171 = 1993 SLD 171 = 1993 PTD 1411 = (1993) 200 ITR 410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Entertainment Expenditure\nKey Issue: Deductibility of meal expenses for customers.\nConclusion:\n•\nOrdinary meals served to customers are not deductible under entertainment expenditure.\nCitation: Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 265 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.14 of 1980, decision dated: 31st August, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " OM PARKASH AND R.K GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "L.H. SUGAR FACTORIES LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 172 = 1993 SLD 172 = 1993 PTD 1412 = (1993) 200 ITR 418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Agricultural Land\nKey Issue: Taxability of gains from agricultural land within municipal limits.\nConclusion:\n•\nGains from agricultural land within municipal limits are taxable as capital gains.\nCitation: CIT v. T.K. Sarala Devi (1987) 167 ITR 136 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 31 and 32 of 1989, decision dated: 4-06-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND PA. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. Assessee in person", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS. SIVARAMAKRISHNAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 173 = 1993 SLD 173 = 1993 PTD 1415 = (1993) 200 ITR 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Annual Value of Let-Out Property\nKey Issue: Basis for determining the annual value of rent-controlled property.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe agreed rent under rent control laws is the annual value for tax purposes.\nCitation: CIT v. Modi Spinning and Manufacturing Mills Co. Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 361 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 71 and 74 of 1982, decision dated: 13-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND P.K BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Rajendra, R.K. Chaufla and D.N. Malhotra for the Commissioner. S.K. Aggarwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMODI INDUSTRIES LTD. (NOA)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 174 = 1993 SLD 174 = 1993 PTD 1418 = (1993) 200 ITR 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration and Partner Assessments\nKey Issue: Impact of individual partner assessments on firm registration.\nConclusion:\n•\nLegality of a partnership and prior assessments of partners are questions of law.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax case No.6 of 1989, decision dated: 19-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " J.R. CHOPRA AND V.K. SINGHAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.P. Gupta for the Assessee. D.S. Shishodia for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KANKARIA TEXTILES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 175 = 1993 SLD 175 = 1993 PTD 1420 = (1993) 200 ITR 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Accrual and Refund Obligations\nKey Issue: Taxability of excess amounts kept in suspense accounts.\nConclusion:\n•\nAmounts liable for refund are not taxable trading receipts.\nCitation: CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. (1990) 183 ITR 113 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R.C. No. 7 of 1990 connected with Nos. 8 to 11 of 1990, decision dated: 10-07-1991", + "Judge Name:": " BOOM N. VENKATACHALA AND K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Chandrakumar and S. R. Shivaprakash for the Commissioner. G. Sarangan and Gajendra Rao for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMALAPRABHA COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 176 = 1993 SLD 176 = 1993 PTD 1424 = (1993) 200 ITR 461", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Succession vs. Change in Firm Constitution\nKey Issue: Distinction between firm succession and constitutional change.\nConclusion:\n•\nDeath of one partner in a two-person firm leads to dissolution; subsequent formation of a new firm is succession.\nCitation: CIT v. Kunj Beharj Shyam Lal (1977) 109 ITR 154 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.150 of 1984, decision dated: 25-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " ANSHUMAN SINGH AND R.K GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nRAM BILAS PURSHOTTAM DASS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 177 = 1993 SLD 177 = 1993 PTD 1429 = (1993) 200 ITR 441", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Tax at Source (TDS) - Interest on Non-Residents’ Deposits\nKey Issues:\n1.\nObligation of banks to deduct TDS on interest paid to non-residents.\n2.\nLiability for delayed TDS payment.\nConclusions:\n•\nBanks must deduct tax under S.195 unless they are statutorily deemed agents of the non-resident depositors.\n•\nInterest under S.201(1-A) applies for delayed TDS payment even if the recovery of the tax itself becomes time-barred.\nCitation: Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 457 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 91 of 1982, decision dated: 11-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. D. Pal for the Assessee. S.K Mitra and D. K Shome for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GRINDLAYS BANK LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 178 = 1993 SLD 178 = 1993 PTD 1439 = (1993) 200 ITR 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Cash Payments and Rule 6-DD(j)\nKey Issue: Cash payments made under exceptional circumstances despite S.40-A(3).\nConclusion:\n•\nGenuine transactions necessitating cash payments under exceptional circumstances (e.g., dishonored cheques) are allowed as deductions under Rule 6-DD(j).\nCitation: Central Board Circular No. 222 (1977).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 276 of 1982, decision dated: 4-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND P.K BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta and R.N. Verma for the Commissioner. P.N. Manga and Gogan Nephray for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMEGHDOOT SALES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 179 = 1993 SLD 179 = 1993 PTD 1442 = (1993) 200 ITR 467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Succession vs. Reconstitution\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRetirement of one partner from a two-person firm.\n2.\nWhether succession or reconstitution applies.\nConclusion:\n•\nRetirement of one partner in a two-partner firm results in dissolution and succession, not reconstitution. Separate assessments should be made for the two periods.\nCitation: CIT v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (1965) 57 ITR 510 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=182,183,184,185,186,000,000 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 4 of 1986, decision dated: 23rd June, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " U.L. BHAT, C.J. AND W.A. SHISHAK, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. D.K. Talukdar for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DEORAH & CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 180 = 1993 SLD 180 = 1993 PTD 1455 = (1993) 200 ITR 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "House Property Income - Members' Clubs\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of annual letting value (ALV) for self-occupied clubhouses.\n2.\nApplicability of the mutuality principle.\nConclusion:\n•\nALV is taxable under S.22 if the property is self-occupied and not used for business or profession. The principle of mutuality does not apply.\nCitation: CIT v. Wheeler Club Ltd. (1963) 49 ITR 52 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 200 and 201 of 1982, decision dated: 11-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND P.K BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta and D.N. Malhotra for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHELMSFORD CLUB LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 182 = 1993 SLD 182 = 1993 PTD 1458 = (1993) 200 ITR 496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Stock Valuation Methods\nKey Issue: Change in valuation method and its implications.\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessees may choose any recognized method of stock valuation as long as it is applied consistently for opening and closing stock in the same year. A change is permitted between years but not within the same year.\nCitation: Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.25 of 1987, decision dated: 4-12-1992", + "Judge Name:": " U.L. BHAT, C.J. AND N G. DAS, .J", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.K. Talukdar and B.J. Talukdar for the Commissioner. J.P. Bhattacharjee, G.K. Joshi, Y. Dolai and R.K. Joshi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 183 = 1993 SLD 183 = 1993 PTD 1465 = (1993) 200 ITR 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Current Repairs and Renovations\nKey Issues:\n1.\nWhether extensive repairs qualify as current repairs. \n2.\nDeductibility of renovation expenses.\nConclusions:\n•\nRepairs overdue for several years do not qualify as current repairs under S.30(a)(ii).\n•\nRenovation expenses to facilitate business are deductible under S.37(1).\nCitation: Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No 161 of 1981, decision dated: 23rd October, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND P.K BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Aggarwal and V.P. Gupta for the Assessee. B. Gupta and R.N. Verma for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 184 = 1993 SLD 184 = 1993 PTD 1482 = (1993) 200 ITR 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Academic References in Taxation\nKey Issue: Addressing references that have become academic.\nConclusion:\n•\nAcademic questions, especially those resolved by subsequent decisions or changes, are not to be answered.\nCitation: J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 344 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 197 of 1982, decision dated: 3rd November 1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND P.K BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Rajendra and R.K. Chaufla for the Commissioner. S.K, Aggarwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHANKAR TRADING CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 185 = 1993 SLD 185 = 1993 PTD 1484 = (1993) 200 ITR 596", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Lease Premium - Capital vs. Revenue Receipt\nKey Issue: Nature of premium received for granting a lease.\nConclusion:\n•\nPremium received for a lease is a capital receipt if the rent charged is reasonable, and the onus to prove otherwise lies on the tax authorities.\nCitation: Durga Das Khanna v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 92 of 1987, decision dated: 29th August 1990", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.C. Moitra and Sunil Mukherjee for the Commissioner. N.K. Poddar. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nANDERSON WRIGHT & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 186 = 1993 SLD 186 = 1993 PTD 1489 = (1993) 200 ITR 602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Net Payment to Partner under Section 40(b)\nKey Issue: Disallowance of net payment to a partner after adjusting interest paid to the firm.\nConclusion:\n•\nOnly the net amount paid to the partner after adjustments should be disallowed.\n•\nQuestion covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 1 (SC) and deemed academic.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 64 of 1991, decision dated: 27-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " ANSHUMAN SINGH AND RK GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Standing Counsel for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJ.K. BANKERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 187 = 1993 SLD 187 = 1993 PTD 1490 = (1993) 200 ITR 609", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification Proceedings and Surtax Deduction\nKey Issue: Allowance of surtax as a deduction in rectification proceedings under Section 154.\nConclusion:\n•\nSurtax cannot be claimed as a deduction during rectification proceedings since such issues are not apparent mistakes.\nCitation: Motor and General Finance Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 698 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 228 to 230 of 1982, decision dated: 4-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND P.K BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.P. Bhatnagar for the Assessee. B. Gupta and R.C. Pandey for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GOODWILL INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 188 = 1993 SLD 188 = 1993 PTD 1501 = (1993) 200 ITR 715", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains - Goodwill in a New Business\nKey Issue: Treatment of goodwill generated in a newly commenced business.\nConclusion:\n•\nGoodwill in a new business is not a capital asset, and its transfer does not result in capital gains.\nCitation: CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.211 of 1980, decision dated: 25-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": " G. T. NANAVATI AND S.M. SONI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.M. Talati for the Assessee. M.J. Thakore instructed by M.R. Bhatt of M/s. R.P. Bhatt & Co. for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "H.S. BROTHERS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 189 = 1993 SLD 189 = 1993 PTD 1502 = (1993) 200 ITR 735", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Referred Question Governed by Precedent\nKey Issue: Whether a question already decided by the High Court is referable.\nConclusion:\n•\nSimilar questions may still be referred unless conclusively resolved by the Supreme Court or higher authorities.\nCitation: Madan (D.B.) v. CIT (1991) 192 ITR 344 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petitions Nos. 5335, 5446 and 5447 of 1990-S, decision dated: 4-06-1992", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND P.A. MOHAMMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. C.M. Devan, C.N. Ramachandran Nair and Antony Dominic for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKONTIKI CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 190 = 1993 SLD 190 = 1993 PTD 1506 = (1993) 200 ITR 743", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification and Debatable Issues\nKey Issue: Withdrawal of interest under Section 214 through rectification proceedings.\nConclusion:\n•\nRectification is invalid for debatable issues; mistakes must be apparent on the face of the record.\nCitation: T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 145 of 1982, decision dated: 2-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": " B.N. KIRPAL AND P.K BAHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta and R.C. Pandey for the Commissioner. M.S. Syali for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMOTI SAGAR KAPOOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 191 = 1993 SLD 191 = 1993 PTD 1507 = (1993) 200 ITR 785", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Reference to Valuation Officer\nKey Issue: Power to refer to the Valuation Officer under Section 55-A in reassessment.\nConclusion:\n•\nReference to a Valuation Officer under Section 55-A is valid only for determining fair market value related to capital gains. Any valuation obtained otherwise has no statutory effect and can be rebutted by the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "OJ.C. No. 2335 of 1989, decision dated: 24-09-1992", + "Judge Name:": " G.B. PATNANIK AND R.K PATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "I. Mohanty, R.K. Pradhan and P. Mohanty for the Assessee. A.K. Ray for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 192 = 1993 SLD 192 = 1993 PTD 1511 = (1993) 200 ITR 745", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of the Appellate Tribunal\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTribunal’s jurisdiction to revise its own orders.\n2.\nValuation of closing stock of sugar.\nConclusions:\n•\nRevising its own order amounts to exceeding jurisdiction unless the mistake is apparent on the record.\n•\nValuing sugar stock at different rates post-closing period introduces a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Application No.55 of 1991, decision dated: 31st March, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " ANSHUMAN SINGH AND R.K GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 193 = 1993 SLD 193 = 1993 PTD 1544 = (1993) 201 ITR 538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Dissolution of Firm and Assessment Under the 1922 Act\nKey Issue: Assessment of dissolved firms before the 1958 amendment.\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 44 of the 1922 Act allows assessing dissolved firms as if they continued to exist, under a legal fiction.\nCitation: C.A. Abraham v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 425 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=44 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 156 and 157 of 1979, decision dated: 26-03-1993(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 5,1977, of the Bombay High Court Income-tax Reference No. 44 of 1968)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate with Ashok Mathur, Advocate for Appellant.A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate with B. Parthasarathy and P. Parameswaran, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "NAGARMAL BAIJNATH\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 194 = 1993 SLD 194 = 1993 PTD 1551 = (1993) 201 ITR 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "TDS on Payments to Contractors under Section 194C\nKey Issues:\n1.\nScope of any work under Section 194C(1).\n2.\nObligation to deduct TDS on the entire payment, including reimbursements.\nConclusions:\n•\nSection 194C covers all contracts involving any work, not just works contracts.\n•\nTDS must be deducted on the entire sum paid or credited, not just the income component.\nCitation: Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 444.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2860 of 1979, decision dated: 23rd March, 1993(Appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated March 8,1979, of the Patna High Court in C.WJ. C. No. 2909 of 1978)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) ,ref. Vinod Bobde, Senior Advocate, R.F. Nariman and UA. Rana, Advocates for M/s. Gagrat & Co. for Appellant.Dr. S. Narayanan, Manoj Arora and P. Parameswaran, Advocates for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 195 = 1993 SLD 195 = 1993 PTD 1557 = (1993) 201 ITR 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cooperative Societies - Exemption on Agricultural Produce\nKey Issue: Whether a cooperative society without agriculturists as direct members qualifies for exemption under Section 81(i)(c).\nConclusion:\n•\nExemption applies only if the cooperative society markets the agricultural produce produced by its direct members.\n•\nA society with no direct agriculturist members is not entitled to exemption.\nCitation: Assam Cooperative Apex Marketing Society v. CIT (Addl) (1977) 110 ITR 33.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2711 of 1977, decision dated: 25-02-1993(Appeals by special leave against the judgment and order, dated July 13,1976, of the Gauhati High Court in I.T.R. No. 15 of 1973)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. H. Parekh, Advocate for Appellant swanatha lyer, Senior Advocate (Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ASSAM COOPERATIVE APEX MARKETING SOCIETY LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 196 = 1993 SLD 196 = 1993 PTD 1562 = (1993) 201 ITR 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Secret Commission\nKey Issue: Deduction for secret commission payments.\nConclusion:\n•\nDeduction denied as the assessee failed to prove the expenditure, including disclosing recipients or uniformity in payments.\n•\nNo question of law arose from the Tribunal’s factual findings.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2393 of 1977, decision dated: 18-02-1993(Appeal by special leave against the order dated June 20, 1977, of the Bombay High Court in I.TA. No. 66 of 1977)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.H. Parekh and Sunil Dogra, Advocates for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and P.Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "FRENCH DYES AND CHEMICALS (I.) P. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 197 = 1993 SLD 197 = 1993 PTD 1564", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Restrictions on Deductions - Royalty Payments to Directors\nKey Issue: Whether Section 40(c) applies to royalty payments for brand usage.\nConclusion:\n•\nPayments for brand usage are not subject to Section 40(c) if the agreement is genuine and not a mere device.\n•\nSupreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, allowing full deduction of royalty.\nCitation: CIT v. Prakash Beedies (P.) Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 241 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "(CA. Nos 1465 and 1822 of 1987, 657, 4461 and 4462 of 1989 and 6092, 6092-A, 6093 and 6204 of 1990, decision dated: 7th May; 1993", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh, R. Gill, Simi Kumar and Meenakshi Grover, Advocates with him) for Appellant Prakash Beedies (P.) Ltd.).\nRohinton F. Nariman, P. H. Parekh, R. Gill, Simi Kumar and Meenakshi Grover, Advocates for Appellant Bharat Beedi Works (P.) Ltd.\nB.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent (in all the Appeals).", + "Party Name:": "BHARAT BEEDI WORKS (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\n(CA. Nos. 1452 and 1902 of 1987 and No. 658 of 1989)\nPRAKASHA BEEDIES (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 198 = 1993 SLD 198 = 1993 PTD 1573 = (1993) 201 ITR 851", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit Certificate - Export by Barter System\nKey Issue: Eligibility for tax credit certificate under Section 280-ZC in barter system exports.\nConclusion:\n•\nOnly the Mineral and Metal Trading Corporation (MMTC), as the official exporter under barter system agreements, is entitled to the tax credit certificate.\n•\nSupreme Court reversed the High Court's decision favoring the manufacturer-exporter.\nCitation: Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. R.C. Mishra, Director, Tax Credit (1978) 114 ITR 753 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil. Appeal No.372 of 1979, decision dated: 7-04-1993(Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 25, 1978, of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1494 of 1973)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.M. Ghatate, Senior Advocate with D.N. Misra, Advocate for J.B. Dadachanji & Co. for Appellant.\nDr. V. C. Mahajan, Senior Advocate with C. Ramesh and C.V. Subba Rao, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondent No. 2.", + "Party Name:": "MINERAL AND METAL TRADING CORPORATION\nVs\nR.C. MISHRA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 199 = 1993 SLD 199 = 1993 PTD 1579 = (1993) 201 ITR 422", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Acquisition of Immovable Property - Possessory Rights\nKey Issue: Impact of acquisition on possessory rights, including statutory tenants under rent laws.\nConclusion:\n•\nAcquisition includes possessory rights, overriding tenancy protections under rent laws.\n•\nStatutory tenants cannot retain possession after an acquisition order becomes final.\nCitation: Rambhai Manja Nayak v. Union of India (1983) 142 ITR 211 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3119 of 1983, decision dated: 17-11-1992(Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 12, 1983, of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 310 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " M.H. KANIA, CJI, J.S. VERMA, S.C. AGRAWAL, YOGESHWAR DAYWL AND DR. A. S. ANAND, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Karanjawala and Mrs. Aditi Chaudhary, Advocates and Mrs. Nandini Gore, Advocate for Mrs. M. Karanjawala, Advocate for Appellants.\nG. Ramaswamy, Attorney-General of India, Dipankar Gupta, Solicitor-General of India, Dr. Gauri Shankar, J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra, CN.S. Rao and P.Parameswaran, Advocates with them) for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "RAMBAI MANJANATH NAYAK and others\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 200 = 1993 SLD 200 = 1993 PTD 1591 = (1993) 201 ITR 681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Compulsory Acquisition - Interest Payment to Seller\nKey Issue: Whether a seller is entitled to interest during delays caused by court orders.\nConclusion:\n•\nIf equity requires, interest can be granted to the seller for delays in receiving payment due to court-imposed stays.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 3303 of 1992, decision dated: 14-08-1992(Appeal by special leave from the order, dated May 4, 1988 of the Delhi High Court in Application No. 625 of 1988 in C.W.P. No. 387 of 1988)", + "Judge Name:": " M H. KANIA CJI, J.S. VERMA, S. C AGRAWAL, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND DR. A.S. ANAND, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate (K.V. Mohan, Advocate with him) for Appellant.\nHarish N. Salve, Senior Advocate (P.A.S. Rao and D.N. Mishra, Advocates for M/s. J.B. Dadachanji & Co. with him) for Respondent No. 1.\nDr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra, C.V.S. Rao and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "RAJALAKSHMI NARAYANAN\nVs\nMARGARET KATHLEEN GANDHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 201 = 1993 SLD 201 = 1993 PTD 1594 = (1993) 201 ITR 611", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Settlement Commission - Judicial Review and Trusts\nKey Issues:\n1.\nScope of judicial review for Settlement Commission orders.\n2.\nTreatment of discretionary trust income.\nConclusions:\n•\nJudicial review is limited to examining compliance with the Income Tax Act and cases of bias, fraud, or malice. Incorrect interpretation of a trust deed is not a ground for interference.\n•\nIncome from discretionary trusts can be taxed either in the hands of trustees or beneficiaries as per Section 166.\nCitations:\n•\nShreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC).\n•\nBehramji Sorabji Lalkaka v. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 301 (Bom.) approved.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=245D(4),245 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1301 to 1307 of 1991 with Civil Appeals Nos. 1288 to 1300 of 1991, decision dated: 2-04-1993(Appeals by special leave from the order, dated March 31, 1989 of the Income-tax Settlement Commission, Bombay in Settlement Application No.10/5/41/78-I.T.)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Desai and B.K Mehta, Senior Advocate (N.K Sahu, U.K. Sagar and P.H. Parekh, Advocates with them) for Appellant. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "JYOTENDRASINHJI\nVs\nS.I. TRIPATHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 202 = 1993 SLD 202 = 1993 PTD 1616 = (1993) 201 ITR 513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Settlement and Rectification - Excess Profits Tax\nKey Issue: Whether rectification proceedings to withdraw a deduction post-settlement were valid.\nConclusion:\n•\nRectification to withdraw deductions for excess profits tax was valid, as the deduction issue was not covered in the settlement.\n•\nOnce excess profits tax liability was reduced to nil, the deduction was rightly withdrawn.\nCitation: Sankappa (S.) v. ITO (1968) 68 ITR 760 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34(1A),(1-li),(1D),35(6) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1453 and 1454 of 1980 with Civil Appeals Nos. 3928 and 3929 of 1991, decision dated: 3rd March, 1993(Civil Appeals Nos.1453 and 1454 are by special leave from the judgment and order, dated December 8, 1978 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J. C. Nos.174 and 179 of 1975)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATCHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.N. Misra, Senior Advocate (Manish Misra, D.P. Mukherjee and B.S. Gupta, Advocates with him) for Appellants. G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (B.S. Ahuja and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "CHHATHU RAM and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 203 = 1993 SLD 203 = 1993 PTD 1629 = (1993) 68 TAX 154 = 1993 SCMR 2071 = 1993 PTCL 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Commissioner's Revisions - Scope and Prejudice to Assessee\nKey Issue: Limits on revisions by the Commissioner under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\n•\nAny order passed under Section 138 must not prejudice the assessee's tangible or intangible interests.\n•\n Prejudicial includes any adverse impact on rights, goodwill, or reputation.\nCitation: (1948) 16 ITR 214 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,138 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 270-K of 1990, decision dated: 23rd December, 1992.hearing DATE : 23rd December, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants Sheik Hyder, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on= Record for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PARAS COMMERCIAL COMPANY and 4 others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONEA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 204 = 1993 SLD 204 = 1993 PTD 1636 = (1993) 201 ITR 723", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Commission to Directors\nKey Issue: Applicability of Section 40 restrictions to commission payments.\nConclusion:\n•\nCommissions paid as a percentage of sales to directors are not perquisites and are not subject to limits under Sections 40(a)(v) or 40-A(5).\n•\nThe Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's refusal to disallow the payments.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1583 and 1584 of 1977, decision dated: 13-04-1993(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 22,1976 of the Bombay High Court in I.TA. No.191 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar, T.V. Ratnam and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Appellants.Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocate (of J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIAN ENGINEERING AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 205 = 1993 SLD 205 = 1993 PTD 1642 = (1993) 201 ITR 707", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVISFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Income - Excess Charges on Tractors\nKey Issue: Taxability of excess charges collected above ceiling prices.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe excess amounts collected were income of the assessee for that year as the customers had no enforceable right to claim refunds.\nCitation: C.I.T. (Addl.) v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation (1982) 133 ITR 597 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1744 of 1981, decision dated: 8-04-1993(Appeal by certificate against the judgment and order, dated September 16, 1980 of the Allahabad High Court in Income Tax Reference No.264 of 1979)", + "Judge Name:": " KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.I.T. (Addl.) v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation (1982) 133 ITR 597 affirmed.. Rana, Senior Advocate (Raja Ramachandran, Advocate with him) for Appellant.J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (C. Ramesh and P. Parameswaran with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "U.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 206 = 1993 SLD 206 = 1993 PTD 1645 = (1993) 201 ITR 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court Jurisdiction - Scope of Reference\nKey Issue: Whether the High Court can correct erroneous assumptions of law by the Tribunal.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court can set aside Tribunal decisions based on incorrect legal assumptions and direct reconsideration.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC) rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.2169 of 1982, decision dated: 6-04-1993(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated December 10,1979, of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No398 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " . B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellant. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Sudhir Walia and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SALEM COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 207 = 1993 SLD 207 = 1993 PTD 1652 = (1993) 201 ITR 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Resident Taxation - Collaboration Agreements\nKey Issue: Taxability of royalties credited to a non-resident’s account in India.\nConclusion:\n•\nRoyalties credited in India are considered received, making the non-resident liable to tax regardless of actual receipt abroad or accounting method.\nCitation: Raghava Reddi v. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 720 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1022 to 1024 of 1982 with Civil Appeal No.423 of 1982, decision dated: 25-02-1993(Appeals from the judgments and orders, dated March 14, 1978, and 2-07-1.979 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos.228 of 1974 and 215 of 1975, respectively)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uttam Reddy, Senior Advocate (Atul Sharma and A.V. Palli, Advocates and Ms. Reena Agarwal, Advocate for E.C. Agrawala, Advocate with him) for Appellant. G. Viswantha lyer, Senior Advocate (T.V. Ratnam and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG.R. KARTHIKEYAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 208 = 1993 SLD 208 = 1993 PTD 1661 = (1993) 201 ITR 866", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Definition - Prize Money from Car Rally\nKey Issue: Taxability of car rally prize money as income.\nConclusion:\n•\nPrize money from a car rally is income under Section 2(24) as it constitutes a return for skill and endurance, even if casual in nature.\n•\nIncome is defined inclusively, covering even non-gambling contests.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. G. R. Karthikeyan (1980) 124 ITR 85 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3908 of 1983, decision dated: 22-04-1993(Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated November 20,1979, of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No.330 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATCHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (M.B. Rao, P. Parameswaran and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nG.R. KARTHIKEYAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 209 = 1993 SLD 209 = 1993 PTD 1668 = (1993) 201 ITR 1044", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains - Deduction Order\nKey Issue: Whether long-term capital loss must be deducted from capital gains before applying deductions under Section 80-T.\nConclusion:\n•\nLong-term capital loss must be deducted from long-term capital gains before applying Section 80-T deductions. Gains and losses from the same category of assets are computed collectively.\nCitation: CIT v. M.S.P. Nadar Sons (1989) 179 ITR 55 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4851 of 1990, decision dated: 28-04-1993(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 31st January, 1989, of the Madras High Court in T.C. No.900 of 1979)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellant. K. N. Shukla, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M.S.P. NADAR SONS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 210 = 1993 SLD 210 = 1993 PTD 1674 = (1993) 201 ITR 684", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Compensatory vs. Penal Imposts\nKey Issue: Deduction of statutory imposts under Section 37(1).\nConclusion:\n•\nOnly compensatory statutory imposts are deductible. For composite imposts (both compensatory and penal), deductions apply only to the compensatory component.\n•\nEntertainment expenses are a factual determination; disallowance of Rs. 2,500 was upheld.\nCitation: Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CPT (1980) 123 ITR 429 (SC) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1279 of 1977, decision dated: 6-04-1993(Appeal from the order, dated June 17, 1976 of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Application No. 63 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. A.K Verma and Mrs. Sayeli P6tak for Appellant. P.S. Poti, Senior Advocate (R. Satish and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PRAKASH COTTON MILLS (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 211 = 1993 SLD 211 = 1993 PTD 1681 = (1993) 68 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment - Definite Information\nKey Issue: Validity of reopening assessments based on definite information under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\n•\n Definite information requires direct evidence, not presumptions or indirect inferences.\n•\nAdditional assessments based on unsubstantiated assumptions were annulled.\nCitation: Central Insurance Company v. Central Board of Revenue, 1993 SCMR 1232 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.6051/LB and 6052/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 5th August 1993.hearing DATE : 7-08-1993", + "Judge Name:": " NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant Muhammad Asif Hashmi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 4 = 1990 SLD 4 = 1990 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Constitutional Jurisdiction\nKey Issues: Reassessment time limits and constitutional remedies.\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment after the statutory limitation period is invalid.\n•\nHigh Court jurisdiction under Article 199 remains available for orders outside jurisdiction or resulting in injustice, but cannot be invoked where an appellate remedy exists and has succeeded.\nCitation: Bank of America v. The Income Tax Officer, Constitutional Petition No. 370 of 1975 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 663 of 1984, decision dated: 28-09-1989.hearing DATE : 19-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE Co. Ltd\nVs\nSPECIAL OFFICER, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 5 = 1990 SLD 5 = 1990 PTD 5 = (1990) 61 TAX 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Profit on Sale of Shops - Taxability\nKey Issue: Taxability of profits from sale of shops as revenue income versus capital gains.\nConclusion:\n•\nProfit from sale of shops held as capital assets is not taxable as revenue income.\n•\nAbsence of intent to trade in land ensures such profits are capital gains, not business income.\nCitation: 1982 PTD 112 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,62,132 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 1127(IB) and 1141(IB) of 1986 87, decision dated: 1st August, 1989.hearing DATE : 1st August, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Mahmood Khawaja, DR. for Appellant. Naseem Zafar and Anwar Ali, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 6 = 1990 SLD 6 = 1990 PTD 11 = (1990) 61 TAX 83 = 1990 PTCL 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalties - Discretion and Retrospective Application\nKey Issues: Imposition of penalties under Sections 108, 111, and amendments in Section 111(2)(c).\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalties for delayed returns and inaccurate details are mandatory in the absence of reasonable cause.\n•\nAmendments to penalty provisions are not retrospective unless explicitly stated.\nCitation: (1982) 138 ITR 245 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,65,108,111,111(2)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 789 LB, 790 LB and 791 LB of 1988 89, decision dated: 16-10-1989, hearing DATE : 12-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar and War Hussain, ITP for Appellant. Aftab Iqbal Lone, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 1 = 1988 SLD 1 = 1987 PTD 739 = (1988) 57 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Act, 1922 - General Overview\nKey Sections:\n•\nDefinitions, accrual of income, reassessment provisions, and penalties for non-compliance.\nRelevant References: Sections 2(14), 3, 4, 18-A(6), 23, 23-B.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A(2),18A(3),18A(6),18(2),18(2A),18(2B),22A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.7-A of 1978, decision dated: 7-07-1986", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Waheed Farooq, K. Salah-ud-Din, and Nasrullah Awan for the Petitioner. J.H. Rehmatullah, Ali Athar, Iqbal Naim Pasha, Rehan Hasan Naqvi, Muhammad Nasim, Muhammad Zaki Ahmed for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nOLYMPIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 7 = 1990 SLD 7 = 1990 PTD 19 = (1990) 61 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme - Binding Nature\nKey Issue: Modification of conditions under the Self-Assessment Scheme of 1981-82.\nConclusion:\n•\nOnce an assessee accepts the scheme, it forms a binding civil contract. Any unilateral modification by the Central Board of Revenue is invalid.\nCitation: Circular No. 11, dated 6-8-1981.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1458 KB of 1984 85, decision dated: 13-09-1989, hearing DATE : 27-06-1989", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nariman, I.T.P. for Appellant. A.R. Memon, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 8 = 1990 SLD 8 = 1990 PTD 24 = (1990) 61 TAX 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Circulars\nKey Issue: Validity of reassessment notices and compliance with CBR Circulars.\nConclusion:\n•\nNotices conforming to statutory provisions are valid even if circular guidelines differ.\n•\nQuestions of fact, such as sales estimates, are not referable to the High Court as questions of law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,65,56,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 11 of 1989, decision dated: 8-10-1989", + "Judge Name:": " MAHBOOB AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD QAYUM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ilyas Zafar for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NIRALA & COMPANY\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 9 = 1990 SLD 9 = 1990 PTD 33 = (1990) 61 TAX 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cooperative Societies - Taxation and Legal Status\nKey Issue: Taxation of cooperative societies and their classification under the Income Tax Ordinance.\nConclusion:\n•\nCooperative societies are juridical persons and may qualify as companies for tax purposes.\n•\nIncome from dealings with members is taxable unless explicitly exempted.\nCitation: First Schedule, Part IV & Sections 2(16), 2(17).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched,Cl.103(a),2(16),17 & FirstSched,16(2)(b),2(17),23,FirstSched.,PartIV & Ss.2(16) & (17),39,49,105,24d, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 833/LB, 1945/LB and 1144/LB of 1982 83, 977/LB of 1983 84, 2204/LB, 2570/LB of 1984 85, 7167/LB, 3813/LB and 5580/LB of 1985 86, 2700/LB, 5571/LB, 5921/LB of 1986 87, 1524/LB, 1525/LB, 88/LB, 87/LB, 1526/LB, 511/LB and 512/LB of 1987 88, 520/LB and 654/LB of 1988 89, on 24-08-1989, hearing DATE : 1st August, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Manzoor Ahmad for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 833/LB 1945/LB of 1982 83, 2204/LB of 1984 85, 7167/LB & 3813/LB of 1985 86, 2700/LB & 5571/LB of 1986 87, 1524/LB, 1525/LB, 88/LB, 87/LB &1526/LB of 1987 88 and 520/LB of 1988 89)\nMujahid Akbar, DR. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos, 833/LB & 1945/LB of 1982 83, 2204/LB of 1984 85, 7167/LB &, 3813/LB of 1985 86, 2700/LB & 5571 /LB of 1986 8 7, 1524/LB, 1525/LB, 88/LB, 87/LB & 1526/LB of 1987 88 and 520/LB of 1988 89).\nMujahid Akbar, DR. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 1144/LB of 1982 83, 977 /LB of 1983 84, 2570/LB of 1984 85, 5580/LB of 1985 86, 5921/LB of 198687. 511/LB & 512/LB of 1987 88 and 654/LB of 1988 89)\nManzoor Ahmad for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 1144/LB of 1982 83, 977/LB of 1983 84, 2570/LB of 1984 85, 5580/LB of 1985 86, 5921/L.B of 1986 87, 511 /LB & 512/LB of 1987 88 and 654/LB of 1988 89)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 10 = 1990 SLD 10 = 1990 PTD 54 = (1990) 62 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption for New Industrial Undertakings\nKey Issue: Application of rebates under Section 10 to income exempt under Section 15 BB.\nConclusion:\n•\nIncome from units exempt under Section 15 BB is not included in total income for assessments under Section 10.\n•\nRebate provided under Section 10 cannot extend to income governed by Section 15 BB.\nPurpose: Section 15 BB provides a tax holiday for new industrial undertakings.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB,10 & 16(1),10,15 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 2 of 1980, heard on 17-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Wadood for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GLAXO LABORATORIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 11 = 1990 SLD 11 = 1990 PTD 58 = (1990) 61 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice Under Incorrect Provision\nKey Issue: Validity of notices under Section 65 referencing incorrect provisions.\nConclusion:\n•\nIncorrect references to legal provisions in notices do not render proceedings invalid if supported by other applicable sections.\n•\nQuestions of interpretation should be resolved via departmental appeals before invoking constitutional remedies.\nCitation: Rajinder Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1979) 120 ITR 14 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.707 of 1989, decision dated: 31st October, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.H. Naqvi for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "LESLIE SEQUEIRA\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE V, ZONE C and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 12 = 1990 SLD 12 = 1990 PTD 62 = (1990) 61 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Concealment\nKey Issue: Exclusion from Self-Assessment Scheme for alleged concealment.\nConclusion:\n•\nMere inconsistencies in accounting practices do not constitute concealment unless intentional.\n•\nNotices issued without clear evidence of concealment are invalid.\nCitation: C.B.R. Circular No. 9 of 1987, dated 26-10-1987.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,61,65 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 613 of 1988, decision dated: 27-09-1989. dates of hearing: 15th and 17-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "CHAPAL BUILDERS\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 13 = 1990 SLD 13 = 1990 PTD 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Gifts and Taxable Income\nKey Issue: Taxability of income derived from gifted funds used as capital contributions.\nConclusion:\n•\nA wife’s share of profits from a firm, funded by a gift from her husband, is not includible in the husband’s income.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Prem Bhai Parekh (1970) 77 ITR 27 (SC) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 575 of 1975, decision dated: 26-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.S. PATHAK C.J. I. AND M.H. KANIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates for Appellant. K.P. Bhatnagar, S.P. Mittal and B.P. Maheshwari, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CALCUTTA\nVs\nPRAHLADRAI AGARWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 14 = 1990 SLD 14 = 1990 PTD 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Concessions for Priority Industries\nKey Issue: Eligibility of strawboard manufacturing for industrial tax concessions.\nConclusion:\n•\n Paper and pulp includes strawboard manufacturing, qualifying for concessional tax rates and deductions.\nInterpretation Principle: Tax laws designed to encourage industrial activity should be liberally construed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 519 to 521 of 1975, decision dated: 28-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.S. PATHAK C.J. I. AND M.H. KANIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate (K.C. Dua and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Senior Advocate (Rakesh Khanna and Miss Abha Jain, Advocates with him for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR\nVs\nSTRAWBOARD MANUFACTURING Co. Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 15 = 1990 SLD 15 = 1990 PTD 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Cash Credits and Questions of Fact\nKey Issue: Whether findings on the genuineness of cash credits constitute a question of law.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal findings on the genuineness of cash credits are factual and not referable as questions of law.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.3058 of 1987 S, decision dated: 28-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. Karunakaran Nambiar and T.D. Rajalakshmy for Petitioner. P.K. Ravindranatha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CALICUT TEA MART, TEA DEALERS AND COMMISSION AGENTS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 16 = 1990 SLD 16 = 1990 PTD 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Payments to Sole Selling Agents\nKey Issue: Disallowance of payments to firms linked to directors.\nConclusion:\n•\nPayments to firms acting as sole selling agents are not remuneration or benefits to directors and cannot be disallowed.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Avon Cycles (P.) Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 448 (P & H) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 1 and 2 of 1980, decision dated: 9-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Sibal for the Assessee. L.K. Sood for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HEMCO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE Ltd\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 17 = 1990 SLD 17 = 1990 PTD 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Sufficiency of Findings as a Question of Law\nKey Issue: Whether sufficiency of findings can be considered a question of law.\nConclusion:\n•\nSufficiency of findings for deciding a case on merits constitutes a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income tax Reference Case No. 22 of 1988, decision dated: 8-08-1988", + "Judge Name:": " J.S. VERMA, C.J. AND N.C. KOCHHAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vineet Kothari for the Assessee. B.R. Arora for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BALD GAUM INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) Ltd.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 18 = 1990 SLD 18 = 1990 PTD 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure\nKey Issue: Nature of exchange rate fluctuations on machinery purchases.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdditional costs due to exchange rate fluctuations for machinery purchases are capital expenditures.\nCitation: Periyar Chemicals Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1986) 162 ITR 163 (Ker.) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 241 of 1982, decision dated: 24-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.S. Venkiteswara Iyer for the Assessee. P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASHOK TEXTILES Ltd\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 19 = 1990 SLD 19 = 1990 PTD 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealment of Income\nKey Issue: Justification for penalties due to presumed concealment.\nConclusion:\n•\nWhere income returned is less than 80% of assessed income, and credit entries lack supporting evidence, penalties are justified.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 844 of 1979, decision dated: 24-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND BAKTHAVATSALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nT.K.MANICKA GOUNDER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 20 = 1990 SLD 20 = 1990 PTD 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Doctrine of Merger in Tax Appeals\nKey Issue: Applicability of the doctrine of merger in partial appeals.\nConclusion:\n•\nOnly the appealed portions of an assessment order merge with appellate orders. Unaddressed portions remain open to revision.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. (1958) 34 ITR 130 (SC) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 6553 (W) of 1977, decision dated: 9-03-1958", + "Judge Name:": " S.C SEN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. D. Pal, R.K. Murarka and A. K. De for Petitioner. Ramchandra Prasad for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "HINDUSTAN ALUMINIUM CORPORATION Ltd.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 21 = 1990 SLD 21 = 1990 PTD 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Replanting Subsidy for Rubber Trees\nKey Issue: Taxability of subsidies for replanting rubber trees.\nConclusion:\n•\nSubsidies for replanting old rubber plantations are not revenue receipts and are exempt from tax.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Malayalam Plantation Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 63 (Ker.) overruled.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 217 and 218 of 1980, 328 of 1982 and 8 of 1984; decided on 6-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN, VARGHESE KALLIATH AND M.M. PAREED PILLAY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner. Joseph Vellappally for the Assessee No. 1. George Cherian for the Assessee No. 2. C.K. Sivasankara. Panicker for the Assessee No. 3", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nRUBY RUBBER WORKS Ltd. and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 22 = 1990 SLD 22 = 1990 PTD 121 = (1990) 62 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Tax and Inclusion of Penalties\nKey Issue: Whether penalties are included in tax for computation under Section 69(4).\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalties are included in tax as defined under Section 2(43) and must be deducted from a firm’s total income before apportioning partner shares.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9,10,11,12,13,14 & 2(43)69,111,.69(4) & 2(43),156,116 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeal No. 1013/KB of 1986 87, decision dated: 19-08-1989, hearing DATE : 6-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL EMBER AND ALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jan e Alam, I.T.P, for Appellant. Yousuf Sharih, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 23 = 1990 SLD 23 = 1990 PTD 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference on Undecided Factual Issues\nKey Issue: Maintainability of reference without factual findings.\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court remitted the case for factual determination before addressing whether income from securities is capital gain or revenue income.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 139 of 1987, decision dated: 28-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Salah-ud-Din for Applicant.Waheed Farooqui for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs BANQUE DE L INDOCHINE EL DE SUEZ\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE C" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 24 = 1990 SLD 24 = 1990 PTD 151 = (1990) 61 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Bad Debt Write-off for Non-recoverable Advances\nKey Issue: Allowance of bad debt for advances made to failed ventures.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdvances made during business operations and unrecovered due to external factors qualify as bad debts under Section 10(2)(xi).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Ref. No. 17 of 1981, decision dated: 18-09-1989, hearing DATE : 8-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Wadood for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C\nVs\nMessrs MUHAMMAD AMINMUHAMMAD BASHTR LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 25 = 1990 SLD 25 = 1990 PTD 201 = (1990) 62 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendments to Limitation Periods for Reassessment\nKey Issue: Effect of amendments on reassessment limitation periods.\nConclusion:\n•\nLimitation periods were restored to 10 years for notices issued before July 1, 1982, under amended Section 65(3A).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(3),(3A),135(9),134(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeal No. 412/LB of 1984 85, decision dated: 4-11-1989, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aftab Iqbal Lone, A.C./D.R. for Appellant. Ghani Dad Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "REOTI PARSHAD ANAND KUMAR\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 26 = 1990 SLD 26 = 1990 PTD 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVIS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Firms and Discretionary Power\nKey Issue: Refusal of firm registration for non-production of books.\nConclusion:\n•\nExercise of discretion in refusing registration was proper; no question of law arose.\nCitation: C.I.T v. Jekisondas Bhukandas (1967) 66 ITR 515 (Guj.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 19 of 1980, decision dated: 16-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta and Sanjay Barisal for the Assessee. Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 27 = 1990 SLD 27 = 1990 PTD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Filing References\nKey Issue: Whether illness is a valid ground for condonation of delay.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal directed to consider the application as dismissal without addressing illness was improper.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 105 of 1989, decision dated: 12-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " OM PRAKASH AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "RAM SINGH VERMA\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 28 = 1990 SLD 28 = 1990 PTD 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Calculation on Delayed Returns\nKey Issue: Treatment of advance tax payments for calculating interest.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdvance tax payments made during the financial year must be accounted for when calculating interest on delayed returns.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 193 of 1977, decision dated: 28-07-1988", + "Judge Name:": " A. RAGHUVIR C.J. AND T.C. DAS, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.P. Bhattacharjee, S.C. Tebriwal, Miss U. Baruah and J.P. Sarma for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "SOOKERATING TEA COMPANY (Pvt.) Ltd\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 29 = 1990 SLD 29 = 1990 PTD 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments and Tribunal Decisions\nKey Issue: Tribunal’s failure to address remission of interest.\nConclusion:\n•\nIssues regarding remission of interest and reopening of assessments constitute questions of law suitable for reference.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 22 of 1981, decision dated: 22-08-1988", + "Judge Name:": " V. RAMASWAMI C.J. AND G. R. MAJITHIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan for Commissioner. Bhagirath Dass and C.B. Goel for Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 30 = 1990 SLD 30 = 1990 PTD 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Admissibility of Evidence on Death and Firm Genuineness\nKey Issue: Admission of death evidence without rebuttal opportunity.\nConclusion:\n•\nQuestions of law arose regarding procedural fairness and genuineness of the firm; suitable for reference.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 89 of 1986, decision dated: 26-09-1988", + "Judge Name:": " V. RAMASWAMI C.J. AND G.R. MAJITHIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and A.K. Mittal for the Commissioner. H.L. Sibal and S.C. Sibal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nKULDIP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 31 = 1990 SLD 31 = 1990 PTD 240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Treatment of Central Subsidy for Plant and Machinery\nKey Issue: Whether subsidies reduce cost for depreciation purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nCentral subsidies are not deductible from the cost of plant and machinery; no question of law arose.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 79 of 1986, decision dated: 25-08-1988", + "Judge Name:": " V. RAMASWAMI C.J. AND G.R. MAJITHIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. S.S. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nBHATINDA CHEMICALS AND BANASPATI MILLS (Pvt.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 32 = 1990 SLD 32 = 1990 PTD 241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Profit Rates on Estimated Sales\nKey Issue: Basis for applying profit rates on estimated sales.\nConclusion:\n•\nFixation of profit rates based on presumptions is a question of law and must be justified with clear findings.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=60(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=1M(2),60(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.18 & 19 of 1981, decision dated: 12-09-1989. dates of hearing: 4th and 12-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Wadood for Appellant K. Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SULTAN TEXTILE MILLS Ltd\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 33 = 1990 SLD 33 = 1990 PTD 244 = (1990) 62 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Acquisition of Shares and Commercial Expediency\nKey Issues: Deductibility of interest on loans used for acquiring shares.\nConclusion:\n•\nAcquiring shares for gaining control of a company is a lawful and commercially expedient transaction.\n•\nPayment of a higher price does not negate deductibility if the transaction is genuine.\nCitation: Omerods (India) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1959) 1 Tax (III) 459 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12,12(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.27 & 28 of 1987, decision dated: 7-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.H. Naqvi for Applicant. Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mian MUHAMMAD MANSHA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 34 = 1990 SLD 34 = 1990 PTD 248 = (1990) 61 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Mercantile Accounting and Bonus Provisions\nKey Issues: Allowability of bonus provisions in accounts before actual payment.\nConclusion:\n•\nUnder the mercantile system, provisions for bonus are deemed paid once recorded in accounts, regardless of actual payment timing.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(x) & (5) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 100 of 1984, decision dated: 15-11-198", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND ALLAHDINO MEMON, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Appellant. K. Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE A\nVs\nMessrs CHEMDYES PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 35 = 1990 SLD 35 = 1990 PTD 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts for Lack of Wastage Records\nKey Issues: Validity of rejecting accounts for absence of specific records.\nConclusion:\n•\nAccounts cannot be rejected merely for not maintaining records of wastage if the general accounting is sound and credible.\nCitation: Indus Textile Mill Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1989) P.T.D. 567 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,13A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 12 of 1981, decision dated: 16-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque for Applicant. K. Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "TANVIR TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 36 = 1990 SLD 36 = 1990 PTD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVITFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Deemed Received in Pakistan\nKey Issues: Taxability of income deemed received by an assessee.\nConclusion:\n•\nOnly income actually received or deemed received in Pakistan is taxable. Lack of definitive findings by authorities renders assessments infirm.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 96 of 1979, decision dated: 16-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque for Applicant. Rashida Patel for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 37 = 1990 SLD 37 = 1990 PTD 260 = (1990) 61 TAX 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope of Notices Under Sections 56 & 65\nKey Issues: Validity and timing of notices issued for unfiled returns.\nConclusion:\n•\nNotices under Section 56 can be issued at any time for past income years, provided they align with the limitations of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitation: Hussain Kassam Dada’s case P.L.D. 1961 S.C. 375 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,56,65,62,63,57 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeal No. 6759 LB of 1985 86, decision dated: 26-06-1988, hearing DATE : 22-06-1988", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid and Muhammad Younas Khalid, I.T.P. for Appellant. Ilyas Khan, Legal Advisor and Javed Tahir Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 38 = 1990 SLD 38 = 1990 PTD 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest on Borrowed Funds for Shares Purchase\nKey Issues: Deduction of interest paid on loans used to purchase shares.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest on borrowed funds is deductible against other income even if no income from shares was earned during the relevant year.\nCitation: Eastern Investment Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1951) 20 ITR 1 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12(2) & 24(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 28 of 1958, decision dated: 27-10-1958", + "Judge Name:": " S. T. DESAI AND K.T. DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.A. Palkhivala with Kaka for the Assessee. G.N. Joshi with R.J. Joshi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ORMERODS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 39 = 1990 SLD 39 = 1990 PTD 321 = (1991) 63 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rules Ultra Vires to Statutes\nKey Issues: Validity of rules conflicting with statutory provisions.\nConclusion:\n•\nRules that conflict with statutory benefits are ultra vires. Harmonious interpretation must prevail, with statutes superseding conflicting rules.\nCitation: M.C.T. Muthiar Chettiar Family Trust v. 4th Income Tax Officer (1972) 86 ITR 282 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16,166(2)(p),l06(2)(p) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeal No. 919 KB of 1987 88, decision dated: 12-02-1990, hearing DATE : 5-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMANALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Appellant Rahat Nasim Malik DR. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 40 = 1990 SLD 40 = 1990 PTD 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Surplus from Land Sale as Capital Receipt\nKey Issues: Taxability of surplus from land sale.\nConclusion:\n•\nSurplus from land sold due to external circumstances is capital and not taxable as income.\nCitation: Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=.2(4) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 35 of 1966, decision dated: 11-12-1975", + "Judge Name:": " VIMADALAL AND S.K. DESAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.J. Joshi with V.J. Pandit for the Commissioner. I.M. Munim with V. H. Patil and S.J. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nANANDLAL BECHARLAL & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 41 = 1990 SLD 41 = 1990 PTD 348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Employee for Tax Purposes\nKey Issues: Differing definitions of employee in statutes and rules.\nConclusion:\n•\nDefinitions in statutes and rules cater to different contexts and are not conflicting. Rules framed under statutory authority are valid unless proven to overreach.\nCitation: CIT v. S. Mazhar Hussain 1988 P.T.D. 563 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=16(2)(e),166(2)(p),16,9 ", + "Case #": "LTA. No. 919/KB of 1987 88, decision dated: 12-02-1990, hearing DATE : 5-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, ALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Appellant. Rahat Nasim Malik, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 42 = 1990 SLD 42 = 1990 PTD 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Appeal Process\nKey Issues: Survival of original assessments and appeals upon initiation of reassessment proceedings.\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment proceedings nullify the original assessment order; fresh assessment must be conducted.\n•\nAppeals on original orders are rendered irrelevant upon reassessment, and the Tribunal rightly dismisses such appeals.\nCitation: Asstt. Commr. of Commercial Taxes v. Dharmendra Trading Co. (1988) 70 STC 59 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 256 of 1982, decision dated: 10-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nK. KESAVA REDDIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 43 = 1990 SLD 43 = 1990 PTD 372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deductibility of Surtax\nKey Issues: Surtax deductibility under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\n•\nSurtax is not barred from deduction under Section 40(a)(ii) as it is levied on total income rather than business profits, provided it meets Section 37 criteria.\nCitation: Jaipuria Samla Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1971) 82 ITR 580 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 3 and 4 of 1980, decision dated: 19-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " B.L. HANSARIA AND S.K. HOMCHOUDHRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Saraf for the Assessee. K.H. Choudhury for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "MAKUM TEA COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 44 = 1990 SLD 44 = 1990 PTD 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Protective Penalty in Tax Assessments\nKey Issues: Applicability of protective penalties.\nConclusion:\n•\nProtective penalties are invalid; penalties are enforceable only when substantive assessments determine actual income concealment.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 292 of 1982, decision dated: 21st December, 1988", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND, J. N. HORE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Prasad for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSUPER STEEL (SALES) CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 45 = 1990 SLD 45 = 1990 PTD 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction of Commissioner\nKey Issues: Conditions for revisional powers under Section 263.\nConclusion:\n•\nRevisional orders require a firm conclusion of error in assessment; speculative observations without concrete findings invalidate such orders.\nCitation: Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 61 of 1985, decision dated: 1st February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. N.K. Sood and Subhash Nagpal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nKANDA RICE MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 46 = 1990 SLD 46 = 1990 PTD 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capitalization of Interest\nKey Issues: Eligibility for depreciation and development rebates on capitalized interest.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest capitalized on assets is eligible for depreciation and rebates under Sections 32 and 33.\nCitation: Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1975) 98 ITR 167 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 249 of 1976, decision dated: 12-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.R. Bhatia and S.V. Naik for the Commissioner. S.E. Dastur and N.A. Dalvi, instructed by Little & Co. for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nUNITED CARBON INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 47 = 1990 SLD 47 = 1990 PTD 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agreed Assessment and High Court References\nKey Issues: Legality of agreed assessments and scope of High Court references.\nConclusion:\n•\nAgreed assessments are not provided for under the Ordinance; High Court references are limited to substantial legal questions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,62 ", + "Case #": "PTR No. 1 of 1981, decision dated: 29-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj ud Din Khalid, for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 48 = 1990 SLD 48 = 1990 PTD 385 = (1990) 62 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rebate in Super Tax and Transferability of Shares\nKey Issues: Time frame for transferability of shares in claiming tax rebates.\nConclusion:\n•\nNo specific time limit exists for share transferability under Section 23A(1); rebates apply irrespective of transferability duration.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd. I.T.R. No. 38 of 1982.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23,23A(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 57 of 1982, decision dated: 15-01-1990. dates of hearing: 10th, 11th and 15-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMessrs LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 49 = 1990 SLD 49 = 1990 PTD 389 = (1990) 61 TAX 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Assessments\nKey Issues: Validity of reassessments based on definite information. \nConclusion:\n•\nReopening based on the same facts and a changed opinion is invalid. New material evidence is required for jurisdiction under Section 65.\nCitation: Gemini Leather Stores v. I.T.O. AIR 1975 S.C. 1268 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,154(6) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 372 of 1987, decision dated: 28-02-1990. dates of hearing: 9th and 15-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PHILIPS ELECTRICAL COMPANY OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE B 3, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 50 = 1990 SLD 50 = 1990 PTD 402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Provision for Taxation in Insurance Businesses\nKey Issues: Admissibility of provisions for taxation reserves.\nConclusion:\n•\nFirst Schedule provisions exhaustively govern insurance profits computation; taxation reserves are permissible expenses.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. 1981 SC 293 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) & Sched.I,R.6 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 37 of 1983, decision dated: 22-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Hyder for Applicant. Ali Athar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T. CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs ROYAL INSURANCE CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 51 = 1990 SLD 51 = 1990 PTD 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liabilities as Undisclosed Income\nKey Issues: High Court's scope in factual findings of liabilities as income.\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court interference is limited to cases where evidence is misread or ignored by the Tribunal. No such grounds existed here.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=G6(1),10 & 13, ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 97 of 1984, decision dated: 7-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Hyder for Applicant. Ali Athar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI\nVs\nMir KHALILUR REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 52 = 1990 SLD 52 = 1990 PTD 406", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Surcharge and Retained Income\nKey Issues: Inclusion of tax liabilities in retained income computation for surcharge levy.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax liabilities for the relevant assessment year can be included in retained income calculations.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. 1988 P.T.D. 66 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 86 of 1987, decision dated: 15-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND ALLAHDINO MEMON, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. K. Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMessrs BANK OF TOKYO LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 53 = 1990 SLD 53 = 1990 PTD 407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Book Results\nKey Issues: Validity of rejection of book results and estimation of sales.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe rejection of accounts by the Income Tax Officer was not justified as the books had been consistently accepted in previous years despite similar practices.\n•\nNo specific defects in the account books or contradictory evidence were provided to validate the rejection.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 26 of 1979, decision dated: 30-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ZAIN PACKAGING INDUSTRY LTD\nVs\nCOMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 54 = 1990 SLD 54 = 1990 PTD 409", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Companies: Allowable Expenditures\nKey Issues: Allowability of reserves and management expenses.\nConclusion:\n•\nReserves for unexpired risks and additional reserves beyond permissible limits are allowable as expenditures under Section 10(2)(xvi) and Schedule I, Rule 6.\n•\nExcessive management expenses, though in violation of Insurance Rules, were deemed incurred exclusively for business purposes.\nCitations: Alpha Insurance's case PLD 1981 SC 293.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) & Sched.I,R.6 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 60 of 1982, decision dated: 29-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Sirajul Haque for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T. CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs EASTREN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 55 = 1990 SLD 55 = 1990 PTD 415 = (1990) 62 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction under Sections 66A and 156\nKey Issues: Overlap of rectification and revisional proceedings.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe IAC improperly invoked jurisdiction under Section 66A while rectification proceedings under Section 156 were pending.\n•\nThis action deprived the assessee of their right to appeal and disrupted the assessing officer’s jurisdiction.\n•\nThe Tribunal directed the assessing officer to dispose of proceedings under Section 156 lawfully.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,66 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2061/KB of 1987 88, decision dated: 25-02-1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Udha Ram for Appellant. Ashraf Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 157 = 2007 SLD 157 = 2007 PTD 2035", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reduction of Penalty for Failure to File Return\nKey Issues: Legality of reduced penalties by appellate authorities.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe penalty was reduced appropriately by the Appellate Commissioner and upheld by the Tribunal, considering the assessee's small business nature and belief of no taxable income.\n•\nBoth forums have jurisdiction to reduce fixed penalties under the Ordinance.\nCitation: Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Zone, Lahore v. Musarat Textile Mills Ltd., Faisalabad 2005 PTD 2270.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=55,56,108,134 & 136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 352 of 2000, decision dated: 18-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND NASIM SIKANDAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khadim Hussain Zahid for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax AND WEALTH TAX; SIALKOT ZONE, SIALKOT\nVs\nMessrs TASADIQ HUSSAIN, FANS SPARE PARTS MAKER, GUJRAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 56 = 1990 SLD 56 = 1990 PTD 421 = (1990) 62 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalties and Stay Orders\nKey Issues: Imposition of penalties during stay orders.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalties for non-payment of tax are discretionary and not applicable when a competent authority has granted a stay order.\n•\nThe date of stay order issuance, not communication, determines its effectiveness.\nCitations: Karam Ali v. Raja PLD 1949 Lah. 100.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=91(1),53,85(2),5(1)(c),134(6),91(5)(b),89 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos.426/KB and 463/KB of 1985-86,decided on 24th February,1990, hearing DATE : 24-02-1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.D. Bhatti, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 57 = 1990 SLD 57 = 1990 PTD 446 = (1990) 62 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liabilities in Case of a Deceased Person\nKey Issues: Tax liabilities and proceedings after an assessee's death.\nConclusion:\n•\nLegal representatives are liable for the deceased’s tax liabilities to the extent of the estate they inherit.\n•\nNotices served at the deceased’s last known address were valid due to failure of representatives to notify the authorities.\n•\nAdditional tax proceedings are a continuation of the deceased's tax obligations.\nCitations: M.G. Kader & Co. v. I.T.O., I.T.R. (1963) 48 I.T.R. 59 (S.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=74,74(5),74(1),89,2(6)(43) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VII,R.26,O.VIII,R.13 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 122/KQB and 123/KQB of 1987 88, decision dated: 8-03-1990, hearing DATE : 3rd March, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moulvi Niamatullah Khan for Appellant. Abdul Razzak Memon, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 58 = 1990 SLD 58 = 1990 PTD 463 = (1990) 61 TAX 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment and Computation of Tax Liability for Partners in Registered Firms\nKey Issues: Interpretation of total income and share in income, profits, and gains of the firm. \nConclusion:\n•\nThe terms total income and his share in the income, profits, and gains of the firm in the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, must align with their definitions in Section 69(1)(a)(ii) and 69(4).\n•\nThe partner's share in the firm's income is calculated after deducting the proportionate share of super tax paid by the firm.\n•\nSpecial provisions of Section 69 override general provisions for determining total income and tax liability.\n•\nDepartmental appeals against deduction of super tax share were rejected, confirming the CIT (Appeals) decisions.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Younus Brothers 1983 P T D 389; Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.; State v. Zia ur Rehman PLD 1973 SC 49.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,Part1,Para.A,proviso(c),69 ", + "Case #": "I.T. As Nos. 1348/KB, 1401/KB, 1402/KB, 1584/KB, 1403/KB, 1583/KB, 242/KB, 1103/KB, 110/KB, 1107/KB, 1108/KB and 2567/KB of 1986 87 and 2595/KB, 2164/KB of 1987 88, decision dated: 18-03-1990, hearing DATE : 21st October, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MANZOORUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ALVI RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Waheed Farooqi, Legal Adviser, Nasrullah Awan, Legal Adviser, Rahat Nasim Malik, D.R., A.R. Memon, D.R. and Aftab Iqbal Rathore, D.R. for Appellants.\nI.N. Pasha, Sirajul Haq, Saeed Ahmed, Faruq Ali, F.C.A., Z.H. Jaffery, Ebrahim Dahodwala, F.CA., A.R. Buttler, A.R. Dewan, F.C.A., Mazhar Jaffery, Rehan Hasan Naqvi, Abid Shaban, Mazhar-ud-Din, Abdul Aziz, Tahir Moochiwala, F.C.A., Ali Raza T. Lakhani, F.C.A., Iqbal Salman Pasha, Saif-ud-Din Viyani and A.H. Faridee, I.T.P. for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 59 = 1990 SLD 59 = 1990 PTD 520 = (1990) 61 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Action Against Dissolved Companies for Tax Recovery\nKey Issues: Legality of actions under Section 65 for dissolved companies.\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessing Officers must approach the court to reinstate a dissolved company on the register under Section 247(6) of the Companies Act, 1913, to recover dues.\n•\nActions under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, against dissolved companies without following this process are illegal.\n•\nAssessments were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,77 Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=247(6) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 3904/KB to 3910/KB of 1986 87 and 39/KB of 1982 83, decision dated: 19-09-1989, hearing DATE : 18-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " MANZOOR UL HAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Appellant. A.R. Memon, D.R., for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 60 = 1990 SLD 60 = 1990 PTD 524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) Under Section 66A\nKey Issues: Improper invocation of revisional jurisdiction by IAC.\nConclusion:\n•\nIAC erred by issuing a notice under Section 66A without reviewing the assessment record.\n•\nValuation of property based on unrelated cases was an insufficient ground for revising assessments.\n•\nIAC cannot revise assessments to include deemed income under Section 13, as this authority rests solely with the ITO.\n•\nActions based on assumptions and without evidence were deemed arbitrary and annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,66A,148,58 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeal No. 449/LB of 1988 89, decision dated: 26-10-1989, hearing DATE : 12-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELAHI SHAIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siddique Akhtar Chaudhry, I.T.P. for Appellant. Naseer Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 61 = 1990 SLD 61 = 1990 PTD 529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Agreed Assessments\nKey Issues: Validity of reassessment and principles of natural justice.\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment under Section 65 without a valid show cause notice or discovery of new facts violates principles of natural justice.\n•\nAgreed assessments with clear offer, acceptance, and consideration are binding on the department.\n•\nITO was directed to accept the originally declared income.\nCitation: 1987 P T D 300.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1),13(2),59,62,65,59(1) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 2017/LB, to 2019/LB of 1986 87, decision dated: 18-05-1987", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Fayyaz Ahmad for Appellant. M. Sarwar Kh. AC/DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 62 = 1990 SLD 62 = 1990 PTCL 11 = 1990 PTD 539 = (1991) 63 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Double Entry Bookkeeping and Defective Accounts\nKey Issues: Reassessment for omitted entries and defective accounts.\nConclusion:\n•\nOmission of entries rendering balance sheets defective justifies rejection of accounts under Section 32(3).\n•\nReassessment under Section 65 is improper if it is merely a change of opinion without new material.\n•\nProvisions under Sections 66A, 156, or 65 must align with statutory conditions.\nCitations: Edulji Dinshaw Limited's case 1990 P T D 155; Dr. Khurshid Alam's case 1988 P T D 771.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),65,32(3),13,13(1)(a),156,66,59,62 ", + "Case #": "LT.As. Nos. 1502/KB to 1510/KB of 1985 86, decision dated: 28-02-1990", + "Judge Name:": " ALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haque for Appellants. M.S. Lal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 63 = 1990 SLD 63 = 1990 PTD 552 = (1990) 61 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal of Registration for Firms\nKey Issues: Non-compliance with documentation requirements.\nConclusion:\n•\nFailure to produce account books justified the ITO's refusal to register the firm despite the submission of a return and registration application.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 171 of 1984, decision dated: 1st February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND V. NEELADRI RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Y. Ratnakar for Applicant. M.S.N. Murthy for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Shri VIJA YALAKSHMI RICE MILL CONTRACTORS CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 64 = 1990 SLD 64 = 1990 PTD 554 = (1990) 61 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Accrual of Interest Income on Enhanced Compensation\nKey Issues: Taxability of interest on enhanced land acquisition compensation.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest income on enhanced compensation accrues from the date of dispossession until the date of the court order.\n•\nSuch income must be distributed over the respective years of accrual and cannot be taxed entirely in the year of the court's order.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Govindarajulu Chetty (1987) 165 ITR 321 (SC); Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asstt. C.E.D. (1980) 122 ITR 21 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "T.R.C. No. 3 of 1976, T.R.C. Nos. 1 to 3 of 1978, Civil Appeal No. 810 of 1974 and Civil Appeal No. 3027 of 1988, decision dated: 8-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, N.D. OJHA AND, J.S. VERMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma and TA. Ramachandran, Senior Advocates with A. Subba Rao, A.D.N. Rao, Pradeep Agarwal, Rajiv Tyagi, Vikram Dholakia and B. Parthasarathi, Advocates for Appellants. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate with B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "RAMA BAI and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 65 = 1990 SLD 65 = 1990 PTD 560 = (1990) 61 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains on Goodwill\nKey Issues: Taxability of goodwill in capital gains.\nConclusion:\n•\nGoodwill, being a self-generated asset, does not result in taxable capital gains when transferred at book value during the conversion of a firm into a private limited company.\n•\nTribunal rightly deleted the addition made by the ITO.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12B(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 402 of 1976, decision dated: 7-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian and K.C. Sidhwa for Applicants. I.M. Munim and S.J. Mehta for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nDHARAMCHAND & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 66 = 1990 SLD 66 = 1990 PTD 562 = (1990) 61 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction for Interest on Borrowed Capital Against Dividend Income\nKey Issues: Gross vs. net dividend income for tax relief.\nConclusion:\n•\nRelief on dividend income must account for the deduction of interest on borrowed capital used for investment.\n•\nAllowing relief on gross dividend income without considering interest was not justified.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Jagmohan Das Kapadia (1966) 61 ITR 663; Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Case No. 2 of 1979, decision dated: 6-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, N.D. OJHA AND, J.S. VERMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate with K.P. Bhatnagar and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates for Applicant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nP.K. JHAVERI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 67 = 1990 SLD 67 = 1990 PTD 570 = (1991) 64 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Principle of Natural Justice in Penalty Proceedings\nKey Issues: Imposition of penalty without notice.\nConclusion:\n•\nAn order imposing a penalty without notice violates the principle of audi alteram partem.\n•\nSuch orders are unsustainable as they contravene principles of natural justice.\nCitations: Paramount Electric Co. v. ITO 1973 PTD 511; PLD 1952 SC 45.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18,46(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 77 of 1982, decision dated: 11-02-1990, hearing DATE : 30-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD MAZHARUL HAQ, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE\nVs\nMessrs HILAL STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 68 = 1990 SLD 68 = 1990 PTD 572 = (1990) 62 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability for Tax on Pre-Incorporation Income\nKey Issues: Taxability of income earned during pre-incorporation operations.\nConclusion:\n•\nIncome earned during the pre-incorporation period belongs to the individual who entered into the agreement and not the company formed subsequently.\n•\nM, not the company, was held liable for tax on income between 1962 and 1964.\nCitation: Nishat Textile Ltd. v. C.I.T. 1974 PTD 54.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(2),(9),3,34,66(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 148 of 1972, decision dated: 29-03-1990, hearing DATE : 27th February and 1st March, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar for Applicants. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ERUCH MANECKJI and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 69 = 1990 SLD 69 = 1990 PTD 579", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Reference and Procedural Limitations\nKey Issues: Maintainability of references filed beyond prescribed time limits.\nConclusion:\n•\nReferences filed after the prescribed period under the Income Tax Act, 1922, are not maintainable.\n•\nProvisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, do not retroactively apply to cases initiated before its promulgation.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. 1988 PTD 227.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),66 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2),136(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Rs. Nos. 79 and 80 of 1984, heard on 26-10-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mohammad Iqbal for Appellant. K. Salah-ud-Din for Waheed Farooqui for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMUHAMMAD BANA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 70 = 1990 SLD 70 = 1990 PTD 580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Tax for Local Authorities\nKey Issues: Definition and tax exemption status of local authorities.\nConclusion:\n•\nKarachi Dock Labour Board functions do not qualify as those of a local authority under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nThe Board is not exempt from income tax.\nCitations: PLD 1977 Kar. 152; Deputy Managing Director, NBP v. Attaul Haque PLD 1965 SC 201.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14(2) & SecondSched, Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1974=3 General Clauses Act, 1897=3(28) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 1378 of 1987, decision dated: 19th of March, 1990. dates of hearing: 23rd and 24-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaquat Merchant for Petitioner. S.A. Sarwana for Respondent No. 3", + "Party Name:": "KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 71 = 1990 SLD 71 = 1990 PTD 587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains vs. Business Income from Land Sales\nKey Issues: Classification of income from land sales.\nConclusion:\n•\nDevelopment of land into building plots for best price realization constitutes capital gains and not business income.\n•\nThe agricultural nature of land and declared sale considerations are factual questions.\nCitation: C.I.T. v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578 (Mad).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 282 of 1969 and 2 of 1975 (References Nos. 101 of 1969 and 2 of 1975), decision dated: 23rd March, 1976", + "Judge Name:": " V. RAMASWAMI AND V. SETHURAMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Commissioner. K. Srinivasan and K.C. Rajappa for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS II\nVs\nMLM. MAHALINGAM CHETTIAR through Legal Heirs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 72 = 1990 SLD 72 = 1990 PTD 591", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adventure in the Nature of Trade\nKey Issues: Classification of profits from land sales.\nConclusion:\n•\nSale of plots after subdivision is treated as an adventure in the nature of trade.\n•\nProfits were correctly estimated by treating land as stock-in-trade.\nCitations: Whimster & Co. v. C.I.R. (1925) 12 TC 813; Mohammed Meerakhan v. C.I.T. (1967) 63 ITR 729.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1230 of 1967, decision dated: 12-02-1969", + "Judge Name:": " J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Miss Bhuvnesh Kumari, Advocate, & J.B. Dadachanji and O.C. Mathur, Advocates of J.B. Dadachanji & Co. for Appellant. Sukumar Mitra, Senior Advocate (R.N. Sachthey and B.D. Sharma, Advocates, with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "P.M. MOHAMMED MEERAKHAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 73 = 1990 SLD 73 = 1990 PTD 600 = (1990) 62 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment Under Section 65\nKey Issues: Validity of reassessment and procedural compliance.\nConclusion:\n•\nITO can reassess under Section 65 with prior approval if there is definite information of underassessment.\n•\nReassessment based on a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.\nCitations: 1989 PTD 150; 1988 PTD 800.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(2),13(1)(aa),61,63,65 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 879/LB of 1988 89, decision dated: 24-09-1989, hearing DATE : 22-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Rashid Ahmed for Appellant. Mujahid Akbar, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 74 = 1990 SLD 74 = 1990 PTD 610 = (1990) 62 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Allowance Exemption: Comparison of Income Tax Act, 1922 and Income Tax Ordinance, 1979\nKey Issues: Exemption eligibility for special allowances under differing tax regimes.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 narrows the scope of exemption compared to the Income Tax Act, 1922.\n•\nSpecial allowances must be included in total income initially and only amounts actually incurred for duty-related expenses (excluding entertainment and conveyance) qualify for exemption.\n•\nAssessee bears the onus to prove eligibility for exemptions.\nCitations: Tajaji Farasram Kharawalla v. C.I.T. (1948) 16 ITR 260 overruled, (1968) 67 ITR 95 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,PartI,item(39),Ss.49,16(2) & 14(1),14,16 & 49 Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(vi) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 454/KB of 1983 84 and 2080/KB, to 2084/KB of 1986 87, decision dated: 22-01-1990, hearing DATE : 13-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood A. Hashmi for Appellant. Mohammad Dawood Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 75 = 1990 SLD 75 = 1990 PTCL 97 = 1990 PTD 622 = (1990) 62 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVEQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Approval Requirements for Deemed Income Additions\nKey Issues: Necessity of approvals under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\n•\nSecond approval under Section 13(2) is unnecessary for adding deemed income related to ownership of money.\n•\nDouble approval is only required when increasing the value of investments or articles deemed too low.\nCitations: 1989 P T D (Trib.) 150, 1988 P T D (Trib.) 800 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),(2),13 ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos. 208(IB) and 209(IB) of 1988 89, decision dated: 22-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Abdul Latif for Appellant. Aftab Ahmed Kohati, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 76 = 1990 SLD 76 = 1990 PTD 629 = (1990) 61 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust Exemption\nKey Issues: Tax exemption for trustees conducting business to fund a charitable hospital.\nConclusion:\n•\nTrustees were rightly exempted from income tax as the income was exclusively used for charitable purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 467 of 1985, decision dated: 19-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND VARGHESE KALLIATH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for Applicant. P. Balachandran for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nCHERUPUSHPAM HOSPITAL TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 77 = 1990 SLD 77 = 1990 PTD 632 = (1990) 61 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Goodwill in Capital Gains\nKey Issues: Surplus from the sale of self-generated goodwill.\nConclusion:\n•\nSurplus arising from the sale of self-generated goodwill is not taxable as capital gains.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 516 of 1976, decision dated: 29-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian, J.P. Devadhar and K.C. Sidhwa for Applicant. Sunil Mandloi, S.S. Shetty and Dinesh Vyas for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nPTTMABER DIIARSEY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 78 = 1990 SLD 78 = 1990 PTD 634 = (1990) 61 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening Assessments Based on New Material\nKey Issues: Validity of reopening assessments for unassessed capital gains.\nConclusion:\n•\nReopening based on material evidence (e.g., sale of old rubber trees) is valid.\nCitations: United Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1967) 64 ITR 218 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 46 and 47 of 1986, decision dated: 18-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND VARGHESE KALLIATH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Pathrose Mathai and Joseph Vellapally for Applicant. P.K.R. Menon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "TEEKOY RUBBERS (INDIA) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 79 = 1990 SLD 79 = 1990 PTD 640 = (1990) 62 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Non-Resident Companies in Pakistan\nKey Issues: Taxation and head office expenses for non-resident companies under tax treaties.\nConclusion:\n•\nNon-resident companies with permanent establishments in Pakistan are taxable in Pakistan.\n•\nProvisions of Pakistan’s tax laws regarding head office expenses apply despite treaty protections.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(e) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeals Nos.1592/LB, 1593/LB, ()8/L. 13 of 1981 85 and 4835/LB of 1986 87, decision dated: 30th August 1989, hearing DATE : 4th February 1989", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Appellant. Munir Qureshi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 80 = 1990 SLD 80 = 1990 PTD 646", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure: Sales Tax Liability\nKey Issues: Timing of deduction for sales tax liability.\nConclusion:\n•\nUnder the mercantile system, sales tax liability is deductible in the year it accrues, not when finalized or paid.\nCitations: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Letters Patent Appeal No. 640 of 1983 in Civil Writ Petition No. 883 of 1976, decision dated: 17-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee. Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "SIRSA INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 81 = 1990 SLD 81 = 1990 PTD 652", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Income Claims Without Evidence\nKey Issues: Assessability of unsubstantiated agricultural income.\nConclusion:\n•\nIn the absence of evidence, claimed agricultural income is treated as income from other sources.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Application No. 220 of 1988, decision dated: 27-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.M. SAHAI AND R.K GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "AVDHESH KUMAR JAIN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 82 = 1990 SLD 82 = 1990 PTD 653", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Concealed Income\nKey Issues: Validity of penalty on concealed income despite revised returns.\nConclusion:\n•\nFiling a revised return after detection of concealment does not absolve the penalty.\nCitations: Explanation 2 to Section 271(1)(c), Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 7979 of 1988 S, decision dated: 10-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Ramachandran, K.P. Dandapani, Sumathi Dandapani and K. Jaju Babu for Petitioner. P.K. Ravindranadha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CALICUT TRADING CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 83 = 1990 SLD 83 = 1990 PTD 658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Interest Deduction on Gifted Capital\nKey Issues: Deductibility of interest paid to a donee by a firm partner.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest on validly gifted capital is deductible.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 11 of 1976, decision dated: 26-09-1988", + "Judge Name:": " A. RAGHUVIR, C.J. AND S.N. PHUKAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Talukdar and D.K. Talukdar for the Commissioner. M.K. Sarma, R.P. Agarwalla and R.L. Jain for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMAHATTA CONSTRUCTION CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 84 = 1990 SLD 84 = 1990 PTD 661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Charitable Trust Exemption for a Film Federation\nKey Issues: Tax exemption for a federation’s income used for public utility.\nConclusion:\n•\nSubscription and interest income received by the Film Federation are tax-exempt as they align with public utility purposes.\nCitations: Bar Council of Maharashtra v. C.I.T. (1980) 126 ITR 27 (Bom.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 458 of 1975, decision dated: 29-09-1988", + "Judge Name:": " S.K DESAI AND V.S. KOTWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley and Manjula Singh for the Commissioner. R.M. Parikh for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nFILM FEDERATION OF INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 85 = 1990 SLD 85 = 1990 PTD 662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVER1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Adjustment of Tax Arrears Against Property Consideration\nKey Issues: Procedure for adjusting tax arrears under Section 269 UG.\nConclusion:\n•\nConsideration adjustments must be intimated to the entitled party before execution.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 9710 of 1988, decision dated: 23rd February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " BAKTHAVATSALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.L. Ramani for Petitioner. C.V. Rajan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SUDARSHAN TRADING CO. LTD\nVs\nAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 86 = 1990 SLD 86 = 1990 PTD 664", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Disallowance of Gratuity Provisions\nKey Issues: Deduction for gratuity provisions under Section 40A.\nConclusion:\n•\nGratuity provisions are deductible only when tied to an approved gratuity fund or immediate liability.\nCitations: Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 79 of 1981, decision dated: 1st February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "O.P. Hoshiarpuri for the Assessee. Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BITONI LAMPS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 87 = 1990 SLD 87 = 1990 PTD 666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appealability of Interest Charged for Delayed Returns\nKey Issues: Scope of appellate relief against interest levies under Section 139(8).\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest disputes can only be appealed if the liability itself is contested, not its quantum.\nCitations: Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 157 of 1979, decision dated: 17-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner Bhagirath Dass, Senior Advocate and Ramesh Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nSARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 88 = 1990 SLD 88 = 1990 PTD 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty Orders and Procedural Compliance\nKey Issues: Validity of penalty orders issued by successor officers.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal interference with procedural remands raises valid legal questions.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 700 of 1988 S, decision dated: 28-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nEMINENT ENTERPRISES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 89 = 1990 SLD 89 = 1990 PTD 671 = (1990) 62 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Venture in the Nature of Trade: Intention as the Determining Factor\nKey Issues: Determining the nature of a solitary transaction and its treatment as trade or otherwise.\nConclusions:\n•\nA single transaction can qualify as a trade if profit-making intent is proven.\n•\nMemorandum and Articles of Association of a company are indicative but not conclusive of the commercial nature of transactions.\n•\nThe dominant intention at the time of the transaction governs its characterization.\nCitations: Californian Copper Syndicate Ltd. v. Harris 5 TC 159; Tebrau (Johore) Rubber Industries.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=27,SecondSched.,item(65) ", + "Case #": "T.A. No. 1245/LB of 1986 87, decision dated: 15-02-1990, hearing DATE : 5-09-1988", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND MR. MANZUR UL HAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem Chaudhry for Appellant. Sikandar Kaleem, AC/DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 90 = 1990 SLD 90 = 1990 PTD 682 = (1964) 9 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Tax Law and Notice Issuance\nKey Issues: Retrospective operation of tax laws and scope of Section 34 for income escaping assessment.\nConclusions:\n•\nLaws are not retrospective unless expressly or impliedly stated.\n•\nSection 34 allows notices for concealed or non-declared income even beyond limitation, barring pre-1947 income.\n•\nAgreements between assessee and tax authorities bind the parties unless explicitly repudiated.\nCitations: Seth Gujar Mal Modi and others v. CIT, Uttar Pradesh (1963) ITR 101.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34(1)(2),23,3 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 277 to 281 of 1963 64, decision dated: 24-12-1963", + "Judge Name:": " NUR ILAHI, PRESIDENT, K. SALAHUDDIN AND M. T. SIDDIQUI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "ader for Appellant. S.H. Sulaiman (Assistant Commissioner), D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 91 = 1990 SLD 91 = 1990 PTD 691 = (1990) 62 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Declaration of Undisclosed Income: Limitations and Filing Deadlines\nKey Issues: Filing deadlines and the scope of Section 3C for undisclosed income.\nConclusions:\n•\nUndisclosed income declaration deadlines under the Fifth Schedule cannot be extended.\n•\nFiling post-deadline is invalid, and the law does not permit retroactive relief.\nCitations: Sayaji Rao, Gaikwar, of Baroda v. Madhavrao Raghunathrao Dhavale AIR 1929 Bom. 14.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3C,FifthSched.,paras.1,2,136(2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 20 of 1989, decision dated: 14-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ilyas Zafar for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 92 = 1990 SLD 92 = 1990 PTD 694", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Agreed Assessments and Legal Validity\nKey Issues: The legality of assessments based on agreements.\nConclusions:\n•\nAgreed assessments are enforceable unless proven to violate statutory provisions.\n•\nA taxpayer consenting to terms cannot later contest procedural aspects.\nCitations: P L D 1975 Lah. 287; P L D 1964 SC 829.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,61,62,130 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2096/LB to 2099/LB of 1985 86, decision dated: 21st September, 1988, hearing DATE : 14th of June, 1988", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qudratullah, D.R. for Appellant. Anwar Shaukat for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 93 = 1990 SLD 93 = 1990 PTD 702 = 1991 PTCL 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Accounts and Gross Profit Adjustments\nKey Issues: Validity of rejecting accounts and applying alternative gross profit rates.\nConclusions:\n•\nRejection of accounts is valid if defects are unaddressed.\n•\nGross profit rates must align with past assessments or similar businesses.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 5798/LB of 1986 87, and 24/LB of 1987 88, decision dated: 17-05-1989, hearing DATE : 3rd May, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant. Mujahid Akbar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 94 = 1990 SLD 94 = 1990 PTD 704", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Filing Requirements and Addbacks in Profit Accounts\nKey Issues: Procedural non-compliance in appeals and the validity of addbacks.\nConclusions:\n•\nFailure to file a certified copy renders appeals incompetent.\n•\nAddbacks require verifiable evidence; arbitrary adjustments are impermissible.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=32(3) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 315/LB and 322/LB of 1988 89, decision dated: 14-09-1989, hearing DATE : 28-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FAKHAR UD DIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant (in LTA No. 322/LB of 1988 89) Munir Ahmad Sheikh, D.R. in I.TA. No. 315/LB of 1988 89).Munir Ahmad Sheikh, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 322/LB of 1988 89) Zia H. Rizivi (in I.TA. No. 315/LB of 1988 89)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 95 = 1990 SLD 95 = 1990 PTD 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVESFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Invalid Service of Notices and Reassessment Proceedings\nKey Issues: Consequences of invalid service of notices under Section 65.\nConclusions:\n•\nInvalid notice service renders reassessments void.\n•\nReassessment requires definite information; speculative findings are insufficient.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,132,62 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 6234 & 6235/LB of 1986 87, and 990 & 991/LB of 1988 89, decision dated: 30-08-1989.hearing DATE : 30 June, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Javed for Appellant.\nMujahid Akbar, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 96 = 1990 SLD 96 = 1990 PTCL 89 = 1990 PTD 711", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Periods and Stay Orders in Tax Proceedings\nKey Issues: Impact of stay orders on statutory limitation periods.\nConclusions:\n•\nStay orders do not automatically extend statutory deadlines.\n•\nAmendments are needed to address legislative gaps in limitation computations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(3A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,199(4A) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 546 to 554/LB of 1988 89, decision dated: 5-04-1990, hearing DATE : 19-03-1990", + "Judge Name:": " IBRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Illyas Zafar, D.R. for Appellant. Arshad Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 97 = 1990 SLD 97 = 1990 PTD 716 = 1991 PTCL 20 = (1990) 62 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemptions for State-Owned Companies\nKey Issues: Exemption of ancillary income for state-owned forest companies.\nConclusions:\n•\nIncome unrelated to core activities (e.g., bank interest) is taxable.\n•\nIncome connected to forestry operations is exempt under Clause 120(A).\nCitations: Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 SC.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.120(A) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 585(PB), 586(PB) & 809(PB) of 1987 88, decision dated: 19-05-1990, hearing DATE : 19-08-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD KHIYAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rifaqat Babar, FAC for Appellant. Abdul Latif Yousafzai and Abdul Ali Khan, DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 98 = 1990 SLD 98 = 1990 PTD 723 = 1991 PTCL 32 = (1991) 63 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Stock: Evidentiary and Procedural Considerations\nKey Issues: Validity of stock valuations and reliance on expert evidence.\nConclusions:\n•\nExpert evidence, while valuable, is not superior to other forms of evidence.\n•\nCases lacking valuation bases must be remanded for reassessment with documented findings.\nCitations: AIR 1964 SC 529; P L D 1968 Kar. 263.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 317/HQ of 1988 89, decision dated: 29-05-1990, hearing DATE : 22-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mino Bamjee, F.CA. for Appellant. Khurshid Anwar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 99 = 1990 SLD 99 = 1990 PTD 731", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Bad debt deductions, irrecoverable debts, and allowable expenditures.\nConclusions:\n•\nBad Debts Deduction: Writing off debts based on arbitration awards made rule of court is allowable.\n•\nAllowable Deductions: All bad debts written off and determined irrecoverable by the Assessing Officer can be claimed.\n•\nTelecommunication Expenses: Expenses without a personal element are deductible.\n•\nPenalty Expenses: Penalties imposed by external authorities (e.g., Social Security) are not deductible as business expenses.\n•\nExpenditure by Government Direction: Expenditure incurred as per government orders, even if disputed in court, is allowable if tied to business purposes.\n•\nRecovered Bad Debts: If recovered, previously written-off bad debts must be treated as income.\n•\nRejection of Accounts: Rejection of accounts requires verifiable discrepancies; comparisons with parallel cases are insufficient without concrete findings.\nCitations: (1969) 73 ITR 53; 1980 PTD 210; 1989 PTD 1137 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(x),22,134,135,32(3),23(1)(xviii),25,ThirdSched.,R.7(b)(ii),ThirdSched.,R.8(8)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 4772 to 4774/LB of 1985 86, 1918/LB of 1986 87, 1894 & 1895/LB of 1987 88 and 65/LB of 1988 89, decision dated: 24-01-1990, hearing DATE : 4-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ILLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi, and Mir Arshad Oayyum, FCA for Appellant (in I.TA. Nos. 1918/LB of 1986 87 and 1894 and 1895/LB of 1987 88).\nNasir Ahmad, D.R. and Anwar Ahmad, I.T.O. for Appellant (in I.T.A. Nos. 4772 to 4774/LB of 1985 86 and 65/LB of 1988 89).\nNasir Ahmad, D.R. and Anwar Ahmed, ITO for Respondent (in 1.T.A. Nos. 1918/LB of 1986 87 and 1894 and 1895/LB of 1987 88).\nZia H. Rizvi and Mir Arshad Qayyum, FCA for Respondent (in I.TA. Nos. 4772 to 4774/.LB of 1985 86 and 65/LB of 1988 89).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 100 = 1990 SLD 100 = 1990 PTD 747", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Reassessment validity, procedural lapses, and inadmissible evidence.\nConclusions:\n•\nFishing Inquiry: Pre-reassessment inquiries without due process are invalid.\n•\nRecording Evidence: Statements taken without involving the assessee are inadmissible.\n•\nProcedural Integrity: Notices must precede evidence gathering to ensure legal compliance.\n•\nReassessment Validity: Additions without notices or valid approvals are untenable.\nCitations: Chief Commissioner v. Dina Sohrah Clark PLD 1959 SC 45; PLD 1966 SC 536 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=148,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1021/LB 1309/LB and 1310/LB of 1981 82, decision dated: 26-10-1989, hearing DATE : 28-06-1989", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jamil Hussain for Appellant (in ITA No. 1.021/LB of 1981 82). Mujahid Akbar, DR for Appellant (in ITA Nos. 1309/LB and 1310/LB of 1981 82). Mujahid Akbar, DR for Respondent (in ITA No. 1021/LB of 1981 82). Jamil Hussain for Respondent (in ITA Nos. 1309/LB and I310/LB of 1981 82).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 101 = 1990 SLD 101 = 1990 PTD 768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Deduction obligations, agent liability, and statutory interpretation.\nConclusions:\n•\nAgent's Liability: Obligations to deduct taxes arise from income deemed accruing in Pakistan.\n•\nComposite Payments: Tax deductions apply to entire payments, not just income portions.\n•\nInterpretation of 'Liable': Liability denotes potential obligation, not necessarily an assessed amount.\n•\nNon-Resident Provisions: Tax applies to incomes accruing or deemed accruing in Pakistan.\n•\nAppeals and References: High Court may independently frame legal questions if aggrieved parties fail to raise them earlier.\nCitations: Whitney v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1926) AC 37; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18(3B),(7),42,43,3 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "(On appeal from the judgment dated 27 2 1975 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in T.R. No.20/1973 (P.T.R. No. 387/72)). Civil Appeal No. 285 of 1980, decision dated: 13-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": " NAIMUDDIN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate on-Record (absent) for Appellant.A.H. Najfi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NOON SUGAR MILLS LIMITED\nVs\nThe COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 102 = 1990 SLD 102 = 1990 PTD 787", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Tribunal decisions, scope of references, and procedural compliance.\nConclusions:\n•\nTribunal Decisions: Points of difference must strictly align with referenced issues.\n•\nHigh Court Powers: High Court has discretion to frame questions not raised at the Tribunal if legal relevance is clear.\n•\nRemitter Obligations: Non-residents and their agents must comply with deduction requirements for taxes on income accruing or deemed accruing in Pakistan.\n•\nChargeability: The term “chargeable” encompasses potential liabilities and composite payments requiring later determination.\nCitations: Gulberg Textile Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1978 PTD 126; Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) & (2),5A(7),18(3B) & 4(1)(c),18(313) & 42(1),66(2),18(7) & 3(1(1) Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2),133(7) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 4 of 1980, decision dated: 8-05-1990. dates of hearing: 6th, 11th, 12th and 13-12-1989", + "Judge Name:": " WAJIHUDDIN AHMAD AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Athar Wadood for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, B, KARACHI\nVs\nESSO PAKISTAN FERTILIZER LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 103 = 1990 SLD 103 = 1990 PTD 810 = (1990) 62 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Determination of employer-employee relationship for tax classification of remuneration.\nConclusion:\n•\nEmployer-Employee Relationship: Remuneration qualifies as a salary if there is a clear employer-employee relationship. If the worker operates independently without employer control over the manner of work, the income is classified under professional or business earnings.\n•\nDoctor's Case: A doctor working independently under a service agreement with no employer control over his professional activities was not classified as an employee, and his income was deemed professional earnings. Citations: Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1957 SC 264; Simmons v. Health Laundry Co. 1910 1 KB 543 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=136,7 ", + "Case #": "ITR No. 66 of 1982, decision dated: 17-05-1990, hearing DATE : 18-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Dr. A, RAZZAK KAZI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 104 = 1990 SLD 104 = 1990 PTD 821 = (1990) 62 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Classification of unrecorded investments as income and the burden of proof for exemption claims.\nConclusion:\n•\nExcess Stock: Unrecorded investments or excess stock are treated as concealed income if the source is not satisfactorily explained.\n•\nBurden of Proof: Assessee must prove eligibility for exemption under the Income Tax Act.\n•\nUndisclosed Sources: Income from an undisclosed or unconnected source is taxable.\nCitations: A. Gobindarajulu Madaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958) 34 ITR 807; Auto Store v. Commissioner of Income-tax PLD 1964 Dacca 433.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22,4(2B),4 & 22(4A),23, ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 233 of 1977 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 6-R of 1976, decision dated: 13-06-1990, hearing DATE : 13-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": " NAIMUDDIN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.H. Najfi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant M. Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI\nVs\nMessrs Haji MAULA BUX CORPORATION LIMITED, SARGODHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 105 = 1990 SLD 105 = 1990 PTD 829 = (1990) 62 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Definition and classification of reserves for tax purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nDefinition of Reserve: Amounts earmarked for specific future use qualify as reserves. Unappropriated profits without designated purpose are not reserves.\n•\nLegislative Clarification: Definitions were formalized by amendments, such as the Finance Act of 1968.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. (1953) 24 ITR 499; Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958) 33 ITR 379 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1922= ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 44 of 1982, decision dated: 19-03-1990.hearing DATE : 25-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Naseem Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs UNITED LINER AGENCIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 106 = 1990 SLD 106 = 1990 PTD 832 = (1990) 62 TAX 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Classification of a hotel as a factory for depreciation purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nHotel Operations: Hotels, primarily engaged in lodging and boarding, do not qualify as factories even if they prepare food and beverages.\n•\nDefinition of Factory: As defined in the Factories Act, it pertains to industrial production and is not applicable to hotels.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. (1966) 59 ITR 685 SC ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi), ", + "Case #": "I.T.R No. 42 of 1982, decision dated: 5-03-1990.hearing DATE : 25-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasim Ahmed Khan for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN SERVICES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 482 = 2000 SLD 482 = 2000 PTD 3547 = (1999) 238 ITR 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Tribunal’s powers in remand cases and limitation issues in assessments.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal's Authority: Tribunals can remand cases and direct lower authorities to reconsider issues, including limitations, without deciding on merits.\n•\nLimitation Claims: The matter of limitation must be addressed by the assessing officer per the Tribunal’s direction.\nCitations: CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service (1993) 199 ITR 1 SC; CIT v. National Taj Traders (1980) 121 ITR 535 SC ref.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No.7560 and W.M.P. No.10948 of 1988, decision dated: 3rd February, 1998", + "Judge Name:": " K. P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Shanmugam for Petitioner. Mrs. Kala Ramesh for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THANTHI TRUST\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 107 = 1990 SLD 107 = 1990 PTD 839", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Discrepancy between Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Court decisions.\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessment Validity: Leave to appeal granted to address whether assessment by the Income Tax Officer was arbitrary.\nCitations: Miss Assi v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal PLD 1979 SC 949 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.9 of 1978, decision dated: 10-03-1980.hearing DATE : 10-03-1980", + "Judge Name:": " DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate and M. Z. Khalil, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nVs\nMessrs COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 108 = 1990 SLD 108 = 1990 PTD 840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Renewal of firm registration under Section 26A of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterpretation of Section 26A: Leave to appeal granted to examine the interpretation of firm registration rights under Section 26A.\nCitations: Leave based on precedents where Supreme Court had already granted leave.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 882, 888, 889, 893, 894, 806, 897, 898, 901, 903, 905 and 907 of 1976 decided on 2-03-1980.hearing DATE : 2-03-1980", + "Judge Name:": " DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Abdul Haque, Senior Advocate, Sh. Riazul Haq, Advocate and Iftikharudin, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nVs\nMessrs ELECTRO CABLE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 109 = 1990 SLD 109 = 1990 PTD 843", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Firm registration and related procedural limitations.\nConclusion:\n•\nConsistency with Precedent: Leave granted due to similarity with previous cases addressing the same statutory interpretation and limitations.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 878, 879, 880 and 922 of 1976, decision dated: 4-03-1980.hearing DATE : 4-03-1980", + "Judge Name:": " DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Abdul Haque, Senior Advocate and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE\nVs\nMessrs GENERAL BOOT HOUSE, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 110 = 1990 SLD 110 = 1990 PTD 843", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and constitutional remedies.\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court Jurisdiction: High Courts can quash notices or orders issued under Section 65 if they are found to be without lawful authority or issued with mala fide intent, even when an alternative remedy exists.\n•\nMandatory Preconditions: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) must possess definite information and prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before invoking Section 65.\n•\nChange of Opinion: Revisiting an assessment without new material constitutes a mere change of opinion, rendering the invocation of Section 65 invalid.\nCitations: Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1990 PTD 155; Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer AIR 1961 SC 372 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos.376 to 394 and 401 to 402 of 1976, accepted on 9-03-1980(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 74 1 1)76 in W.P. 1418, 1416, 1418 of 1971)hearing DATE : 9-03-1980", + "Judge Name:": " DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate and S Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners\nNemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "M. SHAKEEL SAIGOL and others\nVs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 111 = 1990 SLD 111 = 1990 PTD 873 = (1991) 63 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and constitutional remedies.\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court Jurisdiction: High Courts can quash notices or orders issued under Section 65 if they are found to be without lawful authority or issued with mala fide intent, even when an alternative remedy exists.\n•\nMandatory Preconditions: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) must possess definite information and prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before invoking Section 65.\n•\nChange of Opinion: Revisiting an assessment without new material constitutes a mere change of opinion, rendering the invocation of Section 65 invalid.\nCitations: Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1990 PTD 155; Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer AIR 1961 SC 372 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 1236 of 1987, decision dated: 7-06-1990.hearing DATE : 5th and 6th July 1989 and 30-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Petitioner. Shaikh Hyder for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JENNINGS PRIVATE SCHOOL\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, SALARY CIRCLE III, CENTRAL ZONE D and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 112 = 1990 SLD 112 = 1990 PTD 885", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Treatment of outstanding trading liabilities as income.\nConclusion:\n•\nOutstanding Liabilities: Trading liabilities allowed as deductions in prior years can be treated as income in subsequent years under Section 10(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, following legislative amendments.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2A) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 92 of 1982, decision dated: 5-04-1982.hearing DATE : 5-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND HAZIQUL KHAIRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAMIM BROTHERS LIMITED\nVs\nTHE C.I.T. CENTRAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 113 = 1990 SLD 113 = 1990 PTD 889 = (1990) 62 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Interpretation of information under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\n•\nDefinition of Information: Mistakes in applying tax rates or legal provisions do not constitute information under Section 65. Information must involve new material or facts beyond mere reinterpretation of the law.\n•\nHigh Court Role: High Courts can intervene under constitutional jurisdiction if notices or assessments lack jurisdiction or fail to meet statutory preconditions.\nCitations: Bhambhore Ceramic Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer C.P. No. D 447 of 1988; Eduljee Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1990 SC 399 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-710 of 1989, decision dated: 30-04-1990, dates of hearing: 12th February and 19-03-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javaid Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "REPUBLIC MOTORS LTD\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 1 = 1991 SLD 1 = 1991 PTD 1105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVERlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Legality of search and seizure under tax law.\nConclusion:\n•\nOwnership Dispute: When valuables seized during a tax search are claimed by a third party, their return is contingent upon resolving ownership disputes.\n•\nJudicial Review: Courts validate search and seizure procedures but do not interfere in ownership claims when there is no manifest injustice.\nCitations: Kusum Lata v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1989) 180 ITR 365 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15327 of 1989, decision dated: 16-07-1990(Petition against the judgment dated 18-07-1989 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C.W. P. No. 2161 of 1988)", + "Judge Name:": " SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, C.J. I. AND K RAMASWAMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J. I. and K Ramaswami, J\nC.S. Agarwal and H.R. Parekh, Senior Advocates with S.K. Jain for Petitioner. O.P. Vaish, Senior Advocate with S. Rajappa and Miss A", + "Party Name:": "KUSUM LATA SINGHAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAJASTHAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 114 = 1990 SLD 114 = 1990 PTD 903 = (1990) 62 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Legitimacy of agreed assessments and their procedural validity.\nConclusion:\n•\nAgreed Assessments: These must be supported by material evidence. Agreements made by an authorized representative are binding but cannot override statutory obligations of the assessing officer to determine tax based on substantive evidence.\n•\nSpeaking Orders: Assessment orders must provide clear reasoning to ensure judicial scrutiny and fairness.\nCitations: Tanvir Brothers Oil Dealers v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1990 PTD 383 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6981 of 1989, decision dated: 23rd April, 1990,hearing DATE : 23rd of April, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, ACTG. C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawahar A. Naqvee and Rashid Ahmad Sheikh for Petitioner. A.H. Najafi with Mian Khadim Hussain, I.T.O. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs AFZAL CONSTRUCTION CO. (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nCHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 115 = 1990 SLD 115 = 1990 PTD 907 = (1990) 62 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Applicability of new points raised at the appellate stage.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal’s Scope: Points raised for the first time under Section 136(1) must directly arise from the appellate order to be entertained under Section 136(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136,136(1) & (2) ", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 5 of 1989, decision dated: 22-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir for Petitioner Ali Hazoor Najfi for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SALLOS (PRIVATE) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANIES ZONES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 116 = 1990 SLD 116 = 1990 PTD 909", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Procedural issues in filing appeals and assessment revisions.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeal Delays: Appeals filed in the wrong forum due to legal errors may be condoned if the delay is justified.\n•\nAssessment Revisions: Procedural irregularities, such as a minor signing a return, do not invalidate assessments unless they result in substantive errors.\n•\nClubbed Income: Income clubbed under Section 69(3)(c) requires the father to be given a fair opportunity to contest the assessment.\nCitations: Procedural compliance highlighted in Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) Sections 55, 66A, and 69(3).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,55,66,.69(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 2768 to 2770/LB of 1984 85, decision dated: 15-10-1989", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj Khalid for Appellant. Naseer Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 117 = 1990 SLD 117 = 1990 PTD 914 = 1991 PTCL 87 = (1991) 63 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Revision powers under Section 66A and the change of opinion principle.\nConclusions:\n•\nConditions for Revision (S.66A):\no\nThe Commissioner must call for and examine records, find the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing, and conduct necessary inquiries.\n•\nScope of Record : Material not available to the Assessing Officer cannot be relied upon in revision proceedings.\n•\nChange of Opinion: Revising authorities can reassess law and facts but cannot reopen settled opinions without fresh evidence.\nCitations: Ganga Properties v. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 447; Gemmni Leather Stores v. ITO 100 ITR 1 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66A,65,32A(2) ", + "Case #": "Income tax Appeal No. 1372 HO of 1989 90, decision dated: 9-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq for Appellant. KA. Nomani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 118 = 1990 SLD 118 = 1990 PTD 925 = 1991 PTCL 27 = (1990) 62 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Tax liability under Section 50(3) for payments to non-residents.\nConclusions:\n•\nDeduction Obligation: Payments made to non-residents (e.g., attorneys) are not taxable if they lack a direct business connection in Pakistan.\n•\nProviso to S.50(3): Taxpayers may choose not to deduct taxes if they reasonably believe payments are non-taxable, but they bear the risk of error.\nCitations: I.R. v. London Corporation 34 TC 293; Re: Bhagwati Shanker (1944) 12 ITR 193 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(3),12(1),23,24 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.838/KB of 1986 1987, decision dated: 22-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shabbir Hamza Khandwala, CA. for Appellant. K.A. Nomani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs E.M.I. (PAKISTAN) Ltd\nVs\nTHE I.T.O., COS CIRCLE B 7 Kyc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 119 = 1990 SLD 119 = 1990 PTD 935 = (1990) 62 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Interpretation of any income under Section 65 and reopening assessments.\nConclusions:\n•\n Any Income vs. Total Income : S.65 distinguishes between partial escapement of income and total escapement for reopening purposes.\n•\nReassessment Scope: Once reopened, the entire income is subject to reassessment, including sources beyond the initially identified cause.\nCitations: Gemmni Leather Stores v. ITO 100 ITR 1 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=65,65(1)(a),13(1)(2), ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1126/L.B. of 1987 1988, decision dated: 14-07-1990, hearing DATE : 29-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Bin Abdul Kadir for Appellant. M. Zia Ullah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ZAKA A. MALIK\nVs\nTHE I.T.O. CIRCLE H, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 120 = 1990 SLD 120 = 1990 PTD 941 = (1990) 62 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Stay of tax recovery during appeals.\nConclusions:\n•\nStay Justification: Stay orders are granted when prima facie cases show potential errors in tax additions and recovery poses a threat to the assessee's financial stability.\n•\nPartial Recovery: The department recovered part of the amount; the balance recovery was stayed pending detailed examination of contested issues.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,134(6),92 ", + "Case #": "M.A. Stay No. 201 KB of 1989 90, decision dated: 31st December, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD AND MANZOOR UL HAQ, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Applicant. Shahid Jamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 121 = 1990 SLD 121 = 1990 PTD 943 = (1990) 62 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Interest-free loans by directors under financial distress.\nConclusions:\n•\n Financial Difficulties : A company does not need to be formally declared a sick unit to qualify as being in financial distress for interest-free loans.\n•\nAssessment Criteria: Financial ratios and accountancy tools should be used to determine liquidity and solvency issues.\nCitations: Accounting standards referenced for financial analysis principles.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(7)(b) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 6364 LB of 1985 86, decision dated: 17-06-1990, hearing DATE : 15-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ziaullah Kayani for Appellant Naseer Ahmad, A.C./D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 122 = 1990 SLD 122 = 1990 PTD 947 = (1990) 62 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Denial of stay for tax recovery.\nConclusions:\n•\nNo Threat to Assessee: Where no coercive measures (e.g., property attachment) are involved, a stay of recovery is not warranted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134 ", + "Case #": "M.A. Stay No. 215 KB of 1989 90, decision dated: 21st January, 1990, hearing DATE : 10-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZOOR UL HAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sk. Jalal-ud-Din, CA. for Applicant. Shahid Jamal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 123 = 1990 SLD 123 = 1990 PTD 948 = (1990) 62 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVES1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Continuity of appeals and reassessments.\nConclusions:\n•\nMerger Doctrine: Appellate orders supersede original orders.\n•\nBroad Definition of Assessment : Includes reassessment and additional assessment for calculating tax liabilities.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Khem Chand Ram Das 1938 VI ITR 414 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,2(8),129,134,136,137 & 138,SecondSched.,CI.172 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 895 D of 1989, decision dated: 1st July, 1990, hearing DATE : 17-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND HAZIKUL KHAIRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.H. Naqvi for Petitioner. Nasarullah Awan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CHANDA MOTORS\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 124 = 1990 SLD 124 = 1990 PTD 955 = (1990) 62 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Constitutional remedies and alternate statutory remedies.\nConclusions:\n•\nMaintainability of Constitutional Petitions: High Courts may intervene in fiscal matters when alternate remedies are ineffective or delayed.\n•\nExemption Interpretation: Minor wording changes in Schedules do not alter the scope of exemptions.\nCitations: Principles on exemptions compared between the Income Tax Act, 1922, and Ordinance, 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.93 Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(i) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 69 D of 1985 and 301, 302, 303, 327, 328, 406, 497 and 1361 of 1987, decision dated: 18-06-1990. dates of hearing: 9th & 10-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HAMDARD DAWAKHANA (WAOF) PAKISTAN\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 125 = 1990 SLD 125 = 1990 PTD 967", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: High Court jurisdiction and remedies under tax law.\nConclusions:\n•\nJurisdiction Scope: High Courts can address illegality or jurisdictional overreach by tax authorities.\n•\nTribunal Errors: Missteps in fact-finding by appellate tribunals can raise questions of law, eligible for High Court references.\nCitations: PLD 1981 Kar. 290 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59(1A),130,136 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 355 D and 356 D and Civil Miscellaneous Nos.911 and 912 of 1990, decision dated: 19-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " WAJIHUDDIN AHMED AND SAYED SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakil Z. Lari for Petitioner. Dr. S.A. Wadood, Dy. A. G. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. YASMEEN LARI\nVs\nREGISTRAR, Income Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 126 = 1990 SLD 126 = 1990 PTD 988", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Simplified procedure schemes for existing assessees.\nConclusions:\n•\nChange of Status: Cases involving status changes (e.g., from firm to individual) are excluded unless explicitly provided in scheme rules.\n•\nCBR Clarifications: Administrative interpretations introducing extraneous matters not in the scheme lack legal standing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.218/IB and 219/IB of 1989 90, decision dated: 16-08-1990, hearing DATE : 13-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SAYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Manzoor ul Haq for Appellants. Feroz-ud-Din, D.R. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 127 = 1990 SLD 127 = 1990 PTD 1002 = (1991) 63 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Tax exemptions for professionals under Clause 83, Second Schedule.\nConclusions:\n•\nDefinition of Profession : A Qari appointed privately as an Imam and receiving royalty income from media organizations does not qualify for exemption under Clause 83.\n•\nRoyalty Income: Only expenses exclusively for earning royalty income are allowable as deductions.\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,cl.83,31(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos. 484A(IB) to 491(IB) of 1987 88, heard on 17-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Jalil, D.R. for Appellant. Respondent in person", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 128 = 1990 SLD 128 = 1990 PTD 1008 = (1991) 63 TAX 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Binding nature of agreed assessments.\nConclusions:\n•\nBinding Agreements: An agreed assessment entered voluntarily is binding on both the assessee and the department, provided procedural norms are followed.\n•\nService of Notice: Notices served on individuals regularly involved in the proceedings are deemed valid.\nCitations: (1988) 58 Taxation 219 (Trib.) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,56,61,62 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.1530/LB of 1984 85, heard on 4-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehmood Ahmed Malik, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 483 = 2000 SLD 483 = 2000 PTD 3545 = (1999) 238 ITR 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Reassessment under Indian Income Tax Act, Sections 147 & 148.\nConclusions:\n•\nReason to Believe: Income-tax officers can initiate reassessment when income appears to have escaped assessment based on unexplained deposits.\n•\nPetitioner’s Burden: The petitioner failed to provide evidence of the source of deposits.\nCitations: Asoke Kumar Sen v. ITO (1981) 132 ITR 707.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.W.P. No.18009 of 1997 and C. M. No.4673 of 1999, decision dated: 9-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": " JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA AND N. K. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Mittal for Petitioner. R. P, Sawhney, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Bindal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "VIVEK GUPTA\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 129 = 1990 SLD 129 = 1990 PTD 1014 = (1991) 63 TAX 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Workers' Welfare Fund and rectification of omissions.\nConclusions:\n•\nRectifiable Omissions: Failure to levy Workers' Welfare Fund can be rectified without prior notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nDemand Validity: An I.T. 30 Form is not a substitute for a written order; demands based on it are invalid.\nCitations: (1987 PTD (Trib.) 580) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,62,156(2) Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4(4) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 693(IB) & 694(IB) of 1987 88, decision dated: 2-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": " JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Alain Khan, F.CA. for Appellant. Abdul Jalil, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 130 = 1990 SLD 130 = 1990 PTD 1019 = (1991) 63 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Stock-in-trade and profits on business transfers.\nConclusions:\n•\nTransfer to Company: Transfer of business assets, including stock-in-trade, to a private company constitutes a taxable transaction, even if the transferor is a shareholder.\n•\nProfit Motive: Enhanced value of plots in transferred stock-in-trade is taxable as business income.\nCitations: Judicial interpretation of stock-in-trade principles.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=22,41 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.6547 of 1985 86, decision dated: 30-08-1989, hearing DATE : 1st March, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " FARKHAR UD DIN SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Nazir Ahmed Zia, A.C./D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 131 = 1990 SLD 131 = 1990 PTD 1036", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Reopening assessments and limitations of reassessment.\nConclusions:\n•\nChange of Opinion: Reassessment based solely on a change of opinion is invalid.\n•\nReopening Scope: Assessments can be reopened if new information arises, even from a reassessment for another year.\nCitations: Gemmni Leather Stores v. ITO ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 & 166(1)(c)(ii), ", + "Case #": "I.TA. Nos.901/LB of 1983 84 and 1185/LB of 1988 89, decision dated: 5-03-1990, hearing DATE : 24-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHAIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant. Arshad Malik, D.R. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 132 = 1990 SLD 132 = 1990 PTD 1042 = (1991) 63 TAX 174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVETFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Filing appeals and procedural compliance.\nConclusions:\n•\nTribunal Discretion: The Tribunal can condone procedural deficiencies, such as non-service of appeal documents via registered post, if no prejudice is caused.\n•\nAffidavits as Evidence: Affidavits must clearly distinguish facts based on personal knowledge and information received. Allegations of forgery must be substantiated with expert evidence.\nCitations: Govt. of Pakistan v. Niaz Muhammad PLD 1967 SC 271 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,135,155 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.7/KB of 1990 91 (Assessment Year 1983 84), decision dated: 20th,September, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz A. Sheikh, D.R. for Appellant. Masood Abbasi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 133 = 1990 SLD 133 = 1990 PTD 1065 = 1992 PTCL 14 = (1991) 63 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues: Tax exemptions under Clause 125, Second Schedule.\nConclusions:\n•\nConditions for Exemption: Existing companies must meet all conditions outlined in Clause 125 to claim tax exemptions under the Second Schedule.\nImplications: Failure to adhere to stipulated requirements disqualifies companies from claiming exemptions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSehed.,Part1,cl.125 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.3968/KB of 1980 87, 2948/KB, 534/KB, 578/KB of 1987 88, 669/KB of 1988 89, 1909/KB and 1866/KB of 1989 90, decision dated: 21st July,1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOOR UL HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.A. Nomani, D.R. and Siraj ul Haque for Appellants. Siraj ul Haque and K.A. Nomani, D.R. for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 134 = 1990 SLD 134 = 1990 PTD 1069 = (1991) 63 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Discrepancy in stocks declared to the bank vs. account books.\nConclusion:\n•\nInflated Stock Claims: The Assessing Officer summarily rejected the explanation that the stocks were inflated to secure higher advances. Such rejection without considering all aspects was unjustified.\n•\nDuty of Assessing Officer: Discrepancy in stock declaration alone does not conclusively prove suppression of purchases.\nCitations: Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Mills v. C.I.T., 95 ITR 375.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.1618/LB of 1988 89, decision dated: 30-06-1990, hearing DATE : 8th April. 1990", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH AND A.A. ZUBAIRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Malik, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Naeem, F.C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 135 = 1990 SLD 135 = 1990 PTD 1112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Higher depreciation rate for sugar manufacturing machinery.\nConclusion:\n•\nNo Higher Depreciation: Machinery used in sugar production, which comes into contact with molasses containing iron, lead, and copper, does not qualify for higher depreciation since these are not corrosive chemicals.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., 136 ITR 758.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 249 of 1985, decision dated: 1st October, 1987", + "Judge Name:": " N.D. OJHA C.J. AND R. C. SHRIVASTAVA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.P. Mittal for the Assessee. R.C. Lahoti for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GWALIOR SUGAR CO. (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 136 = 1990 SLD 136 = 1990 PTD 1113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Business expenditures and revenue receipts as legal questions.\nConclusion:\n•\nExpenditure on Managing Director’s House: Fit for reference as a legal question.\n•\nExcess Price Realized on Sugar: Determining whether it is a revenue receipt is also a legal question.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd., 116 ITR 60.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income talc Reference No. 18 of 1985, decision dated: 29-03-1988", + "Judge Name:": " V.K. KHANNA AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMODI INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 137 = 1990 SLD 137 = 1990 PTD 1114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Rectification of defects in firm registration.\nConclusion:\n•\nTechnical Defects: Failure of partners to sign Form No. 12 is a technical defect and can be rectified.\n•\nTribunal Directions: The Tribunal's directive to grant registration after the deadline constitutes a legal question fit for reference.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 4377 of 1987, decision dated: 25-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K. Ravindrantha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Petitioner. S. Vijayan Nair for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nINDIA SEA FOODS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 138 = 1990 SLD 138 = 1990 PTD 1117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Appeal competency for registration-related orders.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals Allowed: Orders rejecting Form No. 12 declarations for late filing are appealable under Section 185(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: Ashwani Kumar Maksudan Lal v. Addl. C.I.T., 83 ITR 854.", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 1 of 1977, decision dated: 23rd September, 1988", + "Judge Name:": " A. RAGHUVIR C.J. AND S.P. RAJKHOWA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.K. Talukdar and D.K. Talukdar for the Commissioner. D.N. Choudhury and K.H. Choudhury for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nASSAM COLD STORAGE CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 139 = 1990 SLD 139 = 1990 PTD 1121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for concealment of income in sales tax refunds.\nConclusion:\n•\nNo Penalty for Partners: Refunds credited to partners individually did not amount to income concealment. Penalty against partners was invalid.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Behari Lal Pyare Lal, 107 ITR 587.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax References Nos. 218 of 1980 and 86 of 1984, decision dated: 23rd January, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. B.S. Gupta and Sanjay Barisal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nShri SAT PARKASH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 140 = 1990 SLD 140 = 1990 PTD 1124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to a relative of a director.\nConclusion:\n•\nGuarantee Commission Allowable: Payments for assuming liability as guarantor cannot be disallowed under Section 40(c) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: Suessen Textile Bearings Ltd. v. Union of India, 55 Comp. Cas. 492.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 511 of 1979, decision dated: 24-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.K. Poddar and S.N. Dey for the Assessee. B.K. Bagchi and B.K. Naha for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "INDIA JUTE CO. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 141 = 1990 SLD 141 = 1990 PTD 1127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for concealment based on revised returns.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty Imposed: Original returns indicating less than 80% of assessed income constituted concealment, despite later revisions.\nCitations: Vishwakarma Industries v. C.I.T., 135 ITR 652.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 177 of 1979, decision dated: 6th October. 1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND K.S. BHALLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. S.S. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nDr. SAJJAN SINGH MALIK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 2 = 1991 SLD 2 = 1991 PTD 4 = (1991) 63 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Interpretation of “last assessed income” and procedural merges in assessments.\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessment Validity: Assessment orders retain validity unless merged with revised or appellate orders. Procedural amendments do not undo final actions.\nCitations: V. Jaganmohar Rao v. CIT, 75 ITR 373.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156,65 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.83/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 30-08-1990, hearing DATE : 25-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND NASIM SABIR SAYED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan H. Naqvi for Appellant. K.A. Nomani, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 3 = 1991 SLD 3 = 1991 PTD 8 = (1991) 63 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Tax credit, depreciation, and rebate eligibility.\nConclusion:\n•\nNo Installation Charges in Plant Cost: Installation charges are excluded unless specified by CBR.\n•\nForklift Not Eligible for Tax Rebate: Forklifts are not directly connected to production and thus ineligible for tax rebate under Section 107.\nCitations: (1987 PTD 116) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=107,10,59(1),156,ThirdSched.,Item.5(1)(c) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.2475/LB, 2412/LB and 2413/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 30-04-1990, hearing DATE : 7-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Malik, D.R. for Appellants (in I.TA. No. 2475/LB of 1985-86).\nMuhammad Iqbal Chaughtai, ITP for Respondents (in I.TA. No, 2475/LB of 1985-86).\nMuhammad Iqbal Chughtai, ITP for Appellants (in LT.As. Nos.2412/LB and 2413/LB of 1985-86).\nArshad Malik, D.R. for Respondents (in I.TAs. Nos.2412/LB and 2413/LB of 1985-86).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 4 = 1991 SLD 4 = 1991 PTD 16 = (1991) 63 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Fresh assessment proceedings under amended Section 65(2).\nConclusion:\n•\nAmendments Not Retroactive: Actions initiated under unamended provisions remain valid despite subsequent procedural amendments.\n•\nReceivable Amount as Net Income: Unreported receivables must be treated as net income without applying profit rates.\nCitations: Crescent Boards Ltd. Lahore v. ITO, 1985 PTD 276.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(2),134,65 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.563/IB and 577/IB of 1987-88, decision dated: 14-05-1990,hearing DATE : 14-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Saghir Tirmizey for Appellant (in I.TA. No. 563/IB of 1987-88). Shaukat Mahmood Khawaja, D.R. for Respondent (in I.TA. No. 563/IB of 1987-88). Shaukat Mahmood Khawaja, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 577/IB of 1987-88).Syed Saghir Tirmizey for Respondent (in INA. No. 577/IB of 1987-88)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 5 = 1991 SLD 5 = 1991 PTCL 15 = 1991 PTD 26 = (1991) 63 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Timeline and terminology for issuing notices under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusion:\n•\nTimeline for Notice: As of July 1, 1987, notices under Section 65(1) can be issued within five years from the end of the assessment year.\n•\nInterpretation of Issued : The term issued is equivalent to served in legal parlance.\nCitations: Banarsi Debi v. I.T.O., 53 ITR 100 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(3) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 70/HQB of 1989-90, decision dated: 29-10-1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Nazir Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant. Inam Ghori, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 6 = 1991 SLD 6 = 1991 PTCL 16 = 1991 PTD 30 = (1991) 63 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Determining the residential status of an assessee for tax purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nResidential Status: Determining the assessee’s residential status is crucial for calculating total income under Section 11. The Income Tax Officer must resolve this before finalizing income determinations.\nCitations: I.T.A. No.1020/PB; 1989 PTD (Trib.) 882.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=11,9 ", + "Case #": "LTAs. Nos.325(PB) to 329(PB) of 1987-88 and 92(PB) of 1988-89, decision dated: 7-05-1990, hearing DATE : 19-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD KHIZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND UNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ali Khan, DR for Appellant. Ehsanul Haq, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 7 = 1991 SLD 7 = 1991 PTD 36 = (1991) 63 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Admissibility of expenditure by a race club.\nConclusion:\n•\nExpenditure Allowed: Payments made to another race club to promote horse-racing were laid out exclusively for the assessee’s business and were deductible under Section 10(2)(xvi).\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club, 1961 ITR 414.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.21 of 1982, decision dated: 20-10-1990, hearing DATE : 24-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Salah-ud-Din for Appellant. Sirajul Haq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE\nVs\nMessrs KARACHI RACE CLUB LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 8 = 1991 SLD 8 = 1991 PTD 39 = (1991) 63 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Retrospective application of amendments in tax law.\nConclusion:\n•\nNo Retrospective Effect: The High Court rejected an application for reference regarding Explanation 3 of Section 10(4)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, finding the legal provision obvious and non-retrospective.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) Income Tax Act, 1922=10(4)(d) ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.34 of 1981, decision dated: 24th January,1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD., WEST WHARF ROAD, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 9 = 1991 SLD 9 = 1991 PTD 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Classification of technical know-how expenses as capital or revenue expenditure.\nConclusion:\n•\nRevenue Expenditure: Expenses for obtaining technical know-how to improve production in a running business are revenue in nature as no enduring asset was acquired.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Ciba of India Ltd., 69 ITR 692.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 90 of 1981, decision dated: 1st March, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL ARID S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. Amita Gupta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUPER STEELS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 10 = 1991 SLD 10 = 1991 PTD 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deductibility of interest paid to a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest Deductible: When a Karta lends money to a firm in his individual capacity, interest paid by the firm is deductible.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Narbharam Popatbhai and Sons, 166 ITR 534.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 282 of 1984, decision dated: 2-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": " G.G. SOHANI, ACTG. C.J. AND R.K. VERMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.R. Mandovera for the Assessee.R. C. Mukati for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GHASILAL KASTURCHAND\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 11 = 1991 SLD 11 = 1991 PTD 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Reasonableness of commission paid to a sole selling agent.\nConclusion:\n•\nCommission Upheld: Tribunal’s finding that 4% commission was reasonable based on evidence of efforts made by the agent was justified.\nCitations: Narain Motors v. C.I.T., 120 ITR 106.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 30 and 31 of 1982, decision dated: 28-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. B.S. Gupta and Sanjay Barisal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKUMAR ENGINEERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 12 = 1991 SLD 12 = 1991 PTD 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for income concealment.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty Canceled: Tribunal found no concealment based on evidence provided, justifying cancellation of penalty.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose, 165 ITR 14.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "No. 22 of 1979, decision dated: 17-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. Bhagirath Dass and Ramesh Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSOHAN LAL SAVINDER SINGH JAGADHRI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 13 = 1991 SLD 13 = 1991 PTD 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Validity of reassessment based on differing property valuation reports.\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment Invalid: When primary facts are fully disclosed, differing valuation reports do not justify reopening assessments.\nCitations: I.T.O. v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, 103 ITR 437.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=132 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 518, 519, 520, 521 and 522 of 1987, decision dated: 24-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " A.G. QURESHI AND S.K DUBEY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaphekar and Mahajan for Petitioner. R.C. Mukati for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "ABDUL MAJID\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 14 = 1991 SLD 14 = 1991 PTD 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Reassessment for interest on fixed deposits.\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment Invalid: Assessee’s disclosure of interest details sufficed, and reassessment was not justified.\nCitations: Biswanath Pasari v. I.T.O., 154 ITR 419.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Nos. 115 and 116 of 1980, decision dated: 16-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. Gurbachan Singh and S.C. Nagpal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGURYANI BRIJ BALLABH KAUR TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 15 = 1991 SLD 15 = 1991 PTD 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Reassessment for interest on fixed deposits.\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment Invalid: Assessee’s disclosure of interest details sufficed, and reassessment was not justified.\nCitations: Biswanath Pasari v. I.T.O., 154 ITR 419.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petition No. 1427 of 1985, decision dated: 23rd February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " G.G. SOHANI, ACTG. C.J. AND K.M. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for Petitioner. B.K. Rawat for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "STAR AUTOMOBILES\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 16 = 1991 SLD 16 = 1991 PTD 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deduction of gratuity provisions.\nConclusion:\n•\nDeduction Allowed: Provision for an approved gratuity fund qualifies for deduction, even if fund creation and approval occur post-year-end.\nCitations: Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T., 156 ITR 585.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 351 of 1982 and 7 of 1984, decision dated: 3rd March, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner. P. Radhakrishnan and B.S. Krishnan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nCHACKOLAS SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 17 = 1991 SLD 17 = 1991 PTD 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Set-off of loss from self-occupied house property against income from other sources.\nConclusion:\n•\nAllowable Set-Off: Loss related to self-occupied house property can be set off against income from other sources.\nCitations: Explanation to Section 23(2), Indian Income-tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 93 of 1980, decision dated: 23rd February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. Bhagirath Dass and Ramesh Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nK.K. DHANDA (HUF)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 18 = 1991 SLD 18 = 1991 PTD 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deductibility of surtax as a business expenditure.\nConclusion:\n•\nNot Deductible: Surtax is not deductible while computing taxable income under Section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961.\nCitations: Simon Carves India Ltd. v. C.I.T., 173 ITR 660.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 99 of 1980, decision dated: 15-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta and Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee. Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HIGHWAY CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 19 = 1991 SLD 19 = 1991 PTD 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Extension of limitation for assessment due to a stay order.\nConclusion:\n•\nLimitation Extended: The stay order clarified by the High Court applied to the firm as well, thereby extending the limitation for passing the assessment order.\nCitations: Section 153(3), Indian Income-tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 10 of 1980, decision dated: 19-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "AUTO AND METAL ENGINEER\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 20 = 1991 SLD 20 = 1991 PTD 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Classification of sales-tax subsidy as capital or revenue receipt.\nConclusion:\n•\nCapital Receipt: Sales-tax subsidy granted to industries in backward areas is a capital receipt and not taxable.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Dusad Industries, 162 ITR 784.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 279 of 1985, decision dated: 2-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": " G. G. SOHANI, ACTG. C.J., AND R.K. VARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Samvatsar for the Assessee. R.C. Mukati for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GADIA WIRES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 21 = 1991 SLD 21 = 1991 PTD 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Revision of assessments by the Commissioner.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal Justified: The Tribunal’s finding that assessments were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue was based on relevant facts, and no question of law arose for reference.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos. 290, 291 and 292 of 1988, decision dated: 27-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.M. SAHAI AND R.K GULATI, IJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSAROJ DEVI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 22 = 1991 SLD 22 = 1991 PTD 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Validity of registration of a reconstituted partnership firm.\nConclusion:\n•\nRegistration Valid: The reconstituted partnership was deemed valid as the new partner was a major and competent to contract at the time of execution of the partnership deed.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Ghulam Ahmad Khan & Bros., 130 ITR 636.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1983, decision dated: 9-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner. S. Vijayan Nair for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINDIAN TIMBER TRADERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 23 = 1991 SLD 23 = 1991 PTD 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Market value of plant and machinery under Section 263 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\n•\nQuestions of Law: Tribunal’s decision doubting the market value of plant and machinery without material is a question of law fit for reference.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 218 of 1988, decision dated: 24-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.M. SAHAI AND R.P. SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "MASCOT (INDIA) TOOLS AND FORGINGS P. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 24 = 1991 SLD 24 = 1991 PTD 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for concealment of income.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty Canceled: Documentary evidence rebutted the presumption of concealment under Section 271(1)(c), justifying cancellation of the penalty.\nCitations: Vishwakarma Industries v. C.I.T., 135 ITR 652.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 114 of 1980, decision dated: 15-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSERVICE IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 25 = 1991 SLD 25 = 1991 PTD 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Joint ownership versus association of persons (AOP).\nConclusion:\n•\nNo AOP Formed: Joint ownership without a common purpose to earn income does not constitute an AOP. Service of notice was invalid for some members.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Indira Balkrishna, 39 ITR 546.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 74 of 1978, decision dated: 5-10-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND K.S. BHALLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan (Ajay Mittal with him) for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHAR PARSHAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 26 = 1991 SLD 26 = 1991 PTD 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Carry forward and set-off of losses despite changes in shareholding.\nConclusion:\n•\nAllowed: Section 79 does not apply if the change in shareholding was not effected to avoid or reduce tax liability.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 8 and 9 of 1980, decision dated: 15-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Mahajan for the Assesses. L.K. Sood for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "M.D. TRADERS AND CHIT FUND FINANCIERS (P.) LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 27 = 1991 SLD 27 = 1991 PTD 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Cancellation of Commissioner’s order under Section 263.\nConclusion:\n•\nApplication Rejected: Tribunal’s cancellation of the Commissioner’s order was justified as the Commissioner failed to record reasons for errors or prejudicial actions.\nCitations: Srivastava J.P. & Sons v. C.I.T., 111 ITR 326.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 244 of 1988, decision dated: 1st February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.M. SAHAI AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharatji Agarwal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTAJ PRINTERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 28 = 1991 SLD 28 = 1991 PTD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for failure to file returns in time.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty Justified: Tribunal erred in canceling penalty despite lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay by the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1089 of 1979, decision dated: 8-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND BUKHTAVATSALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner. K.J. Chandran and Srinivasaraghavan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nA.R.KPERUMAL CHETTIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 29 = 1991 SLD 29 = 1991 PTD 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Reassessment based on a direction under Section 263.\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment Set Aside: Since the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner’s direction, the reassessment order was invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 345 of 1986, decision dated: 1st February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " G.G. SOHANI, ACTG. C.J. AND S.K DUBEY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Mukati for the Commissioner. Chaphekar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHANDARI CAPACITORS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 30 = 1991 SLD 30 = 1991 PTD 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Registration of a firm with a minor admitted to benefits of partnership.\nConclusion:\n•\nRegistration Valid: Circulars binding on authorities allowed registration despite lack of guardian’s signature, provided an opportunity to rectify was given.\nCitations: K.P. Varghese v. I.T.O., 131 ITR 597.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 38 of 1980, decision dated: 15-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan (Ajay Mittal with him) for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAIN STEEL ROLLING MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 31 = 1991 SLD 31 = 1991 PTD 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Charitable purpose and eligibility for exemption.\nConclusion:\n•\nExemption Granted: Finance and Marketing Corporation benefitting Scheduled Tribes was held to serve a charitable purpose, and its income was exempt under Section 11.\nCitations: C.I.T. v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers’ Association, 121 ITR 1.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Referred Case No.1 of 1984, decision dated: 1st February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND V. NEELADRI RAO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee. M.S.N. Murthy for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "GIRIJAN COOPERATIVE CORPORATION LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 32 = 1991 SLD 32 = 1991 PTD 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deductibility of raw material cost used in manufacturing for export purposes.\nFacts: The assessee claimed a deduction for the cost of 700 kgs of yarn used to manufacture goods that were subsequently exported. The Tribunal examined the evidence and confirmed that the raw material had been utilized for manufacturing the exported goods.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the deduction of Rs. 14,000 as the cost of yarn, as the material was proven to be directly linked to the production of export goods.\nConclusion: The cost of raw materials directly used in the production process is a legitimate business expenditure and deductible under income tax laws.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 170 of 1979, decision dated: 8-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan (Ajay Mittal with him) for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHARDEEP HOSIERY MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 33 = 1991 SLD 33 = 1991 PTD 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Inclusion of income of a minor child in the parent’s total income.\nFacts:\n•\nThe minor child of the assessee was admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm.\n•\nThe minor invested funds sourced from a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer included the minor’s income from the partnership in the total income of the assessee, the child’s mother.\nLegal Question: Does the source of investment affect the inclusion of a minor's income under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961?\nRuling:\n•\nThe Tribunal ruled that income arising to a minor child from admission to the benefits of a partnership is includible in the total income of the parent.\n•\nThe source of funds invested by the minor (in this case, HUF funds) was deemed irrelevant to the inclusion under Section 64(1)(iii).\nConclusion: The mother’s total income correctly included the income earned by her minor child through admission to the benefits of a partnership.\nCitation: CIT v. Smt. Nirmala Devi (1987) 166 ITR 253.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 260 of 1985, decision dated: 15-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " G. G. SOHANI, ACTG. C.J. AND K.M. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee.B.K. Rawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "CHANDRAKALA BAI NAILA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 34 = 1991 SLD 34 = 1991 PTD 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Authority of Income-tax Tribunals to rule on the constitutional validity of tax provisions.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee was penalized under Section 140A(3) for failing to deposit self-assessed tax.\n•\nThe Tribunal set aside the penalty on the grounds that Section 140A(3) was declared ultra vires by the Madras High Court in A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO (1973) 90 ITR 116.\n•\nThe Revenue appealed, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to question the constitutional validity of the provision.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tribunal, and High Court under Section 256 are statutory functionaries under the Income-tax Act. They cannot examine or rule on the constitutional validity of any provision of the Act.\n•\nUnless the Supreme Court or the High Court of the state in question declares a provision ultra vires, it remains valid and binding.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal’s decision was overturned as it acted beyond its jurisdiction. The penalty proceedings were remanded for reconsideration on merits.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom.).\n•\nA.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO (1973) 90 ITR 116 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 31 of 1981, decision dated: 17-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Mahajan and Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee.B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate. Amicus curiae", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nVED PARKASH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 35 = 1991 SLD 35 = 1991 PTD 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Maximum penalty for late filing of returns by a registered firm under Section 271(1)(a).\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee, a registered firm, filed its return late for the assessment year 1974-75.\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,580, calculated at 2% per month of the assessed tax for each month of default.\n•\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the penalty to Rs. 700, applying the maximum cap of 50% of the assessed tax under the law applicable before April 1, 1976.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner’s decision, confirming that the penalty could not exceed 50% of the assessed tax under the law in force before April 1, 1976.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe imposition of penalty exceeding 50% of the assessed tax was invalid under the pre-April 1, 1976 regime.\nCitations: Simon Carves India Ltd. v. CIT (1988) 173 ITR 660 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 48 of 1983, decision dated: 11-08-1988", + "Judge Name:": " J.S. VERMA C.J. AND N.C. KOCHHAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.R. Arora for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSUGAN CHAND & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 36 = 1991 SLD 36 = 1991 PTD 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Determination of annual value for self-occupied property under income tax law.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee owned a self-occupied property.\n•\nDispute arose regarding the method for determining the annual value under Section 23 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961.\nRuling:\n•\nThe annual value must be determined based on the relevant law and precedent. The Supreme Court ruling in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 was applied.\nConclusion: The determination of annual value for self-occupied property should align with judicial precedents and the legal framework at the time.\nCitations: Panna Lal Talwar v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 152 (P & H) and Sheila Kaushish (Mrs.) v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 435 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 63 of 1978, decision dated: 7-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Assessee. L.K. Sood for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "TILAK RAJ\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 37 = 1991 SLD 37 = 1991 PTD 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for concealment of income.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee claimed a cash credit of Rs. 1 lakh, stating it was from a prize-winning lottery ticket.\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim based on evidence that contradicted the assertion.\nRuling:\n•\nThe penalty for concealment was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, equaling the amount concealed (Rs. 1 lakh).\nConclusion: Penalty for income concealment is justified when the claim is unsupported by evidence and shown to be false.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 1013 of 1979, decision dated: 2-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND BAKTHAVATSALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.P.S. Janarthana Raj for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "S.N. HAMID ABDUL KHADER\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 38 = 1991 SLD 38 = 1991 PTD 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) to cancel an erroneous assessment.\nFacts:\n•\nThe ITO issued a draft assessment order with an addition exceeding Rs. 1 lakh.\n•\nThe assessee did not object, leading the draft to become final.\n•\nThe CIT invoked Section 263 to cancel the assessment, citing it as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.\n•\nThe Tribunal set aside the CIT’s order, leading to an appeal.\nRuling:\n•\nThe High Court upheld the CIT’s jurisdiction, stating the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.\nConclusion: The CIT has the power to cancel erroneous assessments that adversely affect revenue interests under Section 263.\nCitation: CIT v. Prem Singh Deviditta Mal (1989) 177 ITR 236 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 4 of 1980, decision dated: 22-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. Sanjiv Walia for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDES RAJ KUL BHUSHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 39 = 1991 SLD 39 = 1991 PTD 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Continuation of firm registration following the retirement of a partner.\nFacts:\n•\nA partner retired during the accounting year, and the firm filed separate returns for the periods before and after the retirement.\n•\nThe firm applied for continued registration for the period before the retirement.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Tribunal directed the ITO to allow continuation of registration for the specified period.\nConclusion: A firm can seek registration for a part of the accounting year when a partner retires, provided it complies with procedural requirements.\nCitations: Wazid Ali Abid Ali v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 761 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 47 of 1981, decision dated: 16-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. D.K. Gupta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOBIND RAM VISHAN DASS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 40 = 1991 SLD 40 = 1991 PTD 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Jurisdiction to levy penalty under income tax law.\nFacts:\n•\nThe dispute centered on whether the law applicable on the date of penalty initiation or the date of return filing governs jurisdiction.\nRuling:\n•\nJurisdiction is determined by the law in force on the date penalty proceedings are initiated.\nConclusion: The timing of initiating penalty proceedings governs jurisdiction, not subsequent procedural developments.\nCitations: CIT v. Raman Industries (1980) 121 ITR 405 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 78 of 1980, decision dated: 22nd November,1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. S.S. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGOPI RAM MULAKH RAJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 41 = 1991 SLD 41 = 1991 PTD 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Whether the retirement of a partner and admission of new partners amounts to a taxable gift.\nFacts:\n•\nAn assessee retired, and his wife and daughter-in-law were admitted as partners with a one-eighth share each.\n•\nThe Gift Tax Officer argued that this amounted to a transfer of rights, attracting gift tax.\n•\nThe Tribunal found no relinquishment of rights.\nRuling:\n•\nThe retirement and subsequent admission of new partners did not constitute a gift, as no rights were transferred directly by the retiring partner.\nConclusion: The act of retirement and subsequent admission of partners with consent does not trigger gift tax.\nCitations: CIT v. Prem Singh Deviditta Mal (1989) 177 ITR 236 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 279 of 1982, decision dated: 3rd March, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for the Commissioner. T.M. Chandran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nT.M. PORINCHU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 42 = 1991 SLD 42 = 1991 PTD 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Limitation period and jurisdiction for imposing penalties under reassessment.\nFacts:\n•\nOriginal assessments for 1967–68 and 1968–69 were set aside, and reassessments were completed on February 28, 1976.\n•\nPenalty orders were issued on March 18, 1978.\nRuling:\n•\nPenalty orders were within the limitation period specified under Section 275.\n•\nThe IAC retained jurisdiction based on the satisfaction recorded before the law changed.\nConclusion: Penalty jurisdiction depends on when satisfaction of concealment was recorded, and limitation periods start from the reassessment date.\nCitations: CIT v. Prem Singh Deviditta Mal (1989) 177 ITR 236 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 201 and 202 of 1980, decision dated: 10-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND-MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMOOL CHAND BEHARI LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 43 = 1991 SLD 43 = 1991 PTD 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) to impose penalties.\nFacts:\n•\nThe ITO concluded that the concealed income exceeded Rs. 25,000 and referred the case to the IAC.\n•\nThe IAC passed a penalty order after the Income-tax Act was amended in 1976.\nRuling:\n•\nThe IAC’s jurisdiction is determined by the date the ITO recorded satisfaction of concealment, not the date of referral.\nConclusion: The IAC’s jurisdiction is valid if the ITO’s satisfaction was recorded under the law in force at that time.\nCitations: CIT v. Prem Singh Deviditta Mal (1989) 177 ITR 236 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 154 of 1980, decision dated: 17-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSARASWATI ICE FACTORY AND COLD STORAGE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 44 = 1991 SLD 44 = 1991 PTD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) to impose penalties.\nFacts:\n•\nThe penalty order for the assessment year 1973-74 was passed after April 1, 1976.\n•\nThe assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the IAC to impose the penalty post-April 1, 1976.\nRuling:\n•\nThe IAC was legally competent to impose penalties for the assessment year 1973-74 even after April 1, 1976.\nConclusion: Jurisdiction to impose penalties depends on the law applicable at the time of initiating penalty proceedings.\nCitations: CIT v. Mohinder Lal (1987) 168 ITR 101 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 207 of 1980, decision dated: 21st November, 1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSOCIETY HOSIERY FACTORY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 45 = 1991 SLD 45 = 1991 PTD 156", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Determination of revenue vs. capital receipt and disallowance of cooperative society expenditure.\nFacts:\n1.\nThe assessee, a cooperative society, received a subsidy of Rs. 25,000 for purchasing a share in a company (IFFCO).\n2.\nThe Income-tax Officer taxed the subsidy as revenue and disallowed proportionate expenditure under Section 80-P(2)(a).\nRuling:\n•\nSubsidies to recoup capital expenditure are capital receipts.\n•\nDisallowance of expenditure under Section 80-P(2)(a) was invalid as it pertained to the business of the cooperative society.\nConclusion: The subsidy was a capital receipt and not taxable, and the expenditure disallowance was unwarranted.\nCitations: Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. v. CIT (1981) 128 ITR 189 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 13 of 1980, decision dated: 21st November, 1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta (Sanjay Bansal with him) for the Assessee. L.K. Sood for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BAGHAPURANA COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 46 = 1991 SLD 46 = 1991 PTD 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Income from undisclosed sources and its attribution to an HUF or firm.\nFacts:\n•\nThe Tribunal held that certain purchases and sales belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) rather than the firm.\n•\nThe income was added to the HUF instead of the firm.\nRuling:\n•\nDetermining whether transactions belonged to an HUF or firm and whether income addition was justified are questions of law fit for reference.\nConclusion: Attribution of income to an HUF rather than a firm requires legal determination.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 14 of 1988, decision dated: 5-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " V. RAMASWAMI C.J. AND G.R. MAJITHIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and A.K. Mittal for the Commissioner. M.K. Tewari for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKALRA MEDICAL STORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 47 = 1991 SLD 47 = 1991 PTD 160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Validity of auction of land classified as excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.\nFacts:\n•\nThe Income-tax authorities auctioned the assessee's land for tax recovery.\n•\nThe Competent Authority under the Urban Land Act challenged the auction, claiming the land was excess vacant land. \nRuling:\n•\nAn auction purchaser acquires only the rights of the original owner.\n•\nObligations under the Urban Land Act are unaffected by the auction.\nConclusion: The petition to set aside the auction was dismissed as the auction did not violate the Urban Land Act.\nCitations: Shah Jitendra Nanalal v. Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai (1984) AIR 1984 Guj. 145.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No. 2250 of 1984, decision dated: 26-12-1984", + "Judge Name:": " P. S. POTI C.J. AND I. C. BHATT, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.P. Bhatt for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. V.A. Vadher for Respondents Nos. 9, 16 and 22. K.G. Vakharia for Respondents Nos. 13, 21, 26 and 29. B.D. Shukla and VA. Vadher for Respondents Nos. 14, 18 to 20, 24 and 28. J.R. Nanavaty for Respondent No. 23", + "Party Name:": "M.H. PANDYA\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 48 = 1991 SLD 48 = 1991 PTD 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deduction entitlement for cooperative societies storing goods.\nFacts:\n•\nA cooperative society stored fertilizers for the State Government in its godowns and provided ancillary transportation services.\n•\nThe society claimed a deduction for income earned.\nRuling:\n•\nThe income was primarily for storage services, and the transportation services were incidental.\nConclusion: The society was entitled to a deduction under the Income-tax Act for its income.\nCitations: (1986) 162 ITR 142 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=14 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1839(NT) of 1975, decision dated: 25-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND RANGANATH MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, MADRAS\nVs\nSOUTH ARCOT DISTT. COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 49 = 1991 SLD 49 = 1991 PTD 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Reference question regarding confiscation of gold as income or business loss.\nFacts:\n•\nThe Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim that confiscated gold should be treated as a business loss.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Supreme Court declined to interfere, as the question of treating confiscated gold as business loss was different from considering its value as income.\nConclusion: The Tribunal's rejection of the reference was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4973 of 1989 (With S.L.P. No.12763/89), decision dated: 19-03-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, C.J. AND M.M. PUNCHHI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "M.B. ABDULLAH\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 50 = 1991 SLD 50 = 1991 PTD 171 = (1991) 63 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deduction of foreign exchange loss as business expenditure.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee incurred a foreign exchange loss due to currency devaluation on a loan taken for working capital.\nRuling:\n•\nThe loss was deductible as it was directly related to the business.\nConclusion: Foreign exchange loss on working capital loans is allowable as business expenditure.\nCitations: General Tyre & Rubber Co. of Pakistan Ltd. v. CIT 1989 PTD 582.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.100 of 1982, decision dated: 15-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Nasim Ahmad, Shahid Khan and Makhdoom Ali Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMessrs RONEO VICKERS LTD. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 51 = 1991 SLD 51 = 1991 PTD 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deductibility of expenses on customer meals as business expenditure.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee claimed expenses on customer meals as business expenditure.\nRuling:\n•\nSuch expenses constitute entertainment expenditure and are not deductible under Section 37(2A) and (2B).\nConclusion: Expenses on customer meals are not deductible as business expenditure.\nCitations: Brij Raman Dass & Sons v. CIT (1976) 104 ITR 541 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 831 of 1977, decision dated: 8-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": " V.N. KHARE AND D.P.S. CHAUHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Gulati for the Assessee. Bharatji Agrawal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "PHOOLCHAND GAJANAND\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 52 = 1991 SLD 52 = 1991 PTD 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Exemption for charitable trusts despite infringement of Section 13.\nFacts:\n•\nA charitable trust claimed exemption under Section 11, which was challenged due to alleged violations of Section 13.\nRuling:\n•\nWhether the trust is entitled to exemption is a legal question fit for reference.\nConclusion: Exemption eligibility under Section 11 despite Section 13 violations requires legal determination.\nCitations: CIT v. Insaniyat Trust (1988) 173 ITR 248 (Guj.).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos. 109, 110 and 111 of 1987 and 68, 69 and 70 of 1988, decision dated: 20-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": " R.N. PYNE C.J. AND D.P. WADHWA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Gupta and R.C. Pandey for the Commissioner. C.S. Aggarwal and Anill Sharma for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nGULRAJ EDUCATIONAL TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 53 = 1991 SLD 53 = 1991 PTD 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Denial of loss carry forward due to late return filing.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee filed a return beyond the time specified under Section 139(1).\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer refused to allow the carry forward of losses.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Income-tax Act provides remedies for such situations, and the writ petition was dismissed.\nConclusion: Late returns must follow statutory remedies for loss carry forward.\nCitations: CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 518 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. Nil of 1989, decision dated: 2-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.M. SAHAI AND K.K. BIRLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for Petitioner. M. Katju for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "OBEETEE LTD\nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 54 = 1991 SLD 54 = 1991 PTD 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Interest on advance tax paid by cheque.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee paid advance tax by cheque on March 15, which was encashed on March 20.\n•\nThe ITO denied interest for the late payment.\nRuling:\n•\nPayment by cheque relates back to the date it was received, provided it is encashed.\nConclusion: The assessee was entitled to interest on advance tax payment from March 15.\nCitations: CIT v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (1954) 25 ITR 529 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 97 of 1980, decision dated: 15-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " G. C. METAL AND S. S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate with Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. S.S. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nAVERY FREEWHEELS (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 55 = 1991 SLD 55 = 1991 PTD 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for concealment of income.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee’s income was less than 80% of the assessed income.\n•\nThe Tribunal found sufficient evidence that the assessee did not consciously conceal income.\nRuling:\n•\nPenalty was canceled as the assessee successfully rebutted the presumption of concealment.\nConclusion: No penalty is warranted if the presumption of concealment is rebutted.\nCitations: CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=256 ", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 9117 of 1987-S, decision dated: 13-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon for Petitioner. Jose Joseph for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "T. GOVINDANKUTTY MENONNCOMETAX\nVs\nT. GOVINDANKUTTY MENON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 56 = 1991 SLD 56 = 1991 PTD 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Validity of reassessment due to failure to disclose material facts.\nFacts:\n•\nReassessment proceedings were initiated based on undisclosed credits of Rs. 56,416.83 in the books of a company in the assessee's joint account.\nRuling:\n•\nThe reassessment was validly initiated under Section 147(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the non-disclosure of material facts.\nConclusion: Failure to disclose material facts justifies reassessment proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 35 of 1979, decision dated: 31st October, 1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND K.S. BHALLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.S. Mahajan for the Assessee. Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate and Ajay Kumar Mittal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "JAI PARKASH GUPTA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 484 = 2000 SLD 484 = 2000 PTD 1996 = (1999) 235 ITR 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Validity of notices issued under Section 131(1) without pending proceedings.\nFacts:\n•\nThe Assistant Valuation Officer issued a notice in 1992 regarding a house constructed between 1967 and 1973.\n•\nThe notice pertained to ascertaining the cost of construction, but no income-tax proceedings were pending for the relevant period.\nRuling:\n•\nSection 131(1) requires a pending proceeding to exercise its powers.\n•\nNotices issued without pending proceedings are invalid.\nConclusion: The notice was quashed as it lacked jurisdiction under Section 131(1).\nCitations: Dwijendra Lal Brahmachari v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 568 (Cal.).", + "Court Name:": "Patna High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.460 of 1992(R), decision dated: 18-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " SACHCHIDANAND, JHA AND AFTAB ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Binod Poddar, Biren Poddar and Anubha Rawat for Petitioner\nK.K. Jhunjhunwala for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "RINA SEN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 57 = 1991 SLD 57 = 1991 PTD 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Interest transactions between a firm and its partner.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee received interest from the firm in one capacity and paid interest in another.\n•\nThe Tribunal held that only the net interest amount should be disallowed under Section 40(b).\nRuling:\n•\nWhether netting off interest for disallowance is correct is a question of law.\nConclusion: The issue is fit for legal reference under Section 40(b).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 33 of 1988, decision dated: 27-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.M. SAHAI AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJ.K. BANKERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 58 = 1991 SLD 58 = 1991 PTD 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Validity of assessment after the assessee's death.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee died before the completion of the assessment.\n•\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed fresh assessment, which was later challenged by the legal representatives.\nRuling:\n•\nThe questions of whether the assessment order was void ab initio and whether the Tribunal’s action in setting aside the AAC's order was justified are legal questions.\nConclusion: The issue is a legal question fit for reference under Section 256(2).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 124 of 1982, decision dated: 23rd, February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " SOHANI ACTG. C.J. AND K.M. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Rawat for the Commissioner. B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKUMARI PRABHAWATI GUPTA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 59 = 1991 SLD 59 = 1991 PTD 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deduction of interest paid for delayed sales tax payment.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee paid interest for delayed sales tax under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.\nRuling:\n•\nInterest for delayed payment of sales tax is compensatory and deductible under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion: Interest paid on delayed sales tax is deductible as a business expense.\nCitations: Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 429 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 2 of 1980, decision dated: 20-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " B.L. HANSARIA & S.K HOMCHOUDHURI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.N. Choudhury for the Commissioner. A.K. Saraf for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPHEROS & CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 60 = 1991 SLD 60 = 1991 PTD 195 = (1991) 63 TAX 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Understanding of know-how and royalty under tax law.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee provided technical expertise and allowed the use of its patented processes and know-how.\n•\nThe agreement raised the question of whether payments for such services were royalties.\nRuling:\n•\nPayments for technical expertise directly related to the use of patents or processes qualify as royalties.\n•\nAncillary services unrelated to core rights do not constitute royalties.\nConclusion: Payments must be categorized based on their direct relationship with intellectual property rights.\nCitations: Jeffry (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) v. Rolls-Royce Ltd. 40 T.C. 443.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.3 of 1981, decision dated: 6-12-1990, hearing DATE : 12-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND HASAN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fateh Ali W. Vellani for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GLAXO LABORATORIES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 61 = 1991 SLD 61 = 1991 PTD 207 = (1991) 63 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Exemption eligibility for receipts unrelated to core business activities.\nFacts:\n•\nA sugar mill claimed exemption for commissions on fertilizer sales and tractor rentals.\nRuling:\n•\nThe receipts were not exempt as they were unrelated to the primary industrial activity of the sugar mill.\nConclusion: Exemption claims must align with the core business activity under the Income-tax Act.\nCitations: Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Karachi PLD 1966 SC 828.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.65 of 1982, decision dated: 9-07-1990, hearing DATE : 9-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND HAZIQUL KHAIRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Appellant. Ali Athar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 62 = 1991 SLD 62 = 1991 PTCL 37 = 1991 PTD 210 = (1991) 63 TAX 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Disqualification from the Self-Assessment Scheme due to non-compliance.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee failed to submit the required Trading and Profit & Loss Account under the Self-Assessment Scheme (1986-87).\nRuling:\n•\nNon-compliance with the scheme’s requirements led to disqualification.\nConclusion: Strict adherence to procedural requirements is mandatory for benefits under the Self-Assessment Scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.250/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 17-11-1990, hearing DATE : 11-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND ALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abbas Ali Siddiqui for Appellant. Ilyas Shaikh, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 63 = 1991 SLD 63 = 1991 PTD 217 = (1991) 63 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Change of opinion and reassessment under Section 65.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee argued that reassessment was based on a change of opinion.\n•\nThe original assessment was mechanical and lacked investigation.\nRuling:\n•\nReassessment is valid if the original order was not a conscious decision.\nConclusion: Mechanical assessments allow for valid reassessment without constituting a change of opinion.\nCitations: PLD 1990 SC 399.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,7 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.340-D of 1988, decision dated: 22nd November; 1990, hearing DATE : 27-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nasim for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs H.M. ABDULLAH\nVs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, CIRCLEV, WEST ZONE, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 64 = 1991 SLD 64 = 1991 PTD 226 = (1991) 63 TAX 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Effect of reassessment proceedings on original assessments.\nFacts:\n•\nLegal and valid reassessment proceedings make the original assessment non-existent.\n•\nInvalid reassessment proceedings do not invalidate the original assessment.\nRuling:\n•\nIf reassessment proceedings are declared illegal, the original assessment is restored.\nConclusion: Original assessments remain valid unless reassessment is legally and validly initiated.\nCitations: V. Jag Mohan Rao v. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (not applicable).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "INA. No.1767/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 12-09-1990, hearing DATE : 29-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qurban Ali Bugti, D.R. for Appellant. Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 65 = 1991 SLD 65 = 1991 PTD 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for delay in filing returns due to non-finalization of accounts.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessee, a partner in a firm, delayed filing returns as the firm's accounts were not finalized.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay, which is a finding of fact.\nConclusion: Deletion of penalty was justified based on facts.\nCitations: CIT v. Dwarkadas Moolchand (1982) 134 ITR 392 (MP).", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 255 of 1984, decision dated: 15-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " G. G. SOHANI, ACTG. C.J. AND K.M. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Rawat for the Commissioner. H.S. Shrivastava for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMAHESHPRASAD GUPTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 66 = 1991 SLD 66 = 1991 PTD 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Taxability of rent-free accommodation provided for official duties.\nFacts:\n•\nA foreign company provided rent-free accommodation to an employee deputed to India for official duties.\nRuling:\n•\nRent-free accommodation provided for official duties is not a taxable perquisite under Section 10(14).\nConclusion: Expenditure on accommodation was exempt from income tax.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 346 of 1982, decision dated: 22-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND, J.N. HORE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Prasad for the Commissioner. R.N. Dutta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nD.S. BLACKWOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 67 = 1991 SLD 67 = 1991 PTD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Rectification of assessment status from unregistered to registered firm.\nFacts:\n•\nThe firm was initially assessed as unregistered but later rectified as registered under Section 154.\nRuling:\n•\nQuestions regarding whether Section 183(b) is discretionary or mandatory and the validity of rectification under Section 154 are fit for legal reference.\nConclusion: Legal questions arose regarding rectification under Section 154.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 30 of 1985, decision dated: 29-09-1987", + "Judge Name:": " N.D. OJHA, C.J. AND R.C. SHRIVASTAVA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Lahoti for the Commissioner. N.P. Mittal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJ.P. SHRIVASTAVA & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 68 = 1991 SLD 68 = 1991 PTD 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Reassessment based on subsequent valuation reports.\nFacts:\n•\nOriginal assessments were completed after inquiries and reports.\n•\nReassessment notices were issued based on subsequent valuation reports.\nRuling:\n•\nReopening assessments based on a change in opinion or subsequent reports is not valid.\nConclusion: Reassessment notices were invalid.\nCitations: Abdul Rab Abdul Salam v. ITO (1988) 174 ITR 424 (Gauhati).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Rules Nos. 530 to 537 of 1980 and 981 to 987 of 1981, decision dated: 7-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": " A. RAGHUVIR C.J. AND R.K. MANISANA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.B. Bhattacharjee and A.K. Saraf for Petitioners. D.N. Choudhury and K.H. Choudhury for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "GULABRAI HANUMANBUX and 3 others\nVs\nWEALTH TAX OFFICER/Income Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 69 = 1991 SLD 69 = 1991 PTD 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deduction of interest on borrowed capital post-HUF partition.\nFacts:\n•\nPartial partition of HUF after 31-12-1978 led to capital reclassification as loans.\nRuling:\n•\nPartial partitions post-1978 are not recognized under Section 171(9), and interest paid was not deductible.\nConclusion: Interest paid post-partition was disallowed under Sections 36(1)(iii) and 40(b).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 71 of 1984, decision dated: 22-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. R.S. Aulakh for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nTEJ CLOTH WEAVING FACTORY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 70 = 1991 SLD 70 = 1991 PTD 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Validity of reassessment based on subsequent confession of hawala transactions.\nFacts:\n•\nA creditor confessed to hawala dealings, invalidating the original cash credit claim.\nRuling:\n•\nReassessment under Section 147(a) was valid as the assessee failed to disclose material facts.\nConclusion: Reassessment proceedings were justified.\nCitations: Hazi Amir Muhammad Mir Ahmed v. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 630 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 34 of 1979, decision dated: 7-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GAKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.R. Mahajan for the Assessee. L.K. Sood for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KASHMIRI LAL, KASTURI LAL & Co\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 71 = 1991 SLD 71 = 1991 PTD 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Taxability of interest income earned before business commencement.\nFacts:\n•\nInterest on fixed deposits and late payment of call money was received before production commenced.\nRuling:\n•\nIncome unrelated to specific expenditure is taxable as income.\nConclusion: Interest income was taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 261 of 1985, decision dated: 30-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": " G.G. SOHANI, ACTG. C.J. AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Rawat for the Commissioner. H.S. Shrivastava for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nHINDUSTAN ELECTRO-GRAPHITES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 72 = 1991 SLD 72 = 1991 PTD 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deductibility of bad debts arising from non-payment by customers.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee was liable for goods sold on credit and claimed the unpaid amount as bad debt.\nRuling:\n•\nThe bad debt was deductible as a business loss or expenditure.\nConclusion: Deduction for bad debts was justified.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 136 of 1979, decision dated: 7-11-1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nDAYACHAND HARDIAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 73 = 1991 SLD 73 = 1991 PTD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Classification of profits from land sales as business income or capital gains.\nFacts:\n•\nDispute over whether Rs. 8,54,141 from land sales was business profit or capital gain.\nRuling:\n•\nThe classification is a question of law.\nConclusion: Fit for legal reference.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 88 of 1984, decision dated: 29-08-1988", + "Judge Name:": " V. RAMASWAMI, C.J. AND G.R. MAJITHIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.S. Gupta and Sanjay Bansal for the Assessee. L.K. Sood for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BARI DOAB BANK LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 74 = 1991 SLD 74 = 1991 PTD 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Jurisdiction to rectify mistakes in higher authority orders.\nFacts:\n•\nITO attempted to rectify an AAC order based on subsequent Tribunal decisions.\nRuling:\n•\nITO has no jurisdiction to rectify mistakes in higher authority orders.\nConclusion: Rectification must be done by the authority that passed the order.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 437 of 1984, decision dated: 16-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " G. G. SOHANI, ACTG C.J. AND K.M. AGRAWAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.L. Nema for the Assessee. B.K. Rawat for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BABULAL & BROS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 75 = 1991 SLD 75 = 1991 PTD 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deductibility of kist and interest liability.\nFacts:\n•\nAbkari contractor claimed deductions for kist and interest.\nRuling:\n•\nThe issue of deductibility is a question of law fit for reference.\nConclusion: Scope of deductibility is a legal question.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No. 10798 of 1987, decision dated: 23rd January, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K. Ravindranatha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P. Balachandran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKUMARAN & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 76 = 1991 SLD 76 = 1991 PTD 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Inclusion of interest on minor deposits as partnership income.\nFacts:\n•\nInterest on deposits in minor names was questioned for inclusion in partnership income.\nRuling:\n•\nThe matter of inclusion under Section 64(1)(iii) is a legal question.\nConclusion: Fit for legal reference.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No. 74 of 1981, decision dated: 23rd August, 1988", + "Judge Name:": " V. RAMASWAMI, C.J. AND G. R. MAJITHIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan and A.K. Mittal for the Commissioner. S.S. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nSHRI RAM AVTAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 77 = 1991 SLD 77 = 1991 PTD 271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Classification of income as agricultural.\nFacts:\n•\nIncome from land leased to Bhumidhars was treated as agricultural income.\nRuling:\n•\nThe Tribunal's decision was a finding of fact, not law.\nConclusion: No question of law arose.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos. 125 and 126 of 1988, decision dated: 1st February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.M. SAHAI AND R.K GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharatji Agrawal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nASSOCIATED METALS CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 78 = 1991 SLD 78 = 1991 PTD 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deductibility of compensation, tax refunds, and surplus payments under insurance laws.\nFacts:\n•\nLife Insurance Corporation (LIC) paid compensation to agents under Section 36 of the LIC Act, 1956.\n•\nRefund of income tax received during the inter-valuation period was questioned for deductibility.\n•\nSurplus statutorily payable to the Central Government under Section 28 of the LIC Act was also evaluated.\nRuling:\n1.\nCompensation paid to agents is deductible under Sections 30–43 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961.\n2.\nIncome-tax refunds are not deductible under Rule 2(1)(b) of the First Schedule of the Income-tax Act.\n3.\nSurplus payable to the Central Government is not deductible.\nConclusion: Only specific business expenditures qualify for deductions.\nCitations: Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, Ss. 30–43, 44; LIC Act, 1956, Ss. 28 & 36.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 252 of 1976, decision dated: 12-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.J. Mehta instructed by A.H. Dinshaw & Co. for the Assessee. V.R. Bhatia and S.V. Naik for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 79 = 1991 SLD 79 = 1991 PTD 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Validity of prosecution for concealment of income.\nFacts:\n•\nThe assessee omitted to reflect an insurance reimbursement received after the accounting year in the return.\n•\nThe prosecution for concealment was initiated under Section 276-C of the Income-tax Act.\nRuling:\n•\nBona fide mistakes or facts discovered later do not constitute mens rea (guilty intention).\n•\nProsecution is not valid without evidence of intentional concealment.\nConclusion: Prosecution requires proof of intent to conceal.\nCitations: Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, S. 276-C.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Applications Nos. 544 and 545 of 1988, decision dated: 14-10-1988", + "Judge Name:": " D.C. GHEEWALA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.H. Mehta for Petitioner.R.P. Bhatt for Respondent No. 1.M.D. Pandya for the State", + "Party Name:": "B.T.X CHEMICALS (P.) LTD. and others\nVs\nSURAJ BHAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 80 = 1991 SLD 80 = 1991 PTD 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Exemption of capital gains on the sale of agricultural land.\nFacts:\n•\nThe land was sold for building construction, and the Tribunal found it was not used for agriculture.\nRuling:\n•\nLand not used for agriculture does not qualify for capital gains exemption.\nConclusion: Capital gains exemption denied.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 194 of 1976, decision dated: 6-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.A. Dalvi instructed by Hooseni Doctor & Co. for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian with S.V. Naik for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Z.M. MERCHANT\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 81 = 1991 SLD 81 = 1991 PTD 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Taxation status of a dissolved firm managed by receivers.\nFacts:\n•\nA firm dissolved but continued operations for winding up under receivers until February 7, 1980.\nRuling:\n•\nReceivers managing firm operations are assessed as a firm, not an AOP.\n•\nDepreciation on assets is allowable as the firm’s assets were used during winding up.\nConclusion: Dissolved firms under receivership retain firm status for tax purposes.\nCitations: Saligram Ruplal Khanna v. Kanwar Rajnath AIR 1974 SC 1094.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petitions Nos. 231, 413 and 571 of 1988, decision dated: 24-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.A. NAYAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P. Balachandran and Sudhir Gopi for Petitioner. P.K.R. Menon for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "JOINT RECEIVERS OF UNITED FILM EXHIBITORS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 82 = 1991 SLD 82 = 1991 PTD 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Computation of depreciation for assets acquired before the assessment year 1955-56.\nFacts:\n•\nDepreciation for assessment year 1956-57 was disputed.\nRuling:\n•\nWritten-down value of assets for 1956-57 must be computed under Section 10(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nConclusion: Proper statutory method to compute depreciation.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(5)(b) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 148 of 1976, decision dated: 8-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.R. Bhatia, S.V. Naik and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner. S.E. Dastur and P.J. Pardiwala for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBENNET COLEMAN & CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 83 = 1991 SLD 83 = 1991 PTD 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deduction of tax at source and contempt of court.\nFacts:\n•\nRs. 1,20,000 was withheld from a court-ordered payment to a defense forces member for tax deduction.\nRuling:\n•\nWithholding tax was not contempt as it was a legal obligation.\nConclusion: Tax deducted at source does not constitute contempt.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Contempt Petition No. 16 of 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 1702 of 1987, decision dated: 3rd August, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in person. G. Ramaswamy, Addl. Solicitor-General (A. Subba Rao and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "LtCol. K.D. GUPTA\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 84 = 1991 SLD 84 = 1991 PTD 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Taxability of interest on compensation for land acquisition.\nFacts:\n•\nInterest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was treated as income.\nRuling:\n1.\nInterest is income, not capital.\n2.\nInterest on enhanced compensation accrues annually and cannot be taxed as a lump sum.\nConclusion: Interest is taxable income spread over years.\nCitations: Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC); Rama Bai v. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Land Acquisition Act, 1894=18,28 ", + "Case #": "Ck Appeal No. 4789 of 1989, decision dated: 8-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, N.D. OJHA AND I.S. VERMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate with B. Parthasarathi, Advocate with him for Appellant. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate with B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with him for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "K.S. KRISHNA RAO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ANDHRA PRADESH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 85 = 1991 SLD 85 = 1991 PTD 288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Determination of income character and Tribunal decisions.\nFacts:\n•\nTribunal rejected the assessee’s explanation regarding income character and ruled based on existing evidence.\nRuling:\n•\nInferences drawn by the Tribunal are facts unless influenced by irrelevant considerations.\nConclusion: Tribunal’s factual findings are binding unless legally erroneous.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.24 of 1958, decision dated: 22-09-1960", + "Judge Name:": " S.K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND, J.C. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.J. Kolah, S.N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra for Appellant. K.N. Rajagopal Sastri (D. Gupta with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "HOMI JEHANGIR GHEESTA\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 86 = 1991 SLD 86 = 1991 PTD 294 = 1992 PTCL 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Reopening assessment and limitations under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nFacts:\n•\nAssessment proceedings were reopened but were barred by limitation.\nRuling:\n1.\nReassessment cannot override the limitation period.\n2.\nDifferences in declared and determined values, if nominal, do not justify reopening.\nConclusion: Limitation laws restrict reassessment powers.\nCitations: 1986 PTD (Trib.) 14.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(7),65,65(1)(c),13 ", + "Case #": "LTA. No.4/LB of 199491, decision dated: 15-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fayyaz Ahmad Chaudhry for Appellant Mian Masood Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 87 = 1991 SLD 87 = 1991 PTD 299 = 1993 PTCL 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nNon-service of Notice: Tribunal disallowed the plea of non-service of Section 65 notice not raised earlier.\n2.\nScope of Appeals: New grounds not previously raised cannot be introduced at appellate stages.\n3.\nAdjournment and IAC's Conditions: An illegal condition (prepayment of tax) imposed for adjournment renders the assessment invalid.\nConclusion:\n•\nNon-service objections must be raised timely.\n•\nIAC cannot impose conditions outside statutory provisions.\nCitations: (1969) 22 Tax 42; (1967) 66 ITR 443.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,63,132,134,154,65 Income Tax Act, 1922=31(3),31(3)(b),25(2),23A(1),26(2),48(4)(a),48(4)(b),48,49F ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.88/LB of 1987-88, decision dated: 31st March, 1988, dates of hearing: 14th & 16-03-1988", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi and Sh. Zulfiqar Ali, I.T.P. for Appellant. Shaukat Ali Babar, A.C./D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 88 = 1991 SLD 88 = 1991 PTD 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSalary Classification: Payments must stem from an employer-employee relationship to be classified as salary. \n2.\nAdvance Tax: Employer’s failure to deduct tax at source does not justify penalizing the employee.\nConclusion:\n•\n Salary requires a strict employer-employee relationship.\n•\nEmployer defaults result in liability on the employer, not the employee.\nCitations: (1974) 94 ITR 26; (1978) 114 ITR 415.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=53,16,55,59A Income Tax Act, 1922=18A ", + "Case #": "I.TA. Nos.1384/LB to 1386/LB of 1983-84, decision dated: 29-05-1989,hearing DATE : 12-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": " QADEER AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naseem Zafar, I.T.P. for Appellant. Aftab Iqbal Lone, D.R. for Despondent.", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 89 = 1991 SLD 89 = 1991 PTCL 36 = 1991 PTD 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRevised Returns: Penalizing a voluntarily revised return before assessment is unjustified.\nConclusion:\n•\nImposition of penalties contradicts statutory permissions for revised returns.\nCitations: 1986 PTD (Trib.) 446.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,57 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.545/IB of 1987-88, decision dated: 25-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SAYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BAKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Abbas Chatha for Appellant. Saeed-ur-Rehman, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 90 = 1991 SLD 90 = 1991 PTD 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nG.P. vs. N.P. Rates: The Tribunal supported applying the G.P. rate for assessments.\n2.\nLoss of Revenue: Assessments based on statutory compliance are not erroneous even if revenue loss occurs.\nConclusion:\n•\nStatutory adherence takes precedence over revenue maximization.\nCitations: 1986 PTD 288.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,66A ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.977/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 28-06-1990, hearing DATE : 25-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Ali Imran Mirza for Appellant. Aftab Iqbal Lone, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 91 = 1991 SLD 91 = 1991 PTD 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVQTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-S. 65-Notice under S.65 when amounts to have been issued on the basis of change of opinion.\n \nIf an order has been passed consciously by taking into consideration the facts and material relating to the controversy and subsequently on the same facts a different view is taken and notice under section 65 is issued, then it will amount to have been issued on the basis of change of opinion. But where no conscious order has been passed by application of mind and the assessment seems to have been framed mechanically in a routine manner accepting the accounts as filed by the assessee and subsequently if any information is received, then on that basis the assessing officer is entitled to initiate action under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 19.79.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 65-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l99-Notice under S.65 issued to assessee was not challenged immediately by the assessee when it was served but it waited till such time the assessment order was passed -Assessee, held, could not by-pass the remedy available under the Ordinance and invoke 'the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, impugning said notice in the circumstances. \n \n(c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 24 & 23-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-Constitutional jurisdiction would be attracted where interpretation placed on a provision of statute by the Assessing Officer was palpably wrong, completely mistaken and against the provisions of law and the s of the superior Courts. \n \n1968 (68)1TR 786; 790 and (1978) 112 ITR 87 ref.\n \n(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 24, 23 & 16-Scope and application of Ss.23 & 24-Terms \"\"perquisites\"\" and \"\"other benefits\"\"-Connotation-Whatever expenditure falls within the terms \"\"perquisites\"\" and \"\"other benefits\"\" which is a wide term, the employer is entitled to claim deduction to the extent of 50% of the salary.\n \nThe provisions of section 24 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are in the nature of an exception to section 23. Section 23 allows deduction and allowances but section 24 notwithstanding anything contained in section 23 prohibits the allowance or deduction mentioned in it (section 24). Section 24 (i) prohibits the deductions of \"\"any expenditure incurred by an assessee ' on the provisions of perquisites, allowances or other benefits to any employee in excess of 50% of his salary excluding allowances or other benefits.\"\" Section 24 (i) puts a limit on deduction on any expenditure incurred on perquisites to employees or any expenditure or allowance. For the purposes of this clause salary has been defined as remuneration or compensation for services rendered and includes dearness and cost of living allowance or benefits or amount paid to any employee in terms of his employment and the word \"\"perquisites\"\" means the same as provided by section 16, subsection (2)(b) which includes the value of rent free accommodation to the value of any concession in the matter of rent for any accommodation; any sum payable by employer towards employee's insurance on life or annuity for the benefit of employee's spouse or child, the value of any benefits provided free of cost or at a concessional rate or any sum paid by an employer in respect of any obligation to an employee. The definition is inclusive and not exhaustive and may include such payments and expenditure though not defined in section 16(2) as are covered by the word \"\"perquisites\"\". Therefore, whatever expenditure falls within the term \"\"perquisites\"\" and \"\"other benefits\"\" which is a wide term, the employer is entitled to claim deduction to the extent of 50% of the salary. \n \n(e) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-\n \n-Ss. 65, 23 & 24-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-Notice under S.65 issued to assessee was legal and proper and within the jurisdiction-Where inquiry into the claim of perquisites and rebate required consideration of facts and checking of accounts, proper forum was the departmental authorities as provided under the Ordinance and Constitutional petition was not maintainable and assessee should have sought his remedy under the statute-If the assessee had filed appeal the same was to be dealt with by the relevant authorities-While dismissing Constitutional petitions, High Court, however, observed that if no appeal had been filed, and the assessee wanted to file appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of of High Court, appellate authorities might consider sympathetically to waive the bar of limitation and decide the same according to law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,24,23,16 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1044 and D-1045 of 1989, decision dated: 31st January. 1991. dates of hearing: 19th, 20th, 21st and 22-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 92 = 1991 SLD 92 = 1991 PTD 350 = (1991) 63 TAX 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nWealth Tax Deductibility: Wealth tax is not an allowable expenditure under the 1979 Ordinance.\n2.\nExemption vs. Deduction: The distinction underlines the legislative intent.\nConclusion:\n•\nWealth tax cannot be claimed as business expenditure post-1979 Ordinance.\nCitations: 1989 PTD 135.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,12 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,31 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No.43 of 1982, decision dated: 20-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Ahmed for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF. IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nVs\nTARIQUE SIDDIQUI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 93 = 1991 SLD 93 = 1991 PTD 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nReassessment Bar: Assessments under Section 59(1) can only be reopened once under Section 65.\nConclusion:\n•\nRepeated reassessments violate statutory protections.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,53(1),59(1) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1041, D-1042 and D-1043 of 1989, decision dated: 31st January, 1991. dates of hearing: 19th, 20th, 21st and 22-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN TOBACCO LIMITED\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 94 = 1991 SLD 94 = 1991 PTD 359 = (1991) 63 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDepreciation Allowance: Assets acquired via gifts are valued based on fair market value for depreciation purposes.\n2.\nIndustrial Undertaking: New machinery must function independently to qualify as a new industrial undertaking.\nConclusion:\n•\nDepreciation applies to gifted assets based on fair market valuation.\n•\nExpansion of existing setups does not qualify as new industrial undertakings.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Textile Machinery Corporation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,65,2,8,23,122,14,107 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-571 of 1987 and 1129-D of 1988, decision dated: 31st January, 1992. dates of hearing: 19th, 20th and 21st November, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND HUSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD\nVs\nPAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 95 = 1991 SLD 95 = 1991 PTD 374 = (1991) 63 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nCapital Gains and Bonus Shares: The method for calculating the cost of bonus shares.\n•\nRuling: Cost of bonus shares should be determined by spreading the cost of old shares over both old and bonus shares if they rank pari passu. Conclusion:\n•\nBonus shares do not have a zero or face value cost for capital gains computation. Average cost principle applies. Citations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (1964) 10 Taxation 75.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12B & 66(1) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.83 of 1982, decision dated: 10-01-1991, hearing DATE : 22-10-1990", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Appellant. Nasim Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs EBRAHIM BROS\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 96 = 1991 SLD 96 = 1991 PTD 385 = (1991) 63 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nReference to High Court: Only questions arising from the Tribunal’s order can be referred. Conclusion:\n•\nQuestions not raised at the Tribunal stage cannot be considered by the High Court. Citations: NA.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.35 of 1982, decision dated: 14-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs BAWANY INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 97 = 1991 SLD 97 = 1991 PTD 387 = (1991) 64 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSecond Notice Under Section 65: Validity of a second notice based on new factual information.\n2.\nConstitutional Jurisdiction: High Courts should not interfere lightly unless actions are patently without jurisdiction or mala fide. Conclusion:\n•\nFresh factual information justifies a second notice under Section 65. Citations:\n•\nEdulji Dinshaw Limited v. Income-tax Officer PLD 1990 SC 399.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.1141 of 1987, decision dated: 29-10-1990", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Petitioner. Waheed Farooqi for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHADMAN INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 98 = 1991 SLD 98 = 1991 PTD 393 = (1991) 64 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nSection 42(2) Applicability: Requires proof of inflated purchase prices with the intention to reduce taxable profit. Conclusion:\n•\nSection 42(2) applies only when manipulation or depletion of real profits is proven. Citations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Pfizer Ltd. 1989 PTD 612.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42(2) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.108 of 1982, decision dated: 22-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Fateh Ali W. Velliani for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nVs\nGLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 99 = 1991 SLD 99 = 1991 PTD 396 = (1991) 63 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nAmalgamated Companies and Tax Liability: Post-amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceases to exist as a separate entity. Conclusion:\n•\nPost-amalgamation liabilities of the dissolved company are not transferable to the new entity. Citations:\n•\nGeneral Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. v. M.A. Khader (1986) 2 SCC 656.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.91 of 1976, decision dated: 4-09-1990. (On appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 15-4-1975 of Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.R. No.14 of 1972)", + "Judge Name:": " K.N. SINGH, DR. T.K. THOMMEN AND KULDIP SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bishamber Lal and Ms. Geetanjali Mohan for Appellant. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar with Manoj Arora, S. Rajappa and Mia A. Subhashini for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 100 = 1991 SLD 100 = 1991 PTD 401 = (1991) 63 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nAssessment of Insurance Businesses: Income assessed based on actuarial valuation under the First Schedule.\n2.\nAdjustments: Only specific adjustments provided under the First Schedule can be made. Conclusion:\n•\nInsurance income is calculated based on notional rather than actual income, with adjustments limited to the First Schedule. Citations:\n•\nCalcutta Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1952) 21 ITR 404.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=FirstSched.,Rr.1,2,3,4,5,Ss.8,9 & 10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.102 of 1982, decision dated: 20-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Nasim Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nINTERNATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 101 = 1991 SLD 101 = 1991 PTD 404 = (1991) 63 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRebate in Super-Tax: Eligibility of rebate for entities processing and preserving food articles.\n2.\nProcessing Definition: Any change brought to a commodity qualifies as processing, regardless of extent. Conclusion:\n•\nAssessees engaged in food processing and preservation are entitled to a 10% rebate in super-tax. Citations:\n•\nMessrs Rafhan Maize Products Company v. C.I.T. 1988 PTD 571.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10 & FirstSched.,PartII,Cl.A(1)(v) ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.4080/LB and 4081/LB of 1986-87, decision dated: 6-12-1990, hearing DATE : 5-10-1988", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munir Qureshi, A.C./D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Qadeer Alam, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 102 = 1991 SLD 102 = 1991 PTD 408 = (1991) 63 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nHead Office Expenditure: Criteria for allowance and definition of eligible expenses.\n2.\nDepreciation Allowance: Not considered an expenditure; non-resident claims must be treaty-based. Conclusion:\n•\nHead office expenses must be ejusdem generis to general administrative costs; depreciation is not deductible under head office expenses. Citations:\n•\nUnited Netherland Navigation Co. v. C.I.T. PLD 1965 SC 412.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=24(e),ThirdSched ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.54/HQ of 1989-90, decision dated: 29-01-1991, hearing DATE : 28-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. Nazir Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 103 = 1991 SLD 103 = 1991 PTD 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nValidity of Notice Under Section 11(1): Issuance of notice beyond the permissible period under the Business Profits Tax Act.\n2.\n Profits Escaping Assessment : Applicability in cases where no notice or assessment was made due to oversight. Conclusion:\n•\nNotices under Section 11(1) must be issued within the financial year following the accounting period.\n•\nSection 14 applies to cases of escaped assessment due to oversight or lack of notice. Citations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Narsee Nagsee & Co. (1957) 31 ITR 164.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Business Profits Tax Act, 1947=11,14 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.319 of 1958, decision dated: 6-05-1960", + "Judge Name:": " S.K DAS, KAPUR AND HIDAYATULLAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Sanyat Additional Solicitor-General and K.N. Rajagopal Sastri with D. Gupta for Appellant. N.A. Palkhivala with S.N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji and Rameswar Nath for Respondent. NA. Palkivala with S.S. Shukla and Mrs. Eluri Udayaratnam for the Intervener.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, BOMBAY CITY\nVs\nNARSEE NAGSEE & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 104 = 1991 SLD 104 = 1991 PTD 443 = (1991) 63 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRegistration of Firm: Involving minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership.\n2.\nCompanies Act Limitation: Whether minors should be counted for the 20-partner limitation. Conclusion:\n•\nMinors cannot be counted towards the maximum limit under the Companies Act as they are not partners by law. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Dwarkadas Khethan & Co. (1961) 41 ITR 528 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.78 of 1983, decision dated: 30-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.A. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nBHAWANI PRASAD GIRDHARI LAL & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 105 = 1991 SLD 105 = 1991 PTD 446 = (1991) 63 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDevelopment Rebate: Denial of higher development rebate for operations on grey cloth. Conclusion:\n•\nAssessee's operations did not constitute manufacture or production as the end product was not distinct. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. S.S.M. Finishing Centre (1855) 155 ITR 791.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.64 of 1980, decision dated: 6-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND ABDUL HADI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for Appellant. S.V. Subramaniam for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS.S.M. FINISHING CENTRE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 106 = 1991 SLD 106 = 1991 PTD 451 = (1991) 63 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nSearch and Seizure: Validity of warrant and reasons to believe. Conclusion:\n•\nSearch was valid as the Commissioner of Income-tax followed the proper procedure; reasons to believe need not be disclosed to the assessee. Citations:\n•\nI.T.O. v. Seth Brothers (1969) 74 ITR 836 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Original Petition No.8781 of 1985, decision dated: 26-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": " K.P. RADHAKRISHNA MENON, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.G.K. Warrier and P.V. Jyothi Prasad for Petitioners. P.K. Raveenedanatha Menon and N.R.K. Nair for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "KALPAKA BAZAR and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 107 = 1991 SLD 107 = 1991 PTD 460 = (1991) 63 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nBusiness Loss: Writing off rusted imported goods as loss. Conclusion:\n•\nLoss was justified as a business decision; inspection reports were unnecessary. Citations:\n•\nZenith Steel Pipes Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1990) 185 ITR 281.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.218 of 1976, decision dated: 7-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.H. Toprani for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian and S.V. Naik for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ZENITH STEEL PIPES LTD. (No.2) (NOW ZENITH LTD.)\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 108 = 1991 SLD 108 = 1991 PTD 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRejection of Account Books: Based on low gross profits.\n2.\nTribunal's Power to Remand: Justification for remanding the case to the Income-tax Officer. Conclusion:\n•\nTribunal should have decided the case itself as no fresh facts required elucidation. Citations:\n•\nIndus Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1989 PTD 567.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=33,33(4)(e) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 91 of 1982, decision dated: 30-08-1990, hearing DATE : 22-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs SHAHAB INDUSTRIES LTDKarachi\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 109 = 1991 SLD 109 = 1991 PTD 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRejection of Account Books: Based on low gross profits.\n2.\nTribunal's Power to Remand: Justification for remanding the case to the Income-tax Officer. Conclusion:\n•\nTribunal should have decided the case itself as no fresh facts required elucidation. Citations:\n•\nIndus Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1989 PTD 567.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=32,13 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.90/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 15-09-1990, hearing DATE : 2-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana M. Anwar Khan, C.A. for Appellant.Aftab Iqbal Lone, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 110 = 1991 SLD 110 = 1991 PTD 488 = (1991) 63 TAX 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nReturn on Capital Paid: Whether it constitutes dividend.\n2.\nIslamic Jurisprudence: Interpretation of contracts under fiscal laws. Conclusion:\n•\nReturn on capital paid qualifies as dividend under Section 2(6-A) of the Income-tax Act. Citations:\n•\nHaji Nizam Khan’s case PLD 1976 Lah. 930.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(6A) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),227 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.87-P of 1983, decision dated: 21st January, 1991. (On appeal from the judgment dated 7-9-1982 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Tax Reference No.136 of 1972)", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian M. Ajmal, Deputy Attorney-General and Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, PESHAWAR ZONE, PESHAWAR\nVs\nMessrs SIEMEN A.G" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 111 = 1991 SLD 111 = 1991 PTD 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nLimitation for Reference Applications: Department's misstatement about service date. Conclusion:\n•\nHigh Court dismissed the application with costs and warned against future misstatements. Citations:\n•\n1988 PTD 227.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Case No. 14 of 1982; decided on 29-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Sirajul Haq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs MUHAMMAD AMIN MUHAMMAD BASHIR LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 112 = 1991 SLD 112 = 1991 PTD 497", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nExemption under Clause 139(6): Approval for technical assistance agreement.\n2.\nScope of Technical Service : Definition and application. Conclusion:\n•\nExemption granted under Clause 139(6) was valid; notice under Section 65 was misconceived. Citations:\n•\nPakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farrukh PLD 1969 SC 407.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.,Cl.139(6),provisos(i) & (ii),65 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-439 of 1990, decision dated: 28-02-1991. dates of hearing: 18th, 19th and 20-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "HASHIM BIN SAYEED\nVs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Ex-Office Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 113 = 1991 SLD 113 = 1991 PTD 503", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nJurisdiction for Notice under Section 65: Based on new information not available during self-assessment. Conclusion:\n•\nIncome-tax Officer was justified in issuing the notice under Section 65. Citations:\n•\nEdulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. The Income-tax Officer 1990 PTD 155.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,65 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-209 of 1990, heard on 13-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Ahmed Siddiqui for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs RAMZAN & SONS through its Proprietor\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, ZONE B, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 114 = 1991 SLD 114 = 1991 PTD 518 = (1991) 63 TAX 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nConcealment under Self-assessment: Technical errors in computation. Conclusion:\n•\nBona fide mistakes do not constitute concealment; intention to evade tax must be established. Citations:\n•\n1987 PTD 1240.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19,63 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.445/HQ of 1988-89, decision dated: 4-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Appellant. Ashraf-ud-Din Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 115 = 1991 SLD 115 = 1991 PTD 531", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 4723\nKey Issues:\n1.\nTrading Additions: Justification for low sales rates.\n2.\nInterest on Borrowed Capital: Conditions for deductions. Conclusion:\n•\nAssessing Officer was unjustified in trading additions; interest deduction allowed as per Section 23(1)(vii). Citations:\n•\nMessrs New Qaiser Engineering Co. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax 1987 PTD 500.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "I. T. As. Nos. 92/LB, 93/LB, 147/LB and 148/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 28-11-1990, hearing DATE : 8-10-1990", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant (I.TA. Nos. 92/LB and 93/LB of 1990-91). Mian Masood Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant (I.TA. Nos. 147/LB and 148/LB of 1990-91). Mian Masood Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent (I.TA. Nos. 92/LB and 93/LB of 1990-91). Zia H. Rizvi for Respondent (I.TA. Nos. 147/LB and 148/LB of 1990-91)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 116 = 1991 SLD 116 = 1991 PTD 541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nFiling of Proceedings Under Section 56: Whether it amounts to assessment. Conclusion:\n•\nFiling of proceedings equates to assessment; new proceedings under Section 56 cannot be initiated. Citations:", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=56 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.739/LB of 1988-89, decision dated: 16-12-1990, hearing DATE : 3rd September, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Nawaz Khan, I.T.P. for Appellant. Aftab Iqbal Lone, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 117 = 1991 SLD 117 = 1991 PTD 546 = (1991) 63 TAX 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nPenalty for Concealment: Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty for concealment of income.\n2.\nScope of High Court Reference: Distinction between questions of fact and law. Conclusion:\n•\nHigh Court cannot direct the Tribunal to submit a case if the questions are of fact, not law.\n•\nTribunal cannot enhance penalties in appeal without a cross-appeal or objection. Citations:\n•\nHukumchand Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application Nos. 32 and 34 of 1990, decision dated: 7-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.K GULATI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "PAHULAL VED PRAKASH\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 118 = 1991 SLD 118 = 1991 PTD 567 = (1991) 64 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nInterest Disallowed: Advances made to Directors without evidence of misuse of borrowed capital.\n2.\nAssessment on Escaped Income: Tribunal’s findings on defective record. Conclusion:\n•\nTribunal’s findings on facts cannot form the basis of a legal question for the High Court. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Ajax Products AIR 1965 SC 1358.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(1)(iii),34 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1982, heard on 10-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs QAMAR OVERSEAS AUTOMOBILE AGENCIES LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 4 = 2009 SLD 4 = 2009 PTCL 135 = 2009 PTD 37 = 2009 SCMR 344 = (2006) 94 TAX 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nReopening of Assessments: Issuance of notice under the self-assessment scheme.\n2.\nRetrospective Effect of Circulars: Press releases affecting taxpayers' returns. Conclusion:\n•\nNotices are mandatory even in the absence of explicit statutory requirements.\n•\nPress releases cannot have retrospective legal effect. Citations:\n•\nSadiq Brothers Poultry v. Appellate Additional Commissioner I.T./W.T. Rawalpindi 2003 PTD 1780.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,177 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1962 to 2205 of 2005, decision dated: 1st March, 2006. dates of hearing: 28th February and 1st March, 2006", + "Judge Name:": " IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C, J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney General of Pakistan Raja Muhammad Irshad D.A.G., Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Advocate-on-Record, Sh. Shaukat Ali, C.I.T., LTU, Lahore for Appellants. Muhammad Naeem Shah, Latif Ahmad Qureshi, Shahbaz Butt, Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Shahzad Shaukat, Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi, Mian Ashiq Hussain, Zaeem ul Farooq, Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court, for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nVs\nFATIMA SHARIF TEXTILE, KASUR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 119 = 1991 SLD 119 = 1991 PTD 571 = (1991) 63 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nBonus Payable to Employees: Addition of unpaid provisions as income by Assessing Officer. Conclusion:\n•\nTribunal justified in deleting additions as provisions for bonus are akin to provisions for taxation and unpaid risks. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Adamjee Insurance Co.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 31 of 1983, heard on 4-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SALAHUDDIN MIRZA AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Mazhar Jaffari for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMessrs UNITED INSURANCE CO. OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 120 = 1991 SLD 120 = 1991 PTD 573 = (1991) 63 TAX 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of Surplus: Sale of business assets when the business is not operational.\n2.\nInterpretation of Tax Statutes: Courts must strictly adhere to statutory language. Conclusion:\n•\nSurplus from sale not taxable when business was not operational during the relevant year. Citations:\n•\nLiquidators of Pursa Limited v. C.I.T. (1954) 25 ITR 265.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii),proviso(ii), Finance Act, 1962=6 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 21-K of 1978 and 12-K of 1985, decision dated: 30-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " NAIMUDDIN, AJMAL MIAN AND ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in both cases).Iqbal Naim Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in both cases).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (CENTRAL), KARACHI\nVs\nMASs FAKIR COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING INDUSTRIES LIMITED, GAMBAT and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 121 = 1991 SLD 121 = 1991 PTD 626 = (1991) 63 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nCapital or Revenue Expenditure: Cost incurred for relocating railway infrastructure for mining operations. Conclusion:\n•\nExpenditure for removal of restrictions is a revenue expense, not capital. Citations:\n•\nEmpire Jute Co. v. C.I.T. (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.262 of 1976, decision dated: 23rd October, 1990. (Appeal from the judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court dated April 24, 1975, in D.B. Civil Income-tax Reference No.45 of 1969)", + "Judge Name:": " K.N SINGH,K.N. SAIKIA AND KULDIP SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Anjah Verma and D.N. Misra for Appellant. O.P. Vaish, Senior Advocate, S. Rajappa Vinay Vaish, S.K. Aggarwal and Ms. A. Subhashini for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BIKAN GYPSUMS LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 122 = 1991 SLD 122 = 1991 PTD 663 = (1991) 64 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nAdvance Tax Paid by Vendor: Treated as unrelated to the assessee.\n2.\nMaintainability of Constitutional Petition: Against arbitrary actions by Assessing Officers. Conclusion:\n•\nIncome-tax Officer’s refusal to treat advance tax paid by vendor as tax for assessee was arbitrary and oppressive. Citations:\n•\nMurree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan PLD 1972 SC 279.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.270-K of 1980, decision dated: 24-03-1991, hearing DATE : 17-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Party Name:": "THE Income Tax OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, KARACHI\nVs\nERUCK MANECKJI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 123 = 1991 SLD 123 = 1991 PTD 669", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nHigher Gross Profit Rate: Deviation from past practices.\n2.\nLate Delivery Charges: Classification as business expense. Conclusion:\n•\nHigher gross profit rates require exceptional circumstances; late delivery charges are business expenses. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Ajax Products AIR 1965 SC 1358.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23,62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.3569/LB of 1983-84, decision dated: 24-12-1990, hearing DATE : 22-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELAHI SHAIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Babri, I.T.P. for Appellant. M. Arshad Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 124 = 1991 SLD 124 = 1991 PTD 672 = (1991) 64 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRetirement Gratuity: Classification as free reserve. Conclusion:\n•\nRetirement gratuity is an ascertained liability, not free reserve. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T., Karachi v. M/s. Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Ltd. Karachi 1985 PTD 413.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 60 of 1983, decision dated: 18-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent (called absent)", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL B, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs PHILIPS ELECTRICAL CO. OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 125 = 1991 SLD 125 = 1991 PTD 680 = (1991) 64 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nLevy of Surcharge: Calculation based on retained income. Conclusion:\n•\nSurcharge only applies to income not retained for working capital or capitalization. Citations:\n•\nQ.I.T. v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1988 PTD 66.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=First Schedule,PartII ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 67 of 1983, decision dated: 19-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent (called absent)", + "Party Name:": "THE. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL B, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs EVENS MEDICAL LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 485 = 2000 SLD 485 = 2000 PTD 2005 = (1999) 235 ITR 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nInterest for Delayed Returns: Applicability to assessments under Section 147.\n2.\nAmendments to Section 215(6): Clarification of regular assessments. Conclusion:\n•\nAssessments under Section 147 are not regular assessments; interest should be waived. Citations:\n•\nAbdul Muthalif Rowther v. ITO (1976) 102 ITR 694.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.431 of 1982, decision dated: 7-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": " S.L. SARAF, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.S. Agarwal for Petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MODI RUBBER LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 126 = 1991 SLD 126 = 1991 PTD 683 = (1991) 64 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSubstantive Nature of Section 23-A: Whether the section imposes a charge on undistributed income.\n2.\nOmission of Section 23-A: Not a remedial or curative measure.\n3.\nNatural Justice: Principles satisfied in absence of explicit statutory provisions. Conclusion:\n•\nSection 23-A imposes a substantive charge.\n•\nOmission was not intended as a remedial measure.\n•\nNatural justice principles upheld without explicit notice provision. Citations:\n•\n1940 (8) ITR 442, 1985 PTD 465.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23A ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.15 of 1979, decision dated: 21st March, 1991, hearing DATE : 19-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nasim for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs MANDVIWALLA MOTORS LIMITED, KARACHI\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 127 = 1991 SLD 127 = 1991 PTD 703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nValidity of Assessment Orders: Tax determination provided in separate documents. Conclusion:\n•\nDetermination of tax on a separate sheet accompanying the assessment order does not invalidate the assessment. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Giridhar (R) 1984 145 ITR 246 (Ker.).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.14 to 16 of 1980, decision dated: 25-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "None appeared for the Assessee. Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "KARUNA RANI JAIN and others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 128 = 1991 SLD 128 = 1991 PTD 712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nReference to High Court: Restoration of matters with directions to ignore additional evidence. Conclusion:\n•\nThe question is fit for reference to High Court, raising legal issues on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.217 of 1988, decision dated: 24-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.M. SAHAI AND R.P. SINGH, Justice(s)\nKAMIL BHAI ISMAIL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "KAMIL BHAI ISMAIL JJ\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 129 = 1991 SLD 129 = 1991 PTD 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRemission of Liability: Timing of accrual of income.\n2.\nMerger Doctrine: Whether an order merges into a higher authority’s dismissal. Conclusion:\n•\nLiability remission occurs when the initial order is finalized.\n•\nMere filing of an appeal without substantive adjudication does not trigger merger. Citations:\n•\nChiranjilal Daga v. C.I.T. (1978) 113 ITR 363 (Mad.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.909 of 1979, decision dated: 31st January, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND BAKTHAVATSALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Narayanamurthy for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "P.P.M.S. NAGARATHINAM\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 130 = 1991 SLD 130 = 1991 PTD 719", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRent Income Classification: Whether business or property income. Conclusion:\n•\nRent received from temporary letting of commercial assets constitutes business income. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Super Fine Cables (Pvt.) Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 532 (Delhi).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.82 to 84 of 1978, decision dated: 4 November, 1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate, and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. S.S. Mahajan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nANAND RUBBER AND PLASTICS (PVT) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 131 = 1991 SLD 131 = 1991 PTD 722", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRectification of Computation Errors: Validity of Income-tax Officer’s action under Section 154. Conclusion:\n•\nRectification of computation errors is a valid question of law for the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.112 of 1984, decision dated: 2-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": " G. G. SOHANI ACTG. C.J. AND R.K VARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Mukati for the Commissioner. Y.I. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLILASONS BREWERIES (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 132 = 1991 SLD 132 = 1991 PTD 724", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nBusiness Loss: Liability arising from license terms. Conclusion:\n•\nPayment made to fulfill contractual obligations under a business license is an allowable trading loss. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Chunnilal Tak (1986) 160 ITR 617 (Raj.).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.8 of 1977 decided on 18-02-1986", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. AGRAWAL AND I.S. ISRANI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. R. Arora for the Commissioner. R. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMOTILAL CHUNNILAL BRANWARILAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 133 = 1991 SLD 133 = 1991 PTD 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSelf-Evident Legal Questions: No reference required if legal principles are settled.\n2.\nHypothetical Income: Taxable only if actual income accrues. Conclusion:\n•\nNo reference permissible when the question is conclusively resolved by the Supreme Court. Citations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Application No.287 of 1988, decision dated: 27-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.M. SAHAI ARID R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nJAHANGANJ COLD STORAGE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 134 = 1991 SLD 134 = 1991 PTD 730", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nC.I.T. (Appeals) Powers: Investigation of claims in subsequent years.\n2.\nAssessment Year Independence: Decision in one year not binding in another. Conclusion:\n•\nAppeals may direct new investigations; prior Tribunal decisions are not binding if new evidence arises. Citations:\n•\nAssistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd (1985) 154 ITR 172 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition (Tax) No. 359 of 1987, decision dated: 20-05-1987", + "Judge Name:": " K.C. AGRAWAL AND R.K. GULATI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "RAZA TEXTHES LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 134 = 1991 SLD 134 = 1991 PTD 738", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nBurden of Proof in Penalty Cases: Shift in burden under Section 271(1)(c). Conclusion:\n•\nPenalty cannot be canceled solely on the burden being on the Revenue when income is underreported. Citations:\n•\nVishwakarma Industries v. C.I.T. (1982) 135 ITR 652 (P & H).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 240 and 241 of 1980, decision dated: 9th January 1959", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S. S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. N.K. Sodhi, Senior Advocate and Nitin Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nFAZILKA DABNVALI TRANSPORT CO. (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 135 = 1991 SLD 135 = 1991 PTD 741", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nCost of Construction: Difference between market value and cost of construction not assessable as undisclosed income.\n2.\nDeposits in Name of Third Parties: Deposits in a spouse’s name not directly assessable unless corroborated. Conclusion:\n•\nFair market value under Wealth Tax Act cannot be used to estimate construction cost.\n•\nDeposits should be explained by the person in whose name they stand. Citations:\n•\nReinforces principles of separating ownership and attribution of income.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 149 of 1979, decision dated: 21st November, 1988", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S.S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. Bhagirath Dass Seth, Senior Advocate and Ramesh Kumar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nROSHAN LAL SETH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 136 = 1991 SLD 136 = 1991 PTD 745", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nInterest on Refunds: Entitlement of interest under Section 244(1-A) for refunds due to appellate orders. Conclusion:\n•\nAssessee entitled to interest as advance tax adjusted toward liability takes the shape of payment. Citations:\n•\nIndian Income-tax Act, 1961, Ss. 219 & 244(1-A).", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 45 of 1982, decision dated: 23rd February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " GOKAL CHAND MITAL AND S. S. SODHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. N.K. Sood for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nLEADER ENGINEERING WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 137 = 1991 SLD 137 = 1991 PTD 748", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTax Recovery and Property Transfers: Authority of Tax Recovery Officers regarding void transfers. Conclusion:\n•\nTax Recovery Officer lacks jurisdiction to declare transfers void; disputes to be handled under civil procedure. Citations:\n•\nAbdul Shukoor Saheb (C.) v. Arji Papa Rao AIR 1963 SC 1150.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXI,Rr.58,59,60,61,63 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2293 of 1981, decision dated: 15-12-1982", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA AND MOHTA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.V. Natu for Petitioners. K.H. Deshpande and A. Shelot for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GANGADHAR VISHWANATH RANADE (No. 2) and another\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 138 = 1991 SLD 138 = 1991 PTD 758 = 1993 PTCL 554 = (1991) 64 TAX 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nQanun-e-Shahadat Applicability: Inapplicability to income-tax proceedings.\n2.\nAuthority to Evaluate Property: Income Tax Officer can evaluate reasonable value under Section 13(2).\n3.\nInterpretation of Statutes: Substitution of schedules does not imply repeal without legislative intent. Conclusion:\n•\nQanun-e-Shahadat not binding in tax matters.\n•\nAssessment procedures require adherence to statutory protocols; combined notices are invalid. Citations:\n•\n1987 PTD 300, 1989 PTD 150.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),13(1)(aa),13(2),First SchedulePartI,para(a)[ General Clauses Act, 1897=5,3(12) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No.508/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 10-03-1990, hearing DATE : 12-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Appellant. Aftab lqbal Lahore, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 139 = 1991 SLD 139 = 1991 PTD 776 = (1991) 64 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nSalary Partial Disallowance: Disallowance based on qualifications and business acumen. Conclusion:\n•\nQuestion of disallowance is factual and not subject to High Court jurisdiction. Citations:\n•\nReinforces Tribunal’s jurisdiction in adjudicating factual disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "T.R. No.12 of 1978, heard on 6-05-1991,hearing DATE : 6-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DUKE SPORTS LTD\nVs\nTHE C.I.T., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 140 = 1991 SLD 140 = 1991 PTD 802 = (1991) 64 TAX 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nEx Parte Decisions: Tribunal’s discretion in proceeding ex parte when adjournment not justified.\n2.\nSection 13(1)(a) Additions: Presupposes maintenance of accounts by assessee. Conclusion:\n•\nTribunal’s decision to proceed ex parte upheld.\n•\nAdditions under Section 13(1)(a) invalid without maintained accounts. Citations:\n•\nHighlights procedural requirements for valid assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(a) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 554 (IB) of 1988-89, decision dated: 13th February 1991", + "Judge Name:": " SAYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BUKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO MUHAMMAD IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Jehangir Khan, D.R. for Appellant", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 141 = 1991 SLD 141 = 1991 PTD 812 = (1991) 64 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nNotice under Section 56: Validity even without signature or order sheet entries.\n2.\nJurisdiction for Past Assessments: Issuance of notice under Section 56 confers jurisdiction. Conclusion:\n•\nTechnical lapses in procedural records do not invalidate validly issued notices. Citations:\n•\n1990 PTD (Trib.) 260.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=154,56 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 314(IB) and 315(IB) of 1988-89, decision dated: 15-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SAYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BUKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Jehangir Khan, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Saeed Rana for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 142 = 1991 SLD 142 = 1991 PTD 817 = (1991) 64 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDisallowance of Expenses: In limited companies, disallowance for personal elements cannot apply, except for specific heads like entertainment and telephone.\n2.\nRaising Legal Questions: A question of law going to the root of a case can be raised at any stage.\n3.\nIncome Tax Requirements: Income must be for the relevant income year to correspond with the assessment year.\n4.\nIncome Definition: Income under Section 11(1)(a) includes actual or deemed income, with the burden on the department to prove it as assessable.\nConclusion:\n•\nDisallowance of personal elements for limited companies is limited to specific areas.\n•\nLegal questions affecting core issues can be raised at any procedural stage.\n•\nFor income to be assessable, actual receipt must be established.\nCitations:\n•\nI.TA. No.149/HQ of 1987-88, I.T.A. No.2526/KB of 1986-87, 57 I.T.R. 572.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.3270/LB, 3271/LB of 1983-84 and 200/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 17-12-1990, hearing DATE : 8-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASIM SABIR SYED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Appellant. Qadar-ul-Jalil D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 143 = 1991 SLD 143 = 1991 PTD 830 = (1991) 64 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDefinition of Previous Year : The length of a previous year need not be 12 months and can vary for new businesses or upon approval for a change by the Income-tax Officer.\n•\nTaxable Periods: When changing the accounting period, continuity and avoidance of income loss are key considerations.\nConclusion:\n•\nIncome-tax authorities have discretion to approve accounting period changes while ensuring the full taxable period is covered.\nCitations:\n•\nHighlights flexibility in defining previous year under Section 2(11) of the Income-tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(11) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.352 and 523 of 1980, decision dated: 6-05-1991, hearing DATE : 12-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SAAD SAOOD JAN, ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM AND MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C. A. No. 523 of 1980). Nemo for Respondents (in CA. No. 523 of 1980)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE\nVs\nMessrs NOORANI CALANDERING AND FINISHING MILLS, LYALLPUR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 144 = 1991 SLD 144 = 1991 PTD 839 = (1991) 64 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDeduction of Wealth Tax: Wealth tax on income-yielding assets is deductible if proven essential for business.\n2.\nLimitation on References: Applications filed post-1979 must adhere to the new limitation period of 90 days.\nConclusion:\n•\nWealth tax deductions hinge on demonstrating direct business benefits.\n•\nReference applications must strictly follow prescribed limitations.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Zakia Siddiqui (1989 PTD 135).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=136(2),10,12,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 8 of 1984, heard on 28-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SYED ABDUR REHMAN AND HAZIQUL KHAIRI KHAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farooqi for Applicant. Shaikh Haider. Amicus curiae. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI\nVs\nB.D. AVARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 145 = 1991 SLD 145 = 1991 PTD 841 = (1991) 64 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRetained Income: Tax liabilities for the relevant assessment year are included when calculating retained income for surcharge purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nClear procedural directives for computing retained income align with surcharge requirements.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988 PTD 66).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 118 of 1990, heard on 13-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Khalifa Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs BERGER PAINTS PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 146 = 1991 SLD 146 = 1991 PTD 843 = (1991) 64 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nWealth Tax Deduction: Deductibility depends on its necessity for maintaining income-generating assets.\n2.\nApplicability of Pre-1979 Laws: Pre-1979 cases adhere to older statutes unless explicitly repealed.\nConclusion:\n•\nWealth tax payments may qualify as business expenses, contingent upon proving direct utility.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Zakia Siddiqui (1989 PTD 135).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(xvi),12 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=166(2)(a)(i) ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.108 of 1984, decision dated: 29-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nS.M. NASEEM ALLAHWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 147 = 1991 SLD 147 = 1991 PTD 847 = (1991) 64 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nReopening Assessments: Reopening under Section 65 requires adherence to procedural safeguards, such as prior C.B.R. approval.\n2.\nImmunity Provisions: Self-assessment immunity from scrutiny cannot be bypassed without explicit permissions.\nConclusion:\n•\nProcedural lapses in reopening cases render such assessments invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nReinforces procedural integrity under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65(4),59(1),63 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.509/LB to 511/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 26th February 1991, hearing DATE : 25-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashid A. Sheikh for Appellant. S. Roomi Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 148 = 1991 SLD 148 = 1991 PTD 850 = (1991) 64 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRectification Scope: Section 35 cannot be used to revise interpretative decisions by prior officers.\n2.\nSpices as Food : Spices qualify as food under beneficial statutory interpretations.\nConclusion:\n•\nBeneficial statutes must be interpreted broadly to align with legislative intent.\nCitations:\n•\nT.S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers (1971), Harver’s World Encyclopedia.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=23(3),35 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.34 of 1983, acceded on 22-04-1991. dates of hearing: 18th and 19-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazhar Jafri for Applicant. Sheikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL FOOD\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 149 = 1991 SLD 149 = 1991 PTD 859 = (1991) 64 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRetained Income for Surcharge: Income-tax liability for the assessment year must be included for surcharge computation.\nConclusion:\n•\nSimplifies surcharge calculations by incorporating relevant liabilities.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988 PTD 66).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 93 of 1984, decision dated: 11-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs GRINDWHEEL (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 150 = 1991 SLD 150 = 1991 PTD 860 = (1991) 64 TAX 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nPenalty for Non-Filing of Returns: Filing a return before an extended deadline nullifies the imposition of penalties.\nConclusion:\n•\nDemonstrates leniency where returns are filed within permissible extended periods.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Shahnawaz Ltd. (1985 PTD 498).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22(1A),(2),(3),28 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 1 of 1983, decision dated: 4-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs SEVENUP BOTTLING CO. LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 151 = 1991 SLD 151 = 1991 PTD 867", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTax payable forms part of working capital and is excluded while levying a surcharge.\nConclusion:\n•\nSurcharge calculations must exclude tax liabilities as they constitute working capital.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD (Trib.) 155, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988 PTD 66).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1977=Sched.I,PartIII, ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 41 of 1984, decision dated: 11-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs ROSHAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 152 = 1991 SLD 152 = 1991 PTD 869 = (1991) 64 TAX 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nHigh Court’s Power to Reframe Questions: High Court can modify questions for clarity.\n2.\nSetoff Against Business Loss: Free reserve (deemed income of bonus shares) cannot be set off against business losses but can be carried forward.\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court retains flexibility in framing legal questions.\n•\nFree reserves are deferred for future setoff.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Central Zone), Karachi v. Messrs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (1985 PTD 389).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=6 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.C. No. 44 of 1982, decision dated: 3rd April, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, A KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs. KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 153 = 1991 SLD 153 = 1991 PTD 871 = (1991) 64 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nFiling certified copies of the Tribunal’s order with a reference application is mandatory under Section 66(2).\nConclusion:\n•\nNon-compliance invalidates the reference.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "T.R. No. 66 of 1973, heard on 20-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin But for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NASEER MUGHIS LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 154 = 1991 SLD 154 = 1991 PTD 874 = (1991) 64 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDividend income from tax-holiday profits is exempt from tax.\nConclusion:\n•\nExemptions on dividends encourage investments in specified sectors.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Mst. Surriya Farooq (1987 SCMR 1297), PLD 1982 Kar. 470.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference Nos. 65 of 1973, heard on 4-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMADC.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NASIR MUGHIS LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE VII, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 155 = 1991 SLD 155 = 1991 PTD 894 = (1991) 64 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nForeign Currency Gains/Losses: Treatment depends on whether the currency is held as capital or revenue.\n2.\nNon-Resident Interest: Interest payments to non-residents are taxable in Pakistan unless exempt.\n3.\nTax Deductions: Deductibility requires compliance with withholding requirements.\nConclusion:\n•\nGains/losses from currency depend on the asset's nature.\n•\nDeductibility demands procedural adherence.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Groz Baekert Saboo Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 125 (SC), Williams v. Singer (1920) 7 TC 387.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1),24(b),31 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 41/IB, 81/IB and 84/IB of 1988-89 and 1155/IB to 1157/IB of 1986-87, decision dated: 3rd April, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " SAYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Oliver Peter Pervez, ITP for Appellant (in 41/IB of 1988-89, 1155/IB to 1157/IB of 1986-87).Muhammad Jahangir Khan, D.R. for Respondent (in 41 /1B of 1988-89, 1155/IB to 1157/IB of 1986-87).Muhammad Jahangir Khan, D.R. for Appellant (in 81/IB to 84/IB of 1988-89).Oliver Peter Pervez, ITP for Respondent (in 81/IB to 84/IB of 19889).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 156 = 1991 SLD 156 = 1991 PTD 905 = (1991) 64 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRemedial amendments under Section 18-A(6) of the Income-tax Act (1922) restrict additional tax liability and apply retrospectively.\nConclusion:\n•\nRetrospective application aligns with legislative intent to protect taxpayers.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Olympia (1987 PTD 739).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=18A(6) ", + "Case #": "I.T.Cs. Nos.13 and 14 of 1978, decision dated: 11-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Athar and Wadood for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs SHAHSONS FISHERIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 157 = 1991 SLD 157 = 1991 PTD 912 = (1991) 64 TAX 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTax liability for the relevant assessment year is included when computing retained income for surcharge purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nIncorporating tax liability provides a comprehensive retained income computation.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited (1988 PTD 66).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Cases No.343 of 1990, decision dated: 14-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Khalifa Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nVs\nBROOKE BOND PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 158 = 1991 SLD 158 = 1991 PTD 914 = (1992) 65 TAX 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRetained income, including provision for taxation, is exempt from surcharge as part of working capital.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax liability is integral to working capital and excluded from surcharge.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988 PTD 66).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 465 of 1990, decision dated: 30-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Khalifa Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPAKISTAN OXYGEN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 159 = 1991 SLD 159 = 1991 PTD 915 = (1991) 64 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nNon-resident assessees are entitled to tax exemptions under double taxation avoidance agreements.\nConclusion:\n•\nTechnical fees and royalties exempt under agreements like those with the UK and Switzerland.\nCitations:\n•\nIncome-tax Commissioner v. Messrs Abbot Finance Co. (1982 PTD 31).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=43 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 91 of 1983, heard on 24-04-1991, hearing DATE : 29-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SYED ABDUL RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Raider for Applicant. Muhammad Ali for M/s. Surridge & Beechno for respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nABBOTT FINANCE CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 160 = 1991 SLD 160 = 1991 PTD 917 = (1991) 64 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDoctrine of Mutuality: Inapplicable to transactions between taxable and tax-free units of the same entity.\n2.\nComplexity in Tax Laws: Tax systems require precise adherence to income segregation rules.\nConclusion:\n•\nSegregation ensures equitable taxation for inter-unit transfers.\nCitations:\n•\nWatson Bros. v. Hornby (1942) 24 T.C. 506, Sharkey v. Wernher (1956) 29 ITR 962.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.341/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 4-05-1991, hearing DATE : 2-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL M. QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ibrahim Siddat, CA. for Appellant. Ilyas Shaikh, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 161 = 1991 SLD 161 = 1991 PTD 937 = (1991) 64 TAX 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTax treatment of surplus arising from property transactions.\n•\nWhether surplus constitutes casual income or capital gain.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessee’s property transactions were not trading ventures. The surplus was either:\no\nA casual receipt, exempt under Second Schedule, Clause 65, or\no\nA capital gain, falling outside federal taxation due to constitutional limitations.\nCitations:\n•\nGustad Dinshaw Irani v. C.I.T. (1957) 31 ITR 92, Naseer Ahmad Sheikh v. C.I.T. PLD 1977 Lah. 753.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,27(2)(a)(ii) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 83(IB) and 84(IB) of 1989-90, decision dated: 14-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SAYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taskeen Muzaffar, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Amin Butt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 162 = 1991 SLD 162 = 1991 PTD 946 = (1991) 64 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nInterpretation of Shall : Whether it is mandatory or directory.\n2.\nCompliance with procedural requirements in appeals.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe term “shall” is directory when:\no\nNon-compliance doesn’t lead to penalties or prejudice.\no\nIt pertains to procedural niceties rather than substantive rights.\n•\nAppellate rights cannot be denied due to procedural lapses if compliance is achieved in substance.\nCitations:\n•\nMontreal Street Railway v. Normandine (1917) AC 170, C.I.T. v. Chenanippa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 41.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134(5),134(5) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeals Nos. 558(IB), 629(IB) and 26(IB) of 1988-89, 20(IB), 63(IB), 75(IB), 87(IB), 88(IB), 89(IB) and 90(IB) of 1989-90, 89(IB), 90(IB), 91(IB) and 92(IB) of 1990-91, decision dated: 20-07-1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hamid, D.R. for Appellants. Mir Ahmad Ali, G. Abbas Chatha, M. Aslam Anwar, Hafiz Muhammad Idrees and Amir Alam Khan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 163 = 1991 SLD 163 = 1991 PTD 975 = (1991) 64 TAX 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRejection of tax exemption for foreign technicians due to missing documents.\nConclusion:\n•\nExemption applications cannot be rejected if the form doesn’t mandate submission of missing documents.\n•\nProcedural flexibility ensures equitable outcomes.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Second Schedule,Part1,CI.(7) Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3)(xiii) ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. D-1010 of 1990, decision dated: 27-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND IMAM ALI KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sharif and Saleem Z. Khan for Petitioner. Ikram Ansari Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1. Shaikh Haider for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3", + "Party Name:": "SCHLUMBERGER SEACO INC. through MANAGER FOR PAKISTAN And ATTORNEY-INFACT\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through its Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 164 = 1991 SLD 164 = 1991 PTD 979", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nStock Discrepancies: Impact of differences in stock reported to banks and in books of accounts.\n2.\nAssessing Officer’s Authority: Procedures under Section 13(1)(aa) for undisclosed income.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdditions to income based on discrepancies are justified if discrepancies remain unexplained.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer must follow formal procedures, including prior approval and proper notice.\nCitations:\n•\nMiss Aasia's case PLD 1979 SC 949, 1989 PTD (Trib.) 508.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13 ", + "Case #": "Income-Tax Appeal No.104/KB of 1984-85, decision dated: 20-09-1990, hearing DATE : 19-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " ALVI ABDUL RAHIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aga Kafeel Barik, D.R. for Appellant. I.N. Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 165 = 1991 SLD 165 = 1991 PTD 993 = (1991) 64 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nEligibility of registered firms for the Self-Assessment Scheme (1982-83).\nConclusion:\n•\nRegistered firms must file the required statements (e.g., balance sheets, profit and loss accounts) to qualify for the scheme.\n•\nFailure to comply results in exclusion from the scheme and standard assessment under Section 59(1).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.6-K of 1986, decision dated: 18-06-1991. dates of hearing: 17th and 18-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, NAIMUDDIN AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Rehanul Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER and 2 others\nVs\nM/s. Shaikh GHULAM SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 166 = 1991 SLD 166 = 1991 PTD 999 = (1991) 64 TAX 37 = 1993 PTCL 89 = 1991 SCMR 2374", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nCasual Income: Criteria for exemption.\n2.\nBurden of Proof: Taxability of receipts.\nConclusion:\n•\nCasual income is exempt if:\no\nReceipts are voluntary and not tied to business activities.\n•\nThe burden of proof lies on:\no\nThe department to show income is taxable.\no\nThe assessee to prove exemption.\nCitations:\n•\nMrs. Samina Shaukat Ayub Khan v. C.I.T. PLD 1981 SC 85, Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. C.I.T. (1965) 56 ITR 31.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3,4,15,4(3)(vii),66A Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 119-K of 1985, 32-K & 33-K of 1988, 639-K of 1990, decision dated: 25-06-1991, hearing DATE : 10-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, NAIMUDDIN AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (In all cases). AA. Shareef, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in CA. 119-K of 1985). Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in CA. 32-K and 33-K of 1988). Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in CA. 639-K of 1990).", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nM/S. SMITH KLINE & FRENCH OF PAKISTAN LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 167 = 1991 SLD 167 = 1991 PTD 1028 = (1991) 64 TAX 173 = 1993 PTCL 474 = 1991 SCMR 2485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTaxation reserves in insurance company accounts and the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO).\nConclusion:\n•\nITO lacks jurisdiction to alter taxation reserves approved by the Controller of Insurance under the Insurance Act, 1938.\n•\nTaxation reserves are not considered expenditure under Rule 6 of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner, Income Tax v. Alpha Insurance Company Ltd. PLD 1981 SC 293, Indian Molasses Co. v. C.I.T. (1959) 37 ITC 66.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=FirstSched.,R.6 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.197 and 198-K of 1984, decision dated: 12-08-1991, hearing DATE : 19-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, NAIMUDDIN AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Naeem Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, A, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 168 = 1991 SLD 168 = 1991 PTD 1043 = (1991) 64 TAX 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDefinition and treatment of preliminary expenses.\nConclusion:\n•\nPreliminary expenses include costs related to company formation (e.g., registration fees, legal costs, printing of foundational documents).\n•\nThese expenses can be capitalized at the assessee’s option and included in the cost of plant and machinery if directly related to business initiation.\nCitations:\n•\nWestern India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1954) 26 ITR 151, Carter's Advanced Accounts, Jamshed R. Batliboi on Advanced Accounting.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1726/KB of 1986-87, decision dated: 1st August, 1991, hearing DATE : 29-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Nazir Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Halimur Rehman Khan, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 169 = 1991 SLD 169 = 1991 PTD 1049 = (1991) 64 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTreatment of interest on loans before business commencement.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest on loans incurred before business commencement is treated as capital expenditure, not deductible under Section 10(2)(iii).\n•\nSuch interest can be capitalized and added to the cost of fixed assets.\nCitations:\n•\nCalico Dyeing and Printing Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1958) 34 ITR 265, Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1975) 98 ITR 167.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii),(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.12 of 1983, decision dated: 29 August 1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalifa Salah-ud-Din for Applicant. Sheikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs PACKAGES LTD.\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE \"\"A‘ KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 170 = 1991 SLD 170 = 1991 PTD 1056 = (1991) 64 TAX 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nCondonation of delay in filing appeals.\n2.\nDetermination of when an appeal is instituted.\nConclusion:\n•\nAppeals are deemed filed when received by the tribunal, not when posted.\n•\nThe Tribunal is justified in dismissing appeals for time-bar if no formal condonation request is made.\nCitations:\n•\nGhulam Ali and another v. Lal Khan and 2 others PLD 1979 Lah. 409.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),134 ", + "Case #": "Civil Tax Reference No.21 of 1990, heard on 7-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saif-ud-Din Chughtai for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.ISLAMABAD\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 171 = 1991 SLD 171 = 1991 PTD 1068", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nJurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) versus Income Tax Panel.\nConclusion:\n•\nJurisdiction lies with the ITO unless reassigned to a panel via a written order by the Commissioner under Section 5(1)(cc).\n•\nDelays in challenging jurisdictional notices weaken the assessee's position.\nCitations:\n•\nPakistan Tobacco Company Ltd.'s case 1991 PTD 345, J.L. Wei's case 1989 PTD 271.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(1)(c),(cc) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 537 and 713/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 25-03-1991, hearing DATE : 7-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Akbar, CA for Appellant (in ITA No. 537/LB of 1990-91) Qudrat Ullah, D.R. for Appellant (in ITA No. 713/LB of 1990-91). Oudrat Ullah, D.R. for Respondent (in ITA No. 537/1,13 of 1990-91). M. Akbar, CA for Respondent (in I TA No. 713/LB of 1990-91).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 172 = 1991 SLD 172 = 1991 PTD 1072", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nPrinciples of audi alteram partem (right to be heard).\nConclusion:\n•\nDecisions made without hearing parties on merits violate natural justice principles.\n•\nTribunal recalled its order to allow hearing on merits, upholding justice.\nCitations:\n•\n1991 PTD (Trib.) 650.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=134,135 ", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 59 and 60/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 29-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASIM SABIR SYED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.Roomi Shah, D.R. for Appellant. Saeed Chaudhry,C.A. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 173 = 1991 SLD 173 = 1991 PTD 1075", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nScope of the Third Schedule in depreciation calculations.\n2.\nTreatment of gains from asset disposal.\nConclusion:\n•\nThird Schedule provides rules for depreciation and does not create fictional income.\n•\nGains from disposal of assets post-business closure are still attributed to the business and exempt if the business was tax-exempt.\nCitations:\n•\nThird Schedule, Rule 7(b)(i), Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched.,R.7(b)(i) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.39/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 25-11-1990, hearing DATE : 17-10-1990", + "Judge Name:": " A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sanaullah Naik for Appellant. Mian Masood, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 174 = 1991 SLD 174 = 1991 PTD 1078 = (1991) 64 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nSimplified Assessment Scheme (1989-90) and conditions for eligibility.\nConclusion:\n•\nEligibility depends on declared income and last assessed total income as defined in the C.B.R. Circular.\n•\n Latest year refers to the most recent assessment year prior to the current year, based on assessment completion date.\nCitations:\n•\nChitra Cinema v. Income-tax Officer (1968) 68 ITR 877.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59B ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 35/KB of 1990-91, decision dated: 24-09-1991, hearing DATE : 14th September 1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND IQBAL M. QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Pasha for Appellant. Ashraf-ud-Din Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 175 = 1991 SLD 175 = 1991 PTD 1099", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nPenalty for deemed income concealment.\n•\nRebuttable presumption under Section 271(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\n•\nIf returned income is less than 80% of assessed income, there is a rebuttable presumption of concealment.\n•\nThe onus is on the assessee to rebut this presumption with reliable evidence.\n•\nFalse explanations by the assessee strengthen the concealment presumption, and failure to rebut leads to penalty.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14, C.I.T. v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696, C.I.T. v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons (1972) 83 ITR 369.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1248 of 1978, decision dated: 10-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, C.J.I. AND K.N. SAIKIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J.I. and K.N. Saikia, J\nB.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini for Appellant.A.T.M. Sampath for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nKR. SADAYAPPAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 176 = 1991 SLD 176 = 1991 PTD 1109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTax exemption for payments received by public sector employees on voluntary retirement under Section 10(10-C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961.\n•\nDiscrimination claims under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 10(10-C) is not discriminatory as it promotes economic viability and national economic policy by addressing overstaffing in the public sector.\n•\nLegislative classifications in taxing statutes are valid if they show intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the legislation’s objective.\nCitations:\n•\nSpecial Courts Bill 1978, In re (1979), Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India (1989) 178 ITR 97.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Writ Petition No. 136 of 1989, decision dated: 20-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, N.D. OJHA AND, J.S. VERMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Narayan B. Shatye, Senior Advocate and Mukul Mudgal, Venkatesh Rao and Sudhir Gopi for Petitioners. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar and S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocates with M.K. Shashidharan, S. Rajappa and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No. 1. A.B. Divan, Senior Advocate with Ravinder Narain, Ashok Sagar, Miss Amrita Mitra and S. Sukumaran for Respondent No. 2", + "Party Name:": "SHASHIKANT LAXMAN KALE and another\nVs\nUNION OF INDIA. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 177 = 1991 SLD 177 = 1991 PTD 1131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nLegislative competence for provisions with extra-territorial application.\n•\nTaxability of fees for technical services paid to non-residents.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Indian Parliament can legislate extra-territorial provisions if there is a nexus to India.\n•\nThe issue of fees for technical services accruing in India under Section 9(1)(vii)(b) referred to a Constitution Bench for resolution.\nCitations:\n•\nCarborandum Co. v. C.I.T. (1977) 108 ITR 335, British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. v. King (1946) AC 527.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2697 and 2698 of 1989, decision dated: 2-05-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.S. PATHAK, C, J. RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 1 = 1992 SLD 1 = 1992 PTD 1 = (1992) 65 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nNature of income related to capital gains and compulsory acquisition of land.\n2.\nExemption of immovable property from capital gains tax.\nConclusion:\n•\nImmovable property is excluded from taxable capital gains under Section 27 & 28 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nCompensation for compulsory land acquisition retains its capital nature and is not taxable.\n•\nIncome immune from tax in one person's hands does not retain immunity if distributed as dividends, except when constitutionally exempt.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Ltd. Chittagong v. Sales Tax Officer PLD 1971 SC 205, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (1971) 82 ITR 464.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(4A),12B,.5(8) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.84-K, 85-K and 86-K of 1981, decision dated: 30-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all Appeals).Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffa Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in all Appeals)", + "Party Name:": "Messrs JULIAN HOSHANG DINSHAW TRUST and others\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE XVIII SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 2 = 1992 SLD 2 = 1992 PTD 10 = (1991) 64 TAX 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nScope of Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Reopening assessments).\n2.\nTaxability of interest accrued on retained securities.\nConclusion:\n•\nSection 65 authorizes a reassessment of the total income, not limited to the original reasons for reopening.\n•\nInterest on security deposits retained by paying authorities is taxable income and cannot claim exemption under Clause 74 of the Second Schedule.\n•\nAgreed assessments involve contractual elements and are binding on both parties.\nCitations:\n•\n(1990) 61 Tax 170 (Trib.), In re: J.L. Wei 1989 PTD 271.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,154(6),74,17,54,SecondScheduleCl.74 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.1625/LB, 3453/LB, 1626/LB and 3793/LB of 1984-85, decision dated: 28-09-1991, hearing DATE : 15-07-1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, AND A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Rashid Ahmed for Appellants (in ITAs. Nos. 1625/LB, 3453/LB and 1626/LB of 1984-85). S. Roomi Shah, DR for Respondent (in ITAs. Nos. 1625/LB, 3453/LB and 1626 LB of 1984-85). S. Roomi Shah, AC/DR for Appellant (in ITA. No. 3793/LB of 198485). Sh. Rashid Ahmed for Respondent (in ITA. No. 3793/LB of 1984-85).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 3 = 1992 SLD 3 = 1992 PTD 17 = (1991) 64 TAX 163 = 1993 PTCL 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nCharitable trusts’ eligibility for tax exemptions.\n2.\nInvestment policies and application of income for charitable purposes.\nConclusions:\n•\nCharitable trusts can invest in stocks, shares, bank deposits, and real estate without affecting their eligibility for exemptions under Clauses 93 and 94 of the Second Schedule, provided the income is applied to charitable purposes.\n•\nAccumulation of funds is permissible, provided they are eventually applied to specified purposes.\n•\nFiling returns remains mandatory for proving adherence to exemption conditions.\nCitations:\n•\nHamdard Dawakhana's case PLD 1980 SC 84, Rashid Barner's case (1974) 29-Tax-221, Samina Shaukat Ayub Khan's case PLD 1981 SC 85.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=4(3) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=14,56,47(1)(d),SecondSched.,Cls.93,94 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.312/LB to 317/1,13 of 1990-91, decision dated: 30-09-1991, hearing DATE : 16-07-1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Roomi Shah, DR for Appellant. Naseem Zafar, ITP for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 4 = 1992 SLD 4 = 1992 PTD 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nInterpretation of the term payable in tax statutes.\n•\nWhether unpaid liabilities qualify as deductible expenses.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe term payable refers to liabilities arising during the charge year, irrespective of payment status.\n•\nAmendments to statutes aim to clarify or alter the legislative intent.\nCitations:\n•\nBallantine’s Law Dictionary and Black’s Law Dictionary referenced for payable and paid. ", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Second Schedule,Cl.83 ", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No-36 and P.T.Rs. Nos. 24 and 60 of 1988 and P.T.R. No.5 of 1986, heard on 10-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ilyas Khan and Ch. Muhammad Ishaque for Petitioner. M. Amin Butt for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONED OF Income Tax COMPANIES ZONE SORE\nVs\nNAVEED A. SHEIKH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 5 = 1992 SLD 5 = 1992 PTD 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDeduction of wealth tax liability under the Income Tax Act.\nConclusions:\n•\nWealth tax liability qualifies as a deductible expense under Sections 10(2) and 12(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax Central Zone Karachi v. Zakia Siddiqui 1989 PTD 135.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2),12(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 22 and 23 of 1984, heard on 13-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Iqbal holding brief for Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONEC, KARACHI\nvs\nD. M. BAMJEE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 6 = 1992 SLD 6 = 1992 PTD 30 = (1992) 65 TAX 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nWealth tax liability as an allowable expense.\nConclusions:\n•\nWealth tax liability is allowable under Sections 10 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Zakia Siddiqui 1989 PTD 135.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,12 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax References Nos. 118, 119 and 120 of 1984, decision dated: 2-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farrooqi for Applicant. Iqbal Naim Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE \"\"C‘, KARACHI\nvs\nM/s. M. HUSSAIN AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 7 = 1992 SLD 7 = 1992 PTD 32 = (1992) 65 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTaxability of income from Khas Deposit Certificates in insurance business.\nConclusions:\n•\nInterest from Khas Deposit Certificates is taxable and forms part of the profits and gains of insurance businesses.\n•\nProfits computed under Section 26 and Rule 6 of the Fourth Schedule cannot be bifurcated under different income heads.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CBR 1988.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Fourth Schedule,Cl.6,Ss.26,15 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-171 of 1991, decision dated: 13-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " S. HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND ALLAHDINO MEMON, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahenshah Hussain for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs CENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGEI, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 8 = 1992 SLD 8 = 1992 PTD 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTaxation reserve as admissible expenditure for insurance companies.\nConclusions:\n•\nTaxation reserve qualifies as admissible expenditure under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax Central Karachi v. Mercantile Fire and Central Insurance Co. Ltd. 1989 PTD 142.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=First Schedule,R.6(1),10,66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.95 of 1983, decision dated: 24-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI AND SYED ABDUR REHMAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Fazale Ghani Khan and Makhdoom Ali Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE \"\"A‘, .KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs INTERNATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 9 = 1992 SLD 9 = 1992 PTD 37 = (1992) 65 TAX 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRetrospective effect of Explanation III to Section 10(4)(d) of the Income Tax Act.\nConclusions:\n•\nExplanation III has retrospective effect, ensuring clarity on tax treatment of certain expenditures.\nCitations:\n•\nPakistan Petroleum Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1985 PTD 1.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(4)(d),66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.109 of 1984, heard on 30-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Sajid Zahid for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL ZONE \"\"B‘, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs CYNAMID (PAK) LTD. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 10 = 1992 SLD 10 = 1992 PTD 39 = (1992) 65 TAX 135 = 1993 PTCL 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDismissal of time-barred reference applications under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nApplications dismissed under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, cannot be treated under Section 136(1) of the 1979 Ordinance.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. 1988 PTD 227.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10,10(2)(xi),66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(1),136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.18 of 1984, heard on 16-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONEC, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 11 = 1992 SLD 11 = 1992 PTD 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUVMTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nReopening of assessments under Section 34(1-A)(b) of the Income Tax Act.\nConclusions:\n•\nTribunal decisions on factual issues are final, and reopening assessments require material evidence of omission by the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nNational Bank of Pakistan 1976 PTD 237.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34(1A)(b) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 27, 28 and 29 of 1984, decision dated: 16-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AND NASIRASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSIAN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nMessrs UNIVERSAL IMPEX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 12 = 1992 SLD 12 = 1992 PTD 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nExclusion of tax liability from total income for surcharge calculation.\nConclusions:\n•\nTax liability is excluded as part of working capital for levy of surcharge.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1988 PTD 66.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=First Schedule,partIII,Cl.(a) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.114 of 1984, decision dated: 2-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Nasim Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE \"\"C‘, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs CITY BANK NA., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 13 = 1992 SLD 13 = 1992 PTD 45 = (1992) 65 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nSelf-Assessment Scheme and conditions under Section 65.\nConclusions:\n•\nPre-conditions under Section 65(2) do not invalidate reopening under total audit provisions.\nCitations:\n•\nEdulji Dinshaw's case PLD 1990 SC 399.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1396 of 1987, decision dated: 10-02-1991. dates of hearing: 15th and 16-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fazle Ghani Khan for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Haji ISMAIL IBRAHIM\nVs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE W-II, WEST ZONE, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 14 = 1992 SLD 14 = 1992 PTD 50 = (1992) 65 TAX 169 = 1993 PTCL 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTime-barred reference applications.\n2.\nAssessment based on original versus revised returns.\nConclusions:\n•\nAdditional questions cannot be referred to the High Court if time-barred.\n•\nMere reference to the original return does not imply reliance on it when revised returns exist.\nCitations:\n•\nSaifuddin Ghulam Ali & Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1989 PTD 1038, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. 1973.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(2),22(3) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No-122 of 1984, decision dated: 19-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Applicant. Shaikh Hyder for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messes NA INDUSTRIES, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 15 = 1992 SLD 15 = 1992 PTD 57 = (1992) 65 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDeduction of losses from compulsory acquisition of fixed assets.\n2.\nApplication of Section 66(1)(2) of the Income Tax Act and its implications on time-barred references.\nConclusions:\n•\nLoss from compulsory acquisition by the Bangladesh Government is deductible under Section 10(2)(vii).\n•\nApplications dismissed under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act cannot be treated under Section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nCitations:\n•\nUnited Liner Agencies of Pakistan v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1988 PTD 277.\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Pfizer Laboratories 1989 PTD 612.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vii),42(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.111 of 1984, decision dated: 2-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaik Haider for Applicant. Khawaja Mansoor for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMessrs GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAK) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 16 = 1992 SLD 16 = 1992 PTD 82 = (1992) 65 TAX 115 = 1993 PTCL 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of the doctrine of merger in income tax orders.\n2.\nProper inquiry and rectification of defective decisions.\nConclusions:\n•\nOrders on non-appealable aspects do not merge with appellate authority orders.\n•\nDefects in decisions can be rectified if inquiries are incomplete or improper.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. M/s. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. AIR 1958 SC 868.\n•\nState of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co., Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 681.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=129 Limitation Act, 1877=120 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62,66A ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-384 of 1991, decision dated: 24-10-1991, hearing DATE : 19-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fateh Ali W. Vellani for Petitioner Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LIMITED\nVs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. RangE01 Companies II, KARACHI and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 17 = 1992 SLD 17 = 1992 PTD 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDisallowance of interest under Section 40(b) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n2.\nInterpretation of mutual transactions between firms and partners.\nConclusions:\n•\nInterest paid by the firm to a partner can be reduced by the interest received from the partner if transactions are mutual.\n•\nTaxing statutes allow equitable construction when literal interpretation conflicts with legislative intent.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Keshavji Ravji and Co. 1990 183 ITR 1 (SC).\n•\nC.I.T. v. Kailash Motors 1982 134 ITR 312 (All.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1177 to 1184 of 1990, decision dated: 5-02-1990", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, N.D. OJHA AND, J.S. VERMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "TA. Ramchandran, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran for Appellants. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate with B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "KESHAVJI RAVJI & Co\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 18 = 1992 SLD 18 = 1992 PTD 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nValidity and registration of sale certificates issued by Tax Recovery Officers.\n2.\nStamp duty and municipal transfer fee obligations for such certificates.\nConclusions:\n•\nCertificates of sale issued by Tax Recovery Officers are not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908.\n•\nTax Recovery Officers qualify as revenue officers for the purposes of registration compliance.\n•\nFiling of a copy of the sale certificate in Book No. 1 ensures adequate notice to potential buyers.\nCitations:\n•\nPremier Vegetable (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of M.P. AIR 1986 MP 258.\n•\nFatteh Singh v. Daropadi 1908 Punj. Rec. Case No. 142.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1185 to 1188 of 1990, decision dated: 5-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, N.D. OJHA AND, J. S. VERMA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Janki Ramachandran Appellants for Appellants. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate with B.B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "DEVI CINE PROJECTOR MANUFACTURING CO\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 19 = 1992 SLD 19 = 1992 PTD 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nValidity and registration of sale certificates issued by Tax Recovery Officers.\n2.\nStamp duty and municipal transfer fee obligations for such certificates.\nConclusions:\n•\nCertificates of sale issued by Tax Recovery Officers are not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908.\n•\nTax Recovery Officers qualify as revenue officers for the purposes of registration compliance.\n•\nFiling of a copy of the sale certificate in Book No. 1 ensures adequate notice to potential buyers.\nCitations:\n•\nPremier Vegetable (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of M.P. AIR 1986 MP 258.\n•\nFatteh Singh v. Daropadi 1908 Punj. Rec. Case No. 142.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1962=89(4) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1936 and 1937 of 1990, decision dated: 23rd April, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN AND A.M. AHMADI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "Smt. SHANTI DEVI L. SINGH and another\nVs\nTAX RECOVERY OFFICER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 20 = 1992 SLD 20 = 1992 PTD 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDeductibility of reimbursement expenses for partner relocation in a partnership firm.\nConclusions:\n•\nExpenses incurred for partner relocation can be deductible for tax purposes as they serve the collective business interests of the partnership and are not personal benefits.\n•\nPartnerships are treated as distinct entities for computing taxable profits, separate from their partners.\nCitations:\n•\nHeastie v. Veitch & Co. (1934) 1 KB 535.\n•\nMallalieu v. Drummond (1983) 2 AC 861 (distinguished).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970=130(a) ", + "Case #": "Appeal decided on 29-01-1988. dates of hearing:10th and 11-12-1987", + "Judge Name:": " SLADE, BALCOMBE AND STOCKER L., Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Andrew Park Q.C. for the Firm. Alan Moses for the Crown", + "Party Name:": "MacKINLAY (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nvs\nARTHUR YOUNG McCLELLAND MOORES & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 21 = 1992 SLD 21 = 1992 PTD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQ1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nValidity of penalties imposed under Section 111 without proper authorization.\n2.\nBurden of proof and adherence to procedural requirements for imposing penalties.\nConclusions:\n•\nPenalty imposition requires independent proof of mens rea (intent) and proper notice under Section 116.\n•\nPenalty proceedings are quasi-judicial, requiring a high standard of proof akin to criminal cases.\n•\nPenalties were invalidated in the absence of proper notice and substantiation.\nCitations:\n•\nPenalty proceedings require strict adherence to procedural safeguards.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,62,116 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos. 1792 to 1794/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 6-05-1986, hearing DATE : 18-03-1986", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZAFAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Amjad Ali Ranjha AC/DR for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 22 = 1992 SLD 22 = 1992 PTCL 34 = 1992 PTD 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDetermination of reasonable rental value for income from property.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe reasonable expectation of rental income must consider existing tenancy laws, tenant rights, and rent control mechanisms.\n•\nRental value cannot exceed what is reasonably achievable under current legal conditions.\nCitations:\n•\n1989 PTD (Trib.) 859 (followed).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=19 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 279/LB of 1989-90, decision dated: 7-11-1990, hearing DATE : 4-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Haq Kang for Appellant. Liaquat Chaudhary, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 23 = 1992 SLD 23 = 1992 PTD 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRefunds under Sections 96, 97, 98, and 100 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n2.\nApplicability of time limitations and procedural requirements for refunds.\nConclusions:\n•\nRefunds due from assessments or appeals do not require separate applications or adhere to strict time limitations.\n•\nRefunds must be processed promptly, avoiding redundant verifications after assessment finalization.\nCitations:\n•\nRefund processes must ensure efficiency and fairness without unnecessary delays.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=96,97,99,100 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. Nos. 1485 and 1486 (KB) of 1985-86, decision dated: 24-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamal, D.R. for Appellant. Muddassir Shah for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 24 = 1992 SLD 24 = 1992 PTD 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nValuation of immovable property for industrial purposes.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Assessing Officer must substantiate any deviation from the declared value in the registered sale deed with comparable cases or evidence of understatement.\n•\nArbitrary adjustments to declared values are unwarranted.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeals Nos. 563/1,13, 647/1,13 of 1989-90, 367/1,13, 432/1,13 of 1990-91, decision dated: 21st May, 1991, hearing DATE : 21st March, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUKHTAR ALI KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 563/1,13 of 1989-90 and 367/1,13 of 1990-91). Agha Sarwar Qazilbash (D.R.) for Appellant (in I.T-As. Nos.647/LB of 1989-90 and 432/1,13 of 1990-91). Agha Sarwar Qazilbash (D.R.) for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.563/LB of 1989-90 and 367/1,13 of 1990-91). Zia H. Rizvi for Respondent (in I.TAs. Nos. 647/1,13 of 1989-90 and 432/1,13 of 1990-91)", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 25 = 1992 SLD 25 = 1992 PTCL 32 = 1992 PTD 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nRejection of returns under the Self-Assessment Scheme based on procedural technicalities.\nConclusions:\n•\nReturns cannot be rejected solely due to questionable signatures on an authorization; procedural errors must be resolved without rejecting valid returns.\n•\nThe focus should remain on the substance of the declaration, not peripheral issues.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.661/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 8-06-1991, hearing DATE : 28-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Raheel for Appellant. Shaukat Ali Babar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 26 = 1992 SLD 26 = 1992 PTD 173 = (1992) 65 TAX 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nCompensation for delayed refunds under Section 102(1).\nConclusions:\n•\nRefunds must be processed within three months of becoming due.\n•\nCompensation at 15% per annum is mandatory for delays, with no prerequisite for applications from taxpayers.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=102(1) ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1313 of 1990, decision dated: 14-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KLIATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid A. Siddiqui for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Mrs. FARIDA MIRZA\nvs\nTHE Income Tax OFFICER, P.IA. EMPLOYEES SALARY CIRCLE I, ZONED, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 27 = 1992 SLD 27 = 1992 PTD 176 = (1992) 65 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDepreciation entitlement on machinery used for training purposes before business use.\nConclusions:\n•\nDepreciation is applicable only when machinery is used for business purposes. Training use does not qualify.\n•\nMachinery readiness does not equate to business use for depreciation purposes.\nCitations:\n•\nIn re: Challapalli Sugar Mills (1973) 98 ITR 167 (distinguished).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=ThirdSched ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.4616/LB of 1985-86, decision dated: 30-07-1991, hearing DATE : 5-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AA. ZUBERI AND INAM ELAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. M. Gangat, CA. for Appellant. Qudrat Ullah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 28 = 1992 SLD 28 = 1992 PTD 183 = (1992) 65 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nPrinciples for disallowing or verifying expenses.\nConclusions:\n•\nIncome Tax Officers must verify the authenticity of expenses when complete details are provided.\n•\nAdditions based on assumptions without verification are unjustified, while unsupported claims justify disallowance.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.1074/H.Q. of 1989-90 and No.454/K.B. of 1990-91, decision dated: 29-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUNZOOR-UL-HAQ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalifa Salah-ud-Din for Appellant. A.K. Nomani, D.R. and Ch. Nazir Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 29 = 1992 SLD 29 = 1992 PTD 189 = (1992) 65 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nInterpretation of Clause 125 for exemptions on profits and gains of industrial undertakings.\nConclusions:\n•\nExemptions apply strictly to profits derived from manufacturing garments or related processes.\n•\nAncillary or subsidiary activities are not included under Clause 125's exemptions.\nCitations:\n•\n1987 PTD 479; 1988 PTD 157 (ref).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.306/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 17-02-1991, hearing DATE : 28-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaquat Chaudhry, D.R. for Appellant. Zia H. Rizvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 30 = 1992 SLD 30 = 1992 PTD 211 = (1991) 64 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nApplicability of penalty for delayed filing of tax returns under Section 271(1)(a).\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Tribunal found the assessee’s belief that they were not under an obligation to file returns to be genuine.\n•\nPenalty cannot be imposed when the delay arises from a bona fide misunderstanding or lack of statutory obligation.\n•\nSuch findings of fact, unless perverse or unsupported by evidence, are binding.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.80 of 1979, decision dated: 9-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.A. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nM. HABIBULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 31 = 1992 SLD 31 = 1992 PTD 212 = (1991) 64 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nWhether income generated during the transition period of asset transfer accrues to the transferor or transferee.\n2.\nImpact of contractual terms on the taxation of such income.\nConclusions:\n•\nIncome generated from the factories during the transition period accrues to the transferor, as the sale had not been finalized, and the transferor retained operational control.\n•\nSection 60 of the Income-tax Act confirms that income prior to transfer remains assessable in the hands of the transferor.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Banwari Lai Agarwala (Late) [1987] 167 ITR 321.\n•\nCIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd. [1953] 23 ITR 278.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos.87 and 88 of 1974, decision dated: 12-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. C, JAIN, C.J. AND ARUN KUMAR, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. Khaitan, Kum Kum Sen and Dhruv Aggarwal for Petitioner Rajendra, D.C. Traneja and R.K. Chaufla for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "DALMIA CEMENT LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 32 = 1992 SLD 32 = 1992 PTD 227 = (1992) 65 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDeductibility of payments to the Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) under income tax law.\nConclusions:\n•\nPayments made to the WWF are deductible from the total gross income of the assessee but are not allowable as expenditures under the Income Tax Ordinance.\n•\nAssessable income must first be determined, following which the WWF amount is excluded as an expenditure.\nCitations:\n•\n1983 PTD (Trib.) 17.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4(1),(7) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23, ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.148 of 1984, decided 12-12-1991, hearing DATE : 7-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Shaik Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M/s. PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A‘" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 33 = 1992 SLD 33 = 1992 PTD 232 = (1992) 65 TAX 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nApplicability of Section 12-B regarding profits from insurance proceeds for a lost asset.\nConclusions:\n•\nInsurance proceeds received for the destruction or loss of an asset do not constitute profits or gains under Section 12-B, as no sale, exchange, or transfer occurred.\n•\nTaxability under Section 12-B requires the profit or gain to arise from a specific transfer of the capital asset.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=12-B ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.40 of 1982, decision dated: 14-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Ali Amjad for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONEC\nvs\nM/s. TRANSOCEANIC STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 34 = 1992 SLD 34 = 1992 PTD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTaxation of insurance proceeds exceeding the cost of machinery destroyed by fire.\nConclusions:\n•\nExtinguishment of rights due to the destruction of an asset does not qualify as a transfer under Section 45.\n•\nInsurance proceeds are compensation for the loss, not consideration for transfer, and are therefore not taxable as capital gains.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (overruled).\n•\nC.I.T. v. Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (reversed).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1106 of 1976, decision dated: 14-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " K N. SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (K.J.John, Advocate, with him), Appellant. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VANIA SILK MILLS PVT. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 35 = 1992 SLD 35 = 1992 PTD 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nValidity of assessment orders and accompanying computation forms.\nConclusions:\n•\nAssessment is valid when both the total income and tax payable are determined, even if on separate documents.\n•\nThe process must be completed within the prescribed limitation period, with the computation form signed or initialed by the assessing officer.\n•\nFor transparency, the computation form should be annexed to the assessment order and served on the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Himalaya Drug Co. [1982] 135 ITR 368 (All).\n•\nC.I.T. v. Krishwanti Punjabi [1983] 139 ITR 703 (Cal).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.11270 and 11394 of 1991, decision dated: 6-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND N. D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Padmanabhan, Senior Advocate (Mis Mridula Ray, Advocate, with him) for the Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "KALYANKUMAR RAY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 36 = 1992 SLD 36 = 1992 PTD 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDefinition of Industrial Company for tax purposes.\n•\nDetermining whether the operation of a cold storage facility qualifies as processing. \nConclusions:\n•\nThe operation of a cold storage does not involve processing as it does not alter the stored goods; thus, it is not classified as an industrial company. \n•\nMere changes in moisture content due to storage are insufficient to qualify as processing.\nCitations:\n•\nDelhi Cold Storage P. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1985) 156 ITR 97 (affirmed).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.3164 of 1991, decision dated: 14-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " RANGANATH MISRA C.J. M.H. KANIA AND KULDIP SING, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.N. Salve and Promod Dayal, Advocates, for Appellant.J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (Vijay K. Verma and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him), for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "DELHI COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 37 = 1992 SLD 37 = 1992 PTD 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDeductibility of expenses incurred by a company in liquidation.\n2.\nClassification of interest earned during liquidation.\nConclusions:\n•\nLiquidation activities, including the sale of assets and fixed deposits, are not business activities. \n•\nExpenses incurred in liquidation are not deductible unless directly related to earning income.\n•\nInterest earned on fixed deposits is taxable under Income from Other Sources. \nCitations:\n•\nMorvi Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1976) 104 ITR 568 (Guj).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1103 and 1104 of 1979, decision dated: 6-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " K, JAGANNATHA SHETTY, V. RAMASWAMI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Grover, Advocate, for Appellant. J. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VIJAYA LAXMI SUGAR MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 38 = 1992 SLD 38 = 1992 PTD 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nValidity of reassessment notice issued under Section 147(a) for failure to disclose material facts.\nConclusions:\n•\nProven under-invoicing detected by customs authorities justified reassessment under Section 147(a).\n•\nFailure to produce relevant head-office records and contracts constituted non-disclosure of material facts.\nCitations:\n•\nUpheld the principle that reassessment notices are valid if based on subsequent discovery of incomplete disclosures.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 565 of 1976, decision dated: 20-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Rajgopal, Senior Advocate with Pradeep Rajgopal, Ms. Rekha Rajgopal, M.S. Ganesh and S. Sukumaran, Advocates for Appellant.- Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate with M. Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, NAGPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 39 = 1992 SLD 39 = 1992 PTD 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nValidity of Section 40A(3) limiting cash expenditure deductions.\n2.\nDefinition of Expenditure. \nConclusions:\n•\nSection 40A(3), which requires payments exceeding a threshold to be made via crossed cheques or drafts, is valid and aims to curb black money circulation.\n•\n Expenditure includes all outgoings, including stock-in-trade purchases.\n•\nRule 6DD provides exceptions, ensuring genuine transactions are not unduly restricted.\nCitations:\n•\nMudiam Oil Co. v. ITO (1973) 92 ITR 519 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.11 and 3331 of 1981 with Civil Appeals Nos.1105 and 1425 of 1976; 1032 and 2752 of 1979; 29 and 985 of 1981; 4950 of 1989 and S.L.P. (Civil) No.15 of 1980, 7-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " K, JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with S.K. Mehta, Advocate for Appellant (in CAs. Nos.11 of 1981 and 3331 of 1983) and for Petitioner (in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15 of 1980).\nB. Sen, Senior Advocate with Umesh Khaitan, Darshan Singh and Praveen Kumar, Advocates for Appellant (in CA. No. 985 of 1981).\nC.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with B.V. Desai and Radha Rangaswamy, Advocates for Appellant (in CA. No. 29 of 1981).\nVinod Bhagat, Advocate for Appellant (in CA. No. 1425 of 1976).\nK.C. Dua, Advocate for Appellant (in CA. Nos.1032 and 2752 of 1979).\nM.M. Kashyap, Advocate for Appellant (in CA. No. 1105 of 1976).\nS.K. Bagga, Advocate for Appellant (in CA. No. 4950 of 1989).\nJ. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate with B.B. Ahuja and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Respondents (in all Matters).", + "Party Name:": "ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, LUDHIANA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 40 = 1992 SLD 40 = 1992 PTD 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nLegitimacy of reassessment notices based on subsequent information about non-genuine transactions.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Supreme Court reinstated the reassessment notices, as fresh evidence indicated inaccuracies in the original disclosures.\n•\nMatter remanded to the Income-tax Officer for appropriate action.\nCitations:\n•\nV.I.P. Industries Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (1991) 187 ITR 639.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.3164 and 3165 of 1991, decision dated: 16-07-1991", + "Judge Name:": " B. C. RAY, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate with S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Petitioner.Sunil Dogra, J.H. Parekh and P.H. Parekh, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nV.I.P. INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 41 = 1992 SLD 41 = 1992 PTD 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of trust income when the settlor has control over the trust.\n2.\nInclusion of income from trusts benefiting spouses or minor children.\nConclusions:\n•\nMere discretionary powers of a settlor over trust income do not equate to a right to reassume, thus excluding the income from the settlor’s taxable income.\n•\nIncome from trusts for ladies of position and their minor children was excluded from the settlor's taxable income, as no unequivocal acknowledgment as spouses existed.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Bahadur (1985) 153 ITR 514 (AP).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(3)(b) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1404 to 1407 and 1407A of 1975 with Civil Appeals Nos.1208 to 1212 of 1979 and 2989 of 1980. (Civil Appeals Nos.1404 to 1407 and 1407A of 1975 are by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 20, 1973, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R. No.20 of 1971)", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN AND K. RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Appellant. Y. Ratnakar, Advocate and Mrs. Anjali K. Verma, Advocate (of J.B. Dadachanji & Co.) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nNAWAB MIR BARKAT ALI KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 42 = 1992 SLD 42 = 1992 PTD 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nScope of appeals regarding tax deduction orders under Section 195(2).\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner can rule on the quantum of the amount subject to tax deduction at source.\n•\nSection 248 allows appeals beyond a complete denial of liability, covering disputes over the quantum.\nCitations:\n•\nMeteor Satellite Ltd. v. I.T.O. (1980) 121 ITR 311 (Guj).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No1535 of 1978, decision dated: 24-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASAWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate with KP. Bhatnagar and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Appellant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nWESMAN ENGG. CO. P. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 43 = 1992 SLD 43 = 1992 PTD 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nDeduction of gratuity provisions made for the first time.\n•\nAuthority of the Income-tax Officer on remand.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Tribunal’s order to remand for consideration of gratuity provisions was upheld.\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer must consider the law, including Supreme Court decisions, when disposing of the matter on remand.\nCitations:\n•\nVazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1981) 132 ITR 559 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 2595 to 2598 of 1984, decision dated: 10-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND RM. SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 2595 to 2598 of 1984, decided on 10th December, 1990.\nJ. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Petitioner. Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nV. D. SWAMI & CO. P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 44 = 1992 SLD 44 = 1992 PTD 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Validity of partnership formed by a widow and her son after the death of a partner (the husband/father).\nConclusion:\n•\nThe partnership between the widow and son was valid.\n•\nOn the death of the original partner (M), his interest devolved equally on his widow and son.\n•\nThey were competent to form a partnership and entitled to registration under income tax laws.\nCitation:\n•\nDecision of the Bombay High Court reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1761 of 1975, decision dated: 29-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " S. RAGANATHAN, N.M. KASLIWAL AND S. C. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Aniali K. Verma, Advocate (of M/s. J.B. Dadachanji & Co.) for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja, and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "MOHAN LAL DALILAT RAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 45 = 1992 SLD 45 = 1992 PTD 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Assessment barred by limitation due to the absence of a finding of concealment within the statutory period.\nConclusion:\n•\nAn assessment made beyond the four-year limitation period is invalid unless concealment is proven within that period.\n•\nIn this case, no finding of concealment was recorded within four years, making the assessment time-barred.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Surajpal Singh (1977) 108 ITR 746 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=28(1)(c),34(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1104 of 1976, decision dated: 12-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " K N. SINGH AND N.D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manoj Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Appellant. A.P. Chauhan, Roopendra Singh and C. K. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates Respondent\nSURAJ PAL SINGH by Legal Heirs", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSURAJ PAL SINGH by Legal Heirs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 46 = 1992 SLD 46 = 1992 PTD 291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of dividends in the year of payment versus the year of accrual.\n2.\nDividend distribution in specie (non-cash).\nConclusions:\n•\nDividend income is taxable in the year it is paid, credited, or distributed, not in the year it accrues.\n•\nFor dividends distributed in specie, the taxable event occurs when the dividend is made unconditionally available to shareholders.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Delhi) approved.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(2) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1762 (NT) of 1975, decision dated: 21st November, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN AND K.RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bishambar Lal and Ms. Shefali Khanna, Advocates for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RAMPUR DISTILLERY AND CHEMICALS CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 47 = 1992 SLD 47 = 1992 PTD 298 = (1992) 65 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nInterpretation of surcharge provisions in the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n2.\nAllowance of interest as a business deduction.\nConclusions:\n•\nSurcharge is calculated based on the income tax and super tax payable, independent of the total income.\n•\nDeduction for interest under Section 23(i)(vii) requires proof that the loan was used for business purposes, and the burden of proof lies with the assessee.\nCitation:\n•\n1987 PTD 587 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.PartIII-,10,53,23(i)(vii),54,85 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.291/KB of 1990-91 and 877/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 29-12-1991, hearing DATE : 21st December, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZURUL HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.D. Gangat, F.C.A. for Appellant. Ashraf-ud-Din Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 48 = 1992 SLD 48 = 1992 PTD 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Allowance of depreciation on assets used for scientific research after full capital expenditure deduction.\nConclusion:\n•\nDepreciation is not permissible in subsequent years if the entire capital expenditure on scientific research has been deducted in the year of purchase.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 548 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 3306 to 3308 of 1984, decision dated: 13-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " DR. T.K THOMMEN, KULDIP SINGH AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Manoj Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nINDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 49 = 1992 SLD 49 = 1992 PTD 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Treatment of unabsorbed depreciation and its carry-forward by a registered firm.\nConclusions:\n•\nUnabsorbed depreciation is treated as part of loss and can be carried forward by the firm for set-off in future years.\n•\nThe procedure ensures no double benefit to the firm or its partners.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines P. Ltd. (1966) 59 ITR 555 (SC) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi),Proviso(b),24(2). ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1249 of 1975 and 2075 of 1979, decision dated: 22-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN AND K. RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish N. Salve, P.H. Parekh, Sunil Dogra and Vibhu Bakhru, Advocates for Appellant. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GARDEN SILK WEAVING FACTORY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 50 = 1992 SLD 50 = 1992 PTD 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for late payment of advance tax.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe penalty base is determined after deducting the tax paid, even if the payment is delayed but made within the financial year.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Kohinoor Flour Mills (1975) 99 ITR 54 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No-939 (NT) of 1975, decision dated: 22-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.I.T. v. Kohinoor Flour Mills (1975) 99 ITR 54 affirmed. B.B. Ahuja, Manoj Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Appellant Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKOHINOOR FLOUR MILLS P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 51 = 1992 SLD 51 = 1992 PTD 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzQlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of un-retained income for surcharge levy.\n2.\nReference application barred under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nUn-retained income is excluded for surcharge computation.\n•\nReference applications barred under Section 66(1) cannot be treated as valid under Section 136(2) of the Ordinance.\nCitation:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1988 PTD 66 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.I,PartIII,136(1)(2) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.102 of 1984, decision dated: 16-10-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for the Department. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE \"\"B\"\" KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs K.B. INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 52 = 1992 SLD 52 = 1992 PTD 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Classification of retained income for surcharge computation.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax payable can be treated as retained income for surcharge purposes.\nCitation:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. 1988 PTD 66 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Sched.1,PartIII,136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.38 of 1986, decision dated: 21st October, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for the Department. Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs BATH ISLAND PROPERTY & COMPANY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 53 = 1992 SLD 53 = 1992 PTD 333 = (1992) 65 TAX 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Scope of High Court’s powers to review factual findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Courts cannot intervene in factual findings or act as appellate authorities. Questions of law are the only grounds for reference under Section 136 or Section 66.\nCitation:\n•\nMessrs Zafar Saleem Bros. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax 1984 PTD 225 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.38 of 1982, decision dated: 10-10-1991, hearing DATE : 26-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs KARIMI MILL STORES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST ZONE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 54 = 1992 SLD 54 = 1992 PTD 336 = (1992) 65 TAX 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Imposition of penalty for non-filing of returns where income includes dividends from a tax-holiday company.\nConclusion:\n•\nNo penalty can be imposed for non-filing of returns due to the exemption of dividend income from companies enjoying a tax holiday under Section 15-BB.\n•\nSection 15-BB(4-AA) has no retrospective effect beyond December 20, 1971.\nCitation:\n•\n1982 PTD 130 and 1989 PTD 1245 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB(4AA) ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference Nos.39 to 43 of 1986, decision dated: 24-10-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID ACTG. C.J. AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nNADEEM ZAFAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 55 = 1992 SLD 55 = 1992 PTD 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Tax liability as part of working capital and its exclusion for surcharge levy.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax liability or payable tax forms part of working capital and should be excluded when calculating surcharge.\nCitation:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Cases Nos.12 and 13 of 1990, decision dated: 22-05-1990,hearing DATE : 22-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH C.J. AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant. Syed Irtiza Hussain Zaidi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs JAMES FINLAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 56 = 1992 SLD 56 = 1992 PTD 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Rejection of accounts due to lack of detailed records and unexplained wastage.\nConclusion:\n•\nAbsence of stage-wise production and consumption records or unexplained wastage alone cannot justify rejecting properly maintained accounts.\n•\nAssessments should align with accepted past practices.\nCitation:\n•\n1989 PTD 567 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=13,13A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.78 of 1982, decision dated: 12-09-1991,hearing DATE : 12-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs NAGINA COTTON MILLS LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 57 = 1992 SLD 57 = 1992 PTD 342 = (1992) 65 TAX 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Imposition of additional tax under Section 45-A without quantification.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdditional tax cannot be quantified or levied if no tax due is paid before the imposition order.\n•\nSuch orders are invalid.\nCitation:\n•\n1961 Tax 371 and 1971 PTD 200 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=45A ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.23 of 1985, decision dated: 19-09-1991,hearing DATE : 19-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs A & B INVESTMENT COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 58 = 1992 SLD 58 = 1992 PTD 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Disallowance of minor expenses and account reliability.\nConclusion:\n•\nDisallowance without relation to facts discourages proper accounting and creates friction.\n•\nAssessing Officers should exercise fairness in accepting accounts unless substantial issues arise.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Appeal No.827/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 20-08-1991,hearing DATE : 8-07-1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND A.A. ZUBERI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Azim CA. for Appellant. S. Roomi Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 59 = 1992 SLD 59 = 1992 PTD 347 = (1992) 65 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Scope of High Court’s powers in framing legal questions.\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Courts have the authority to frame and resolve legal questions when references are refused by the Tribunal under Section 66(1).\n•\nIssues related to the share of super-tax and other exemptions require authoritative resolution.\nCitation:\n•\nMessrs Schazoo Laboratory Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1976 PTD 361 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1),(2),16,.29,23(1),23(4) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.246-K, 248-K to 253-K and 291-K to 296-K of 1980, decision dated: 2-05-1989, hearing DATE : 25th January 1989", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, SAAD SAOOD JAN AND NAIMUDDIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan, Advocate Supreme Court, M.S. Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record and for Appellants (in all Appeals).\nM.A.I. Qarni, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos.248 to 250 of 1980).\nNemo for Respondents (in all Appeals).", + "Party Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, WEST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nANWERALY HAJI NOOR MOHAMMAD\nCivil Anneals Nos. 248-K to 250-K of 1980\nCOMMISIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nSeth GHULAM ABBAS ADAM ALI\nCivil Anneals Nos. 251-K to 253-K of 1980\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, EAST ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nSeth SAIFUDDIN GHULAM HUSSAIN\nCivil Appeals Nos. 291-K to 293-K of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE \"\"A‘ KARACHI\nvs\nMir YUSUF ALI\nCivil Anneals Nos. 294-K to 296-K of 1980\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE \"\"A‘, KARACHI\nvs\nQazi MUHAMMAD ISMAIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 60 = 1992 SLD 60 = 1992 PTD 357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nReassessment based on unconsidered High Court decisions.\n2.\nTaxability of surplus arising from the dissolution of a firm.\nConclusions:\n1.\nReassessment proceedings are valid if the officer becomes aware of relevant legal precedents post-original assessment.\n2.\nSurplus on stock valuation during dissolution is taxable, aligning with market value principles.\nCitation:\n•\nA.I.A. Firm v. C.I.T. (1976) 102 ITR 622 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.570 of 1976, decision dated: 21st February, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, N. M. KASLIWAL AND S. C. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (P.N. Ramalingam and A.T.M. Sampath, Advocates with him) for Appellant.Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Manoj Arora, S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "A.L.A. FIRM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 61 = 1992 SLD 61 = 1992 PTD 378 = (1992) 65 TAX 331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzR1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Valuation of stock-in-trade excluding overhead costs.\nConclusion:\n•\nStock must be valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower, including overhead costs.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer is obligated to compute taxable income accurately, even if the consistent practice differs.\nCitation:\n•\nBritish Paints India Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1978) 111 ITR 53 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1918 and 1919 of 1976, decision dated: 13-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " DR. T. KOCHU THOMMEN AND M.M. PUNCHHI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, Ranbir Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini Advocates for Appellant. Raja Ram Aggarawal, Senior Advocate (S. Ganesh, Praveen Kumar and Darshan Singh, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 62 = 1992 SLD 62 = 1992 PTD 390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Allowability of interest on delayed cess and tax payments as business expenditure.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest on delayed payments of cane cess and purchase tax is allowable as a business expenditure.\nCitation:\n•\nMahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. C.I.T. (1980) 123 ITR 429 (SC) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.782 and 783 (NT) of 1976, decision dated: 14-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " K.N. SINGH K, JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND KULDIP SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Rani Chhabra, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nLUXMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 63 = 1992 SLD 63 = 1992 PTD 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for delayed filing of returns and levy of interest.\nConclusion:\n•\nFiling returns beyond prescribed time with interest levied by the Income-tax Officer is deemed as granting time to file the return.\n•\nPenalty under Section 271(1)(a) is not applicable in such cases.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. M. Chandra Sekhar (1985) 151 ITR 433 (SC).\n•\nC.I.T. (Addl.) v. M.J. Devda (1977) 109 ITR 484.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.402 of 1976 with Civil Appeals Nos. 942 to 944 of 1976, decision dated: 31st October, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " M. M. PUNCHHI AND S. C. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Appellant. K. Ram Kumar, Mrs. Anjani and Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocates Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nM. J. DAVEDA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 64 = 1992 SLD 64 = 1992 PTD 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Allowance of additional grounds during appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdditional grounds can be raised if they become relevant due to changes in law or circumstances.\n•\nThe Appellate Assistant Commissioner has discretion to allow such grounds.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC).\n•\nC.I.T. (Addl.) v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1935 of 1981, decision dated: 4-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " K.N. SINGH DR. T.K THOMMEN AND KULDIP SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Bhattacharya and G. S. Chatterjee, Advocates, for appellant. J. Ramamurti, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashinis Advocates, with him), for respondents", + "Party Name:": "JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 65 = 1992 SLD 65 = 1992 PTD 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deduction for securities purchased at a price inclusive of accrued interest.\nConclusion:\n•\nEntire purchase price of securities is treated as capital outlay.\n•\nNo deduction is allowable from interest income on securities for accrued interest paid at purchase.\nCitation:\n•\nDecision of Karnataka High Court in I.T.R.C. No. 33 of 1973 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1498 of 1976, decision dated: 19-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " DR. T. K. THOMMEN AND S. C. AGRAWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Bhatt, Senior Advocate (Vijay K. Verma, Advocate, with him), for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "VIJAYA BANK LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 66 = 1992 SLD 66 = 1992 PTD 403", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Accrual of income from managing agency remuneration during litigation.\nConclusion:\n•\nIncome accrues annually as per the resolution, irrespective of deferred payment due to litigation.\n•\nThe accrual is based on the resolution and not on the date of litigation's resolution.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Babulal Narottamdas (1976) 105 ITR 721 affirmed.\n•\nC.I.T. v. K.R.M.T.T. Thiagaraja Chetty and Co. (1953) 24 ITR 525 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.685 of 1978, decision dated: 14-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P. SAWANT AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K Goswami, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh, Advocate, with him) for Appellants S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "BABULAL NAROTTAMDAS AND OTHERS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 67 = 1992 SLD 67 = 1992 PTD 415 = (1992) 65 TAX 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Eligibility for deduction of donations in kind under Section 80G.\nConclusion:\n•\nOnly monetary donations qualify for deductions under Section 80G.\n•\nDonations in kind (e.g., shares, property) are excluded.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Amonbolu Rajiah (1976) 102 ITR 403 (AP) approved.\n•\nC.I.T. v. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 478 (Bom.) not approved.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.206 of 1976, decision dated: 12-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " K.N. SINGH, K, JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND KULDIP SINGH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Muralidhar and Mrs. Saroja Gopalakrishnan, Advocates, for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja, Manoj Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "H.H. SRI RAMA VERMA\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 68 = 1992 SLD 68 = 1992 PTD 419", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Registration of a partnership where a minor was initially liable for losses.\nConclusion:\n•\nPartnership deeds making minors liable for losses are invalid.\n•\nSubsequent deeds executed after the accounting period cannot retroactively validate registration.\nCitation:\n•\nRamamohan Motor Service v. C.I.T. (1979) 120 ITR 434 (AP) affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1360 of 1978, decision dated: 15-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B. Parthasarathy, Advocate for Appellant. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him), for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "SRI RAMAMOHAN MOTOR SERVICE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 69 = 1992 SLD 69 = 1992 PTD 420", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Tax exemption for charitable societies involved in handicraft sales.\nConclusion:\n•\nSocieties primarily aiming at charitable purposes qualify for exemptions under Section 11, even if they engage in activities like selling handicrafts.\n•\nProfit from such activities must directly support charitable objectives.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. (Addl.) v. Victoria Technical Institute (1979) 120 ITR 358 reversed.\n•\nC.I.T. (Addl.) v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.4193-4203 of 1982, decision dated: 16-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " K. N. SAIKIA AND R. M. SAHAI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "TA. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Mcs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate, with him) for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja and Ms. A. Subbashini, Advocates, for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "VICTORIA TECHNICAL INSTITUTE\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.) and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 70 = 1992 SLD 70 = 1992 PTD 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Reassessment due to misinformation about the date of transfer of a mining business.\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment notices are valid if new information reveals that income was omitted due to the taxpayer's failure to disclose material facts fully.\n•\nPremature adjudication on the nature of income is inappropriate.\nCitation:\n•\nCalcutta Discount Co. v. I.T.O. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.371 of 1976, decision dated: 7-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.B. Ahuja, S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, for Appellants. Dr. D. Pal, Senior Advocate (Sukumaran, Advocate of Messrs. J.B. Dadachanji and Co., with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER, CUTTACK, and others\nvs\nBIJU PATNAIK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 71 = 1992 SLD 71 = 1992 PTD 428", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzSFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deductibility of pension paid from a company-created fund.\nConclusion:\n•\nPension paid from a specific fund cannot be claimed as a business expense unless directly borne by the company and not the fund.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. T. Stanes and Co. Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 251 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=251,257 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.581 to 586 of 1976 with Civil Appeals Nos3897 to 3901 and 3903 to 3907 of 1983, decision dated: 4-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": " KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.A. Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, (Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate, with him), for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates, for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "T. STANES and Co. Ltd\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 72 = 1992 SLD 72 = 1992 PTD 430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Commencement of business for tax purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nBusiness commences when a property is ready and services can be offered to licensees, not when revenue is first earned.\n•\nExpenses incurred after readiness are deductible.\nCitation:\n•\nSarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1976) 102 ITR 25 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1204 of 1976, decision dated: 28-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND N.D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V.Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A Subbashini Advocates with him) for Appellant.\nJoseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Ms. A.K. Verma, Advocate of J.B. Dadachanji & Co., with him) for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSARABHAI MANAGEMENT CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 73 = 1992 SLD 73 = 1992 PTD 433 = (1992) 65 TAX 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Exemption period for new industrial undertakings.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe exemption period begins with the manufacture of any marketable product, including intermediates, not only the end-product.\n•\nFindings of fact by the Tribunal are binding unless unreasonable or unsupported.\nCitation:\n•\nCellulose Products of India Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1977) 110 ITR 151 reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1314 of 1976, decision dated: 4-09-1991, hearing DATE : 4-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND N.D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Manoj Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant. J. Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Ms. A.K. Verma, Advocate of J.B. Dadachanji & Co. with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nCELLULOSE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 74 = 1992 SLD 74 = 1992 PTD 439 = (1992) 65 TAX 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Taxability of interest earned on securities deposited outside Pakistan.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest earned from securities deposited outside Pakistan is not taxable under Section 42(1).\nCitation:\n•\nGeneral Bank of Nederland Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax PLD 1991 SC 675 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=42(1) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 9 of 1985, decision dated: 16-09-1991, hearing DATE : 16-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ibrahim Pishori for Applicant Nasarullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs ALGEMENE BANK, NEDERLAND N.V. KARACHI\nvs\nTHE C.I.T. CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 75 = 1992 SLD 75 = 1992 PTD 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Procedural compliance for filing income tax appeals.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe non-filing of the demand notice initially does not invalidate the appeal if it is subsequently filed within the limitation period.\n•\nNotes in the Form of Appeal serve as guidance and are not statutory mandates.\nCitations:\n•\n(1978) 115 ITR 503 and (1968) 21 STC 154 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130, Income Tax Rules, 1982=R.194 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.445/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 24-03-1991,hearing DATE : 19-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. Liaqat Chaudhary, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "A. GASPER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 76 = 1992 SLD 76 = 1992 PTD 447", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Taxability of capital gains on lease rights and cost of acquisition.\nConclusions:\n•\nLeasehold rights are capital assets, and transfer results in capital gains if a cost of acquisition can be determined.\n•\nIssues not raised before lower forums cannot be introduced at the Supreme Court.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1337 of 1979, decision dated: 21st August, 1991(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 30,1978, of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No.306 of 1974)", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND N.D.OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.N. Banerjee, Mridula Ray and P.K. Banerjee, Advocates for Appellant S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 77 = 1992 SLD 77 = 1992 PTD 452", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Business expenditure on air travel of an accompanying spouse.\nConclusions:\n•\nExpenditure on an accompanying spouse can qualify as a business expense if health-related reasons are proven.\n•\nCourts must examine each case individually despite earlier decisions on similar issues.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co. (1985) 153 ITR 422 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1552 and 1553 of 1991 arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 14231 and 14232 of 1990 and Special Leave Petition No. 3457 of 1987, decision dated: 25-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. N. VENKATACHALIAH AND N. M. KASLIWAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.F. Nariman and Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocates for Appellant. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (Ms. A.S ubhashini, Advocate, with him), for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "D.B. MADAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 78 = 1992 SLD 78 = 1992 PTD 455 = (1992) 65 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Deemed income under Section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nConclusions:\n•\nDeemed income provisions address undisclosed investments, cash, or expenditures not reflected in accounts.\n•\nAssessment requires detailed scrutiny and procedural safeguards, including approval from higher authorities.\nCitation:\n•\n(1987) PTD 300 quoted.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(b) ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.64/IB and 65/IB of 1990-91, decision dated: 5-08-1991, hearing DATE : 5-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hamid, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 79 = 1992 SLD 79 = 1992 PTD 466 = (1992) 65 TAX 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Effect of a partner's death on the continuation of a partnership.\nConclusions:\n•\nWithout a specific agreement, the death of a partner dissolves the firm.\n•\nAssessments must be separated for the periods before and after the dissolution.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar (1982) 136 ITR 379 followed.\n•\nKaithari Lungi Stores v. C.I.T. (1976) 104 ITR 160 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 116 and 117 of 1980 (References Nos. 83 and 84 of 1980), decision dated: 9-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND ABDUL HADI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nNALLI SILK EMPORIUM and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 80 = 1992 SLD 80 = 1992 PTD 475 = (1992) 65 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Tax exemption for export companies and receipts from import license transfers.\nConclusions:\n•\nRevenue from import license transfers does not qualify as export income under exemption rules.\n•\nExemption provisions in tax laws are subject to strict interpretation.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Wheel and Rim Co. of India Ltd. (1977) 107 ITR 168 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 632 to 634 of 1980 (References Nos. 252 to 254 of 1980), decision dated: 4-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND SOMASUNDARAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nEASTERN CHEMICALS AND MINERALS PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 81 = 1992 SLD 81 = 1992 PTD 483 = (1992) 65 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Reassessment under Section 150 and limitations due to findings in appeals.\nConclusions:\n•\nSection 150(1) lifts limitations for reassessments following findings in appeal, even for cases transitioning from the 1922 Act to the 1961 Act.\n•\nTransitory provisions aim to ensure procedural continuity.\nCitation:\n•\nR.B. Seth Gujar Mal Modi v. C.I.T. (1972) 84 ITR 261 clarified as per incuriam.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34(3),34 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1934 of 1978, decision dated: 12-09-1991(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 21, 1977, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.227 of 1977)", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN V. RAMASWAMI AND N.D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Civil Appeal No. 1934 of 1978, decided on 12th September, 1991 (Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 21, 1977, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 227 of 1977)\nMs. Rachna Gupta, Advocate for Appellant. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Respondents\nMAHADEO PRASAD RAIS by his Legal Heirs", + "Party Name:": "MAHADEO PRASAD RAIS by his Legal Heirs\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, A WARD, GORAKHPUR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 82 = 1992 SLD 82 = 1992 PTD 494 = (1992) 65 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Penalty for concealment of income.\nConclusions:\n•\nConcealment is presumed if returned income is less than 80% of assessed income, but this presumption is rebuttable.\n•\nTribunal must analyze if the presumption is countered based on evidence.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case Referred No.91 of 1984, decision dated: 15-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " A. LAKSHMANA RAO AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.R. Ashok for the Commissioner. Y. Ratnakar for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBRINDAVAN HOTEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 83 = 1992 SLD 83 = 1992 PTD 502 = (1992) 65 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Taxability of unrealized income under the real income principle.\nConclusions:\n•\nIncome must materialize or accrue in real terms; hypothetical or unreceived income is not taxable.\n•\nEntries in books of account alone do not establish income accrual.\nCitation:\n•\nState Bank of Travancore v. C.I.T. (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.12 of 1989, decision dated: 25-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K.P. BALANARAYANA MARAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R.Menon and N.R.K.Nair for the Commissioner. B.S.Krishnan for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKERALA STATE DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 84 = 1992 SLD 84 = 1992 PTD 512 = (1992) 65 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Inclusion of dividend income from shares transferred to a wife as Haqmehr.\nConclusions:\n•\nDividend income from shares transferred to a wife in lieu of Haqmehr cannot be included in the transferor's income.\nCitation:\n•\nMian Aziz A. Sheikh v. Commissioner of Income Tax PLD 1989 SC 613 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=16(3)(a)(iii) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.89 of 1972, decision dated: 9-02-1991,hearing DATE : 9-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M. MAHBOOB AHMAD C.J. AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Applicant. Muhammad Ilays Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Mian NASEER A. SHEIKH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 85 = 1992 SLD 85 = 1992 PTD 513 = (1992) 65 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nReassessment limitations under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n2.\nNature of assessment and its implications in tax proceedings.\n3.\nImpact of rectification on assessment orders.\nConclusions:\n•\nReassessment Prohibitions: Once reassessment is completed under a provision, it cannot be reopened under Section 65 unless specific exceptions apply.\n•\nAssessment Definition: The term “assessment” includes computation of income, determination of tax payable, and the entire procedural framework of taxation.\n•\nEffect of Rectification: A rectified order replaces the original assessment order and becomes the valid assessment.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Pakistan Tobacco Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (1991 PID 355) referred.\n•\nVedantham Ranghaviah v. Third Additional Income Tax Officer (1963) 49 ITR 314 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,59,65(1)(c),59(1),156 ", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-428, 623, 624 and 429 of 1991, decision dated: 2-01-1992, hearing DATE : 11-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehanul Hasan Naqvi, for Petitioner. Waheed Farooqui and Nasrullah Awan for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMJAD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 86 = 1992 SLD 86 = 1992 PTD 523 = (1992) 65 TAX 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nScope of questions referable to High Court under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act.\n2.\nApplication of res judicata in tax proceedings.\nConclusions:\n•\nReferable Questions: Questions of fact cannot be referred under Section 66(1), and the High Court must address only the questions framed by the Tribunal.\n•\nRes Judicata Application: Prior tax decisions are not binding if they are flawed, reached without proper inquiry, or contradict new evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nNew Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1963) VIII Taxes 268.\n•\nMst. Samina Shaukat Ayub Khan v. Commissioner of Income-tax PLD 1981 SC 85.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.104-K to 111-K of 1984, decision dated: 23rd May, 1991, DATE bf hearing: 13-05-1991(On appeal from the judgment/order of High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 11-10-1982 in Income-tax References Nos.16/67, 28/72, 81/72, 724 to 727 and 811/72)", + "Judge Name:": " ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, AJMAL MIAN AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B\nvs\nMessrs FARROKH CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "0000 0 =", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "GLAXO LABORATORIES LIMITED\nvs\nINSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 88 = 1992 SLD 88 = 1992 PTD 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue: Interpretation of Section 66-A and its applicability to revised assessments.\nConclusions:\n•\nDoctrine of Merger: Once an appellate order is issued, the original assessment merges with the appellate order and cannot be revised independently under Section 66-A.\n•\nJurisdiction of Revisional Authority: Inspecting Assistant Commissioners cannot revise original assessments once an appellate order is passed.\nCitations:\n•\nKhalid Malik and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 Kar. 1.\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Wahiduzzaman (1965 PTD 283) referred.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66A, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.429-K of 1991, decision dated: 14-11-1991, hearing DATE : 14-11-1991(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sindh dated 24-10-1991 passed in C.P.No.D-384 of 1991)", + "Judge Name:": " SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fatehali W. Vellani Advocate Supreme Court and Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 89 = 1992 SLD 89 = 1992 PTD 570 = (1992) 65 TAX 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTaxability of “free reserves” under the Constitution of Pakistan (1962).\n2.\nApplication of double taxation principles in income tax.\nConclusions:\n•\nFree Reserves: Not considered income for taxation under Entry 43 of the Constitution's Third Schedule.\n•\nDouble Taxation: While double taxation can be legislated, it requires clear statutory language. Super-tax on free reserves already assessed to income tax constitutes impermissible double taxation.\nCitations:\n•\nMaharajkumar Gopal Saran v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1935) 3 ITR 237.\n•\nUnited Provinces v. Mst. Atiqa Begum AIR 1941 FC 16.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,35,23 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.380 of 1991, decision dated: 31st October, 1991. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sindh. in ITR No. 34 of 1983 dated 22-4-1991)", + "Judge Name:": " SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax COMPANYS II, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs NATIONAL FOOD LABORATORIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 90 = 1992 SLD 90 = 1992 PTD 576 = (1992) 65 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nPowers of Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 148.\n2.\nPenalty for non-compliance and procedural fairness.\n3.\nPrinciples of natural justice and protection against harassment.\nConclusions:\n•\nPowers of ITO: The ITO has broad powers to summon witnesses and require document production, akin to a court under the Civil Procedure Code, but must exercise these judiciously.\n•\nNon-compliance Penalty: Penalty for non-compliance under Section 148 applies only to a single default per notice. If the ITO issues subsequent notices for the same purpose, the right to impose penalties for prior defaults is waived.\n•\nJudicial Fairness: Orders must be free from mala fide intentions or irrelevant considerations. Persistent notices for the same purpose may amount to harassment and are unsustainable.\nCitations:\n•\n1985 CLC 2771 and PLD 1967 Lah. 1112 referenced for principles of natural justice.\n•\n1989 PTD 617 referenced for agricultural income investigations.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=14,2(6c),4,3,4,2(6C),55 Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=ThirdSched..EntryNo.43 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.123-K of 1983, decision dated: 8-10-1991, hearing DATE : 29-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SHAFIUR RAHMAN, MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR AND SALEEM AKHTAR, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Shaikh Haider and Ali Ahmed Fazeel, Advocates Supreme Court with Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\nvs\nPAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 91 = 1992 SLD 91 = 1992 PTD 596 = (1992) 65 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzRlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nPowers of Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 148.\n2.\nPenalty for non-compliance and procedural fairness.\n3.\nPrinciples of natural justice and protection against harassment.\nConclusions:\n•\nPowers of ITO: The ITO has broad powers to summon witnesses and require document production, akin to a court under the Civil Procedure Code, but must exercise these judiciously.\n•\nNon-compliance Penalty: Penalty for non-compliance under Section 148 applies only to a single default per notice. If the ITO issues subsequent notices for the same purpose, the right to impose penalties for prior defaults is waived.\n•\nJudicial Fairness: Orders must be free from mala fide intentions or irrelevant considerations. Persistent notices for the same purpose may amount to harassment and are unsustainable.\nCitations:\n•\n1985 CLC 2771 and PLD 1967 Lah. 1112 referenced for principles of natural justice.\n•\n1989 PTD 617 referenced for agricultural income investigations.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=148,165, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.192/HQ and 193/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 2nd March 1992, hearing DATE : 12-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Shirazi for Appellant. Asrar Rauf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 92 = 1992 SLD 92 = 1992 PTD 612 = (1992) 65 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nConditions for reopening assessments under Section 65.\n2.\nExclusions from the Self-Assessment Scheme (1986-87).\n3.\nTreatment of property income and doctrine of res judicata in tax matters.\nConclusions:\n•\nReassessment Criteria: Reopening assessments under Section 65 requires definite information and prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC). Lack of IAC approval invalidates reassessment notices.\n•\nSelf-Assessment Exclusions: Exclusion from the Self-Assessment Scheme due to concealment does not equate to selection for total audit.\n•\nProperty Income: Annual letting value of property is based on reasonable rental expectations and cannot be reduced by intermediary investments.\n•\nRes Judicata in Tax: Decisions in one tax year do not bind subsequent years, but they are persuasive.\nCitations:\n•\nLaw and Practice of Income Tax by N.A. Palkhivala and New Jehangir Vakil Mills v. CIT referenced for res judicata principles.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,65(2),59,19,20,21, ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.28/LB, 29/LB, 30/LB and 31/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 11-01-1992, hearing DATE : 2-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": " INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj Khalid for Appellant. Arshad Malik D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 93 = 1992 SLD 93 = 1992 PTD 621 = (1992) 66 TAX 55", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nNature of right shares as capital assets or revenue gains.\n2.\nCriteria for determining an adventure in the nature of trade. \nConclusions:\n•\nCapital Assets: Right shares linked to existing holdings are capital investments, not stock-in-trade. Gains from their sale are accretions to capital and not taxable as revenue gains.\n•\nAdventure in the Nature of Trade: Transactions must be evaluated on facts and intentions. A sale linked to a business scheme for profit may be taxed as revenue gain, but isolated sales of capital assets are not.\nCitations:\n•\nRam Nairan Sons Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1961) and Irrigation Industries Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenues (1962) referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(4),66,66(1) Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=105-G ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 381 to 385 of 1980, decision dated: 1st February, 1992, hearing DATE : 2-03-1991(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18-4-1975, passed in T.Rs. Nos. 5, 15, 17 of 1968, 21 of 1969 and 86 of 1972)", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., RUSTAM S. SIDHWA AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NASEER A. SHEIKH and 4 others\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (INVESTIGATION), LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 94 = 1992 SLD 94 = 1992 PTD 636 = (1992) 65 TAX 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTaxation under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between Pakistan and the United Kingdom.\n2.\nClassification of income as royalty or industrial and commercial profit. \nConclusions:\n•\nRoyalty Exemption: Payments qualifying as royalties under the agreement are exempt. Payments for technical services are excluded from industrial and commercial profit, making them taxable.\n•\nTechnical Services: Expertise and advice provided by staff constitute personal services and are taxable under Article II(1)(k) of the treaty.\nCitations:\n•\nGlaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (1991 PTD 195) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.70 of 1984, decision dated: 19-01-1992, hearing DATE : 2-10-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, ACTG. C.J. AND QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fathe Ali W. Vellani for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "GLAXO GROUP LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 95 = 1992 SLD 95 = 1992 PTD 651 = (1993) 199 ITR 501", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nValidity of tax avoidance schemes under Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970.\n2.\nDeductibility of payments labeled as annuities.\nConclusions:\n•\nTax Avoidance Schemes: The decision in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Plummer (1980) establishes that annuities structured under such schemes qualify for deduction unless proven as shams.\n•\nArtificial Transactions: Payments retain their annuity status if backed by genuine contractual obligations, even if designed for tax benefits.\nCitations:\n•\nInland Revenue Commissioners v. Plummer (1980) and Ramsay (W.T.) Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1982) referenced.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970=52(1) ", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Nil, decision dated: 30-04-1991, dates of hearing- 12th, L3th,14th March and 30-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " BOFOREBALCOMBE, MCCOWN L.J. AND SIR CHRISTOPHER SLADE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Andrew Thornhill Q.C. and Kevin Prosser for the Tax-payers. Jonathan Parker Q.C. and Peter Cranfield for the Crown", + "Party Name:": "MOODIE and another\nvs\nINLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 96 = 1992 SLD 96 = 1992 PTD 668 = (1992) 65 TAX 254 = 1992 SCMR 763", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-S. 23-Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss.10(2) & 2(6BB)-Gratuity payable to the employees is an allowable deduction.\n \nCommissioner of Income-tax, Karachi v. Messrs Pakistan Security Printing Corporation 1985 P T D 413 approved.\n \nMessrs S.J.G. Fazal Elahi Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Zone, Karachi 1989 P T D 579 ref.\n \nCommissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. N.L. Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd. 1989 P T D 169 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2),2(6BB) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23 ", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.514-K of 1991, decision dated: 29-12-1991, hearing DATE : 29-12-1991(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 23-9-1991 passed in I.T.R. No.11 of 1985)", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, COMPANIES II, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ORIENTAL DYES & CHEMICAL CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 97 = 1992 SLD 97 = 1992 PTD 679 = 1997 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-tax-Firm-Registration-Hindu undivided family-Partnership between Karta and undivided member-Member not contributing any cash asset but contributing only skill and labour-Partnership valid-Firm entitled to registration-Income Tax Act, 1922, S.26-A-Hindu Gains of Learning Act. 1930, Ss.2 & 3. Shah Prabhudas Gulabchand v. C.I.T. (1970) 77 I T R 870 (Bom.) and Pitamberdas Bhikhabhai & Co. v. C.I.T. (1964) 53 I T R 341 (Guj.) overruled.\n \nC was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family which carried on business in cloth. N, one of the sons of C, joined the business on a monthly salary in April, 1959. With effect from November 1, 1959, the business was converted into a partnership between C, the Karta of the undivided family, and N. The deed of partnership dated November 12, 1959, indicated that N was a working partner having a 35 per cent. share in the profits and losses of the firm and the remaining 65 per cent. share was held by C as Karta of the family. N did not contribute any cash assets towards the capital of the firm but was contributing only his skill and labour. The Income Tax Officer rejected the firm's application for registration under section 26-A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, on the ground that there was no valid partnership, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, upheld the decision of the Income Tax Officer. The High Court, on a reference affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, holding that there was no valid partnership. On appeal to the Supreme Court:\n \nHeld, reversing the decision of the High Court, that the mere fact that N had neither separated from the family nor brought in any cash asset as his capital contribution to the partnership but was contributing only his skill and labour, could not in law detract from a valid partnership being created. The partnership between C, as the Karta and N was valid and the firm was entitled to registration.\n \nIt is not correct to say that, under Hindu Law, there can be no contract inter se between the undivided members of a Hindu undivided family.\n \nBy the Court: The aim of business is earning of profit. When an individual contributes cash assets to become a partner of a firm in consideration of a share in its profits, such contribution helps and, at any rate, is calculated to help achievement of the purpose of the firm, namely, to earn profits. The same purpose is undoubtedly achieved also when an individual, in place of cash assets, contributes his skill and labour in consideration of a share in the profits of the firm. Just like a cash asset, the mental and physical capacity generated by the skill and labour of an individual is possessed by or is a possession of such individual. Indeed, skill and labour are by themselves possessions. 'Any possession' is one of the dictionary meanings of the word 'property'. In its wider connotation, therefore, the mental and physical capacity generated by skill and labour of an individual and indeed the skill and labour by themselves would be the property of the individual possessing them. They are certainly assets of that individual and there is no reason why they cannot be contributed as a consideration for earning profit in the business of a firm.\n \nLachhman Das v. C.I.T. (1948) 16 ITR 35 (PC) and Sunder Singh Majithia v. C.I.T. (1942) 101 T R 457 (PC) rel.\n \nObservations of the Supreme Court in Firm Bhagat Ram Mohanlal v. CEPT (1956) 29 I T R 52 (SC) commented upon and held restricted to the special facts of that case.\n \nObservations of the Supreme Court in Ratanchand Darbarilal v. C.I.T. (1985) 155 1 T R 720 explained.\n \nI.P. Munavalli v. C.I.T. (1969) 74 I T R 529 (Mys.), Ramchand Nawalrai v. C.I.T. (1981) 130 I T R 826 (MP) and C.I.T. v. Gupta Brothers (1981) 1311 T R 492 (All.) approved.\n \nShah Prabhudas Gulabchand v. C.I.T. (1970) 771 T R 870 (Bom.) and Pitamberdas Bhikhabhai & Co. v. C.I.T. (1964) 53 I T R 341 (Guj.) overruled.\n \nDecision of the Bombay High Court reversed.\n \nAddanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishanappa (1966) A I R 1966 SC 1300; C.I.T. ,. D-C. Shah (1969) 73 1 T R 692 (SC); C.I.T. v. Sir Hukumchand Marnalai & Co. (1070) 78 1 T R 18 (SC); Dhanwatcy (V.D.) v. C.I.T. (1968) 68 1 T R 365 (SC); Jitmal Bhuramal v. C.I.T. (1962) 44 1 T R 887 (SC); Jugal Kishore Baldco Shahai v. C.I.T. (1967) 63 I T R 238 (SC) and Pichappa Chettiar (P.K.P.S.) v. Chockalingam Pillai (1934) A I R 1934 PC 192 ref\n \n(b) Words and phrases-\n \n'Learning', 'skill' and 'labour', meanings of.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26A ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1187 of i9?6, decision dated: 24-10-1991(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 122, 1975, of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No.95 of 1965)", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND N.D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harish Salve and Mrs. A.K. Verma, Advocates (of J.B. Dadachanji and Co.) for Appellants. S.S. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar and Ms. A Subhashini Advocates with him) for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "CHANDRAKANT MANUAL SHAH and another\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOM ETAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 98 = 1992 SLD 98 = 1992 PTD 693 = 1992 ITR 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Appeal No.1490 of 1979 (Vijaipat Singhania v. C.I.T.) was by special leave against the and order, dated September 6, f978, of the Allahabad High Court in ITR No.17 of 1977.\n \nSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3792 of 1979 (Sripat Singhania v. C.I.T.) was against the and order, dated September 25, 1978 of the Allahabad High Court in ITR No.76 of 1977.\n \nSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3794 of 1979 (Ajaipat Singhania v. C.I.T.) was against the and order, dated September 6, 1978, of the Allahabad High Court in ITR No.302 of 1977.\n \nSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3795 of 1979 was against the and order, dated September 6, 1978 of the Allahabad High Court in ITR No.1405 of 1977. The of the High Court is reported as C.I.T. v. Gopal Krishna Singhania (1980) 121 ITR 260 (All.).\n \nIncome tax-Donations-Donations to charitable trusts or institutions-Donations made in kind-Deduction not available-Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, S.80-G.\n \nDonations made in kind to a charitable trust or institution are not covered by section 80-G of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, and an assessee' making such a donation is not entitled to relief under section 80-G.\n \nH.H. Sri Rama Verma v. C.I.T. (1991) 187 ITR 308 (SC) followed.\n \nDecision of the Allahabad High Court in C.I.T. v. Gopal Krishna Singhania (1980) 121 ITR 260 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80-G ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1490, S.L.P. (Civil) 3792, 3794 and 3795 of 1979, decision dated: 4-10-1991Civil Appeal No.1490 of 1979 with Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 3792, 3794 and 3795 of 1979", + "Judge Name:": " RANGANATH MISRA, C.J. I AND P.B. SAWANT, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Girish Chandra, Senior Advocate (M.M. Kshatriya, Advocate with him) for the Appellants (in all the matters). Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Respondent (in all the matters)", + "Party Name:": "VIJAIPAT SINGHANIA and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 99 = 1992 SLD 99 = 1992 PTD 695 = 1992 ITR 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nTax exemptions for religious trusts and the applicability of res judicata in tax proceedings.\nConclusions:\n•\nProperties of religious trusts used for religious or charitable purposes are exempt from income tax under Section 11 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\n•\nFundamental facts established in previous tax proceedings should not be altered without material changes, reinforcing the principles of res judicata in tax cases.\nCitations:\n•\nSecretary of State for India-in-Council v. Radha Swami Sat Sang (1945) followed.\n•\nDecision in C.I.T. v. Radhasoami Satsang (1981) reversed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=11 ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 10574 to 10583 of 1983, decision dated: 15-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " RANGANATH MISRA, C.J.I. AND KULDIP SINGH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Anil Srivastava, Vinita Ghorpade, Santosh Aggarwal and Bhargav Desai, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant.S.G. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (B.B. Ahuja, S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "RADHASOAMI SATSANG\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 100 = 1992 SLD 100 = 1992 PTD 703 = 1992 ITR 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nValidity of reassessments under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, when expenditures are adjusted retrospectively.\nConclusions:\n•\nReassessment is valid when an appellate order under the repealed 1922 Act requires adjustments for a subsequent year under the 1961 Act. Double deductions for the same expenditure are inequitable and invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nDecision in C.I.T. (Addl.) v. Kamlapat Moti Lal (1977) affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1344 of 1978, decision dated: 1st November, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND N.D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "(Appeal by special leave against the judgment and order, dated 23rd September, 1976, of the Allahabad High Court in ITR No. 819 of 1.973. The judgment of the High Court is reported as C.I.T. (Addl.) v. Kamlapat Moti Lal (1977)110 ITR 769 (All.)).\nRaja Ram Agarwal, Senior Advocate (Pramod Swarup with him) for the Appellant. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Msl. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for the Respondent", + "Party Name:": "KAMLAPAT MOTT LAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (ADDL.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 101 = 1992 SLD 101 = 1992 PTD 705 = 1992 ITR 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzS1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nImposition of penalties for failure to file tax returns voluntarily and the role of bona fide belief.\nConclusions:\n•\nBona fide belief that income is below the taxable limit can negate mens rea, an essential element for imposing penalties. However, this constitutes a question of law subject to judicial review.\nCitations:\n•\nGujarat Travancore Agency v. C.I.T. (1989) applied.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 240 to 248 of 1978, decision dated: 1st February, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " N.M. KASLIWAL AND K RAMASWAMY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Rajappa and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Appellant. U.S. Prasad, Advocate for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nKALYAN DAS RASTOGI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 102 = 1992 SLD 102 = 1992 PTD 708", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nSurcharge on income retained for working capital under the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nProvisions for tax liability fall within the scope of income retained for working capital requirements, exempting it from surcharge calculation.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Pakistan Tobacco Ltd. (1988 PTD 66) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.2 of 1987, decision dated: 31st October, 1991, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1991(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 9-04-1977 of the Allahabad High Court in 1TA No.1185 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Sirajul Haq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs MUGHAL TOBACCO CO. LTD.KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 103 = 1992 SLD 103 = 1992 PTD 709 = (1992) 65 TAX 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nScope of remand proceedings in income tax assessments.\nConclusions:\n•\nRemand orders restrict the scope of reassessment to specified issues. Additions under unrelated provisions require compliance with the notice procedure stipulated under Section 34 of the repealed Act.\nCitations:\n•\nRambilas Chandram v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1985) distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2A),34 ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Applications Nos.44 to 48 of 1986, decision dated: 12-11-1991, hearing DATE : 12-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Dr. Nasim Ahmad Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nNATIONAL CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 104 = 1992 SLD 104 = 1992 PTD 713 = (1992) 65 TAX 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nConcealment of income and revised returns.\n2.\nImmunity from penalties under Sections 57 and 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\nConclusions:\n•\nFiling revised returns during assessment does not absolve liability for earlier concealment unless the omissions were unintentional. Deliberate concealments discovered by authorities invite penalties.\n•\nImmunity under Section 57 applies only when omissions are discovered and corrected voluntarily.\nCitations:\n•\nSivagmintha v. C.I.T. (52 I.T.R. 591) and C.I.T. v. Radhay Shyam (123 I.T.R. 125) referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=111,57 ", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 196 (1B) to 200 (IB) of 1990-91, decision dated: 29-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": " JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAYED AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Hussain for Appellant. Taskeen Muzaffar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 105 = 1992 SLD 105 = 1992 PTD 719 = (1992) 65 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nOwnership of property under lease agreements.\n2.\nTaxation under Section 12(13) of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nConclusions:\n•\nOwnership under lease agreements depends on specific terms. In cases where the lessee holds complete control and receives rents or advances, they may be deemed the owner for taxation under Section 12(13).\nCitations:\n•\nDistinguished: Bachu Bai F.E. Dinshaw v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1967 PTD 170).\n•\nPrinciple: Fiscal statutes require strict construction, interpreted in favor of the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(13) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.71 of 1987, decision dated: 27-01-1992, hearing DATE : 18-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Appellant. Sirajul Haq for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs MEHRAN ASSOCIATES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 106 = 1992 SLD 106 = 1992 PTD 734", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nTax liability under First Schedule, Part III, and working capital requirements. \nConclusion:\n•\nProvision for tax liability qualifies as income retained for working capital and is exempt from surcharge.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.104 of 1987, decision dated: 28-01-1992, hearing DATE : 28-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSUR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Muhammad Ali Seena for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax CENTRAL ZONE B KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs E.M.I. (PAK.) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 486 = 2000 SLD 486 = 2000 PTD 2014 = (1999) 235 ITR 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDistinction between income and capital.\n2.\nTreatment of profits on sales of business assets and government incentives.\nConclusions:\n•\nProfits on sale of business-related materials and import entitlements are taxable as income.\n•\nRetrospective amendments (Finance Act, 1990) clarified such receipts as business income.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Finance Act, 1990 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 192 of 1989, decision dated: 5-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. LAHOTI AND C. K. MAHAJAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for the Commissioner S.K. Aggarwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nR.D. RAMNATH & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 107 = 1992 SLD 107 = 1992 PTCL 48 = 1992 PTD 739", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nVerifiability of purchases and sales for taxation.\n2.\nDepreciation and capitalization rules.\nConclusions:\n•\nUnverifiable purchases and sales require evidence before rejection.\n•\nDepreciation must account for actual costs, including installation and pre-production expenses, and is allowable even for a single day of use.\nCitations:\n•\nPrinciples on depreciation and capitalization emphasized.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(l)(b),ThirdSched.paras.5,8(7) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 537/1,8/138/1991-92, decision dated: 7-01-1992, hearing DATE : 7-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASIM SABIR SYED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadeer, Ch. Muhammad Sadiq and Ch. Salman Bashir for Appellant. S. Roomi Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 108 = 1992 SLD 108 = 1992 PTD 750", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nIncome-tax liability as retained income for surcharge purposes.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax liability qualifies as retained income and is exempt from surcharge.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 followed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.6 of 1987, decision dated: 4-11-1991, hearing DATE : 4-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Ali Athar for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO. LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 109 = 1992 SLD 109 = 1992 PTD 751 = (1992) 66 TAX 47 = (1993) 67 TAX 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nReopening of assessments under Sections 65 and 34.\n2.\nAdditional assessment requirements.\nConclusions:\n•\nAssessments cannot be reopened based on a change of opinion. New facts must emerge for valid reassessment.\nCitations:\n•\nEdulji Dinshaw v. Income Tax Officer (PLD 1990 SC 399) followed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=34 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65,136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.88 of 1987, decision dated: 14-01-1992, hearing DATE : 14-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Nasim Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONEC, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 110 = 1992 SLD 110 = 1992 PTD 755", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUUzTFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nProvision for tax liability under surcharge calculations.\nConclusion:\n•\nTax liability excluded from surcharge under working capital requirements. \nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988 PTD 66).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIII,4 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.19 of 1987, decision dated: 18-11-1991, hearing DATE : 18-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs SAEED MARBLE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 111 = 1992 SLD 111 = 1992 PTD 756", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of tax liabilities for surcharge purposes.\n2.\nDefinition of income retained for working capital. \nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities, when retained as working capital, are exempt from surcharge calculations.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 consistently applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIII ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.18 of 1987, decision dated: 18-11-1991, hearing DATE : 18-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Saleem-ud-Din Ahmed for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs GANNON DUNKERLEY & CO. (PAKISTAN) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 112 = 1992 SLD 112 = 1992 PTD 757", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of tax liabilities for surcharge purposes.\n2.\nDefinition of income retained for working capital. \nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities, when retained as working capital, are exempt from surcharge calculations.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 consistently applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.21 of 1987, decision dated: 19-11-1991, hearing DATE : 19-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs J.L. MORISON, SONS & JONES (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 113 = 1992 SLD 113 = 1992 PTD 758", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of tax liabilities for surcharge purposes.\n2.\nDefinition of income retained for working capital. \nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities, when retained as working capital, are exempt from surcharge calculations.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 consistently applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=10,FirstSched.,PartIII & Para ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.116 of 1987, heard on 4-02-1992, hearing DATE : 4-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farooqui for Applicant. Nasim Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs UNITED LINER AGENCY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 114 = 1992 SLD 114 = 1992 PTD 760", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of tax liabilities for surcharge purposes.\n2.\nDefinition of income retained for working capital. \nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities, when retained as working capital, are exempt from surcharge calculations.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 consistently applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIII,Para.A,10 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.22 of 1987, decision dated: 19-11-1991, hearing DATE : 19-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID ARID MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs MAY & BAKERS LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 115 = 1992 SLD 115 = 1992 PTD 762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of tax liabilities for surcharge purposes.\n2.\nDefinition of income retained for working capital. \nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities, when retained as working capital, are exempt from surcharge calculations.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 consistently applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.37 of 1987, decision dated: 18-12-1991, hearing DATE : 18-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Sirajul Haq for Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs BOOTS CO. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 116 = 1992 SLD 116 = 1992 PTD 763 = 1993 PTCL 712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of tax liabilities for surcharge purposes.\n2.\nDefinition of income retained for working capital. \nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities, when retained as working capital, are exempt from surcharge calculations.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 consistently applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartIII ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.72 of 1987, decision dated: 16-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN AUTOMOBILE CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 117 = 1992 SLD 117 = 1992 PTD 765", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of tax liabilities for surcharge purposes.\n2.\nDefinition of income retained for working capital. \nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities, when retained as working capital, are exempt from surcharge calculations.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 consistently applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.74 of 1987, decision dated: 16th.December, 1991, hearing DATE : 16-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., CENTRAL ZONEA, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs COMMODITIES TRADING LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 118 = 1992 SLD 118 = 1992 PTD 766", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of tax liabilities for surcharge purposes.\n2.\nDefinition of income retained for working capital. \nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities, when retained as working capital, are exempt from surcharge calculations.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 consistently applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.75 of 1987, decision dated: 16-12-1991, hearing DATE : 16-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant", + "Party Name:": "C.I.T., CENTRAL ZONEA, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs TRANSCLEAR PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 119 = 1992 SLD 119 = 1992 PTD 768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of tax liabilities for surcharge purposes.\n2.\nDefinition of income retained for working capital. \nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities, when retained as working capital, are exempt from surcharge calculations.\nCitations:\n•\n1988 PTD 66 consistently applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 78 of 1987, decision dated: 18-12-1991, hearing DATE : 18-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MAMOON KAZI AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Haider for Applicant. Sirajul Haq for Mahmood A. Hashmi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs ALLWIN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 120 = 1992 SLD 120 = 1992 PTD 769 = (1991) 187 ITR 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6Q1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nPenal interest for delayed returns.\nConclusion:\n•\nReduction in penal interest is justified for periods before the award date but not thereafter.\nCitations:\n•\nNo specific case cited; principles of fairness applied.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 642 of 1989, decision dated: 7-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.K GULATI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.C. Bhardwaj for Petitioners", + "Party Name:": "VIVEK NARAIN and others\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 121 = 1992 SLD 121 = 1992 PTD 771 = (1991) 187 ITR 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTreatment of business expenditures under income tax.\n2.\nSurtax as a non-deductible expenditure.\nConclusions:\n•\nExpenditure on leased employee accommodations is subject to disallowance.\n•\nSurtax is not deductible under business expenditure provisions.\nCitations:\n•\nFollowed: CIT v. Forbes, Ewart and Figgis (P.) Ltd. (1982).\n•\nDissented: Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1989).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.19 of 1989, decision dated: 11-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.B. Andhyarjuna, D.H. Dwarkadas and GA. Tambe for the. Assessee. G.S. Jetley, Mrs. Manjula Singh and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "LUBRIZOL INDIA LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 122 = 1992 SLD 122 = 1992 PTD 798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nAmalgamation and depreciation.\n2.\nValuation of stock during amalgamation.\n3.\nTreatment of gratuity and employee remuneration.\nConclusions:\n•\nDepreciation for assets taken over in amalgamation excludes unabsorbed depreciation of the predecessor.\n•\nAssessee can follow its own valuation method for closing stock post-amalgamation.\n•\nGratuity exempt under Section 10(10) is not considered for disallowance, and extended financial years increase allowable limits for employee remuneration.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Dharampur Leather Co. Ltd. (1966) and C.I.T. v. Shahzada Nand and Sons (1966).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-Reference No.15 of 1989, decision dated: 17-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND TD. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley, Senior Advocate, Mrs. Manjula Singh and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner. S.E. Dastur, I.M. Munim and S.J. Mehta for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 123 = 1992 SLD 123 = 1992 PTD 813 = (1991) 187 ITR 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTribunal findings based on concessions by assessee.\n2.\nIgnoring procedural filings (e.g., Form No. 11-A).\nConclusions:\n•\nFindings based on concessions do not raise questions of law.\n•\nIgnoring essential procedural filings can raise questions of law.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No. 40 of 1990, decision dated: 25-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY C.J. AND R.K GULATI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "SHRI RAM WASHER RAHAT INDUSTRIES\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 124 = 1992 SLD 124 = 1992 PTD 828 = (1991) 187 ITR 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nTiming of bonus liability accrual.\nConclusion:\n•\nAccrual timing of bonus liability is a legal question.\nCitation:\n•\nState Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.5 of 1990, decision dated: 20-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.A. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Upadhyaya for the Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "BANARAS STATE BANK\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 125 = 1992 SLD 125 = 1992 PTD 829 = (1991) 187 ITR 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nCivil court jurisdiction over income-tax assessments.\nConclusion:\n•\nCivil courts lack jurisdiction to grant injunctions against income-tax proceedings due to statutory bar.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.3403 of 1989, decision dated: 11-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " S.S. SODHI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Mittal for the Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "UNION OF INDIA and another\nvs\nROMESH CHANDER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 126 = 1992 SLD 126 = 1992 PTD 830 = (1993) 68 TAX 213 = (1991) 187 ITR 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nPenalty for income concealment.\n2.\nApplicability of new laws for penalties.\nConclusions:\n•\nConcealment must be proven beyond income additions in assessments.\n•\nSection 297(2)(g) is valid under constitutional scrutiny.\nCitations:\n•\nJain Bros. v. Union of India (1970).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.202 of 1974, decision dated: 1st August, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOBARAND D.R. DHANUKA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley, K.C. Sidhwa and Mrs. Manjula Singh for the Commissioner. N.A. Dalvi instructed by Messrs Mulla and Mulla for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nAARKAY SAREE MUSEUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 127 = 1992 SLD 127 = 1992 PTD 834 = (1991) 187 ITR 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nMaintaining applications for references under time-barred conditions.\nConclusion:\n•\nHigh Court cannot entertain applications for references when Tribunal rejection is due to time-bar, as no provision analogous to Section 66(3) exists in the 1961 Act.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case Petitions Nos. 65 and fib of 1990, decision dated: 25-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND SOMASUNDARAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bhasker for K. Mani and M. Krishna Kumar for the Petitioners. C. V. Rajan for the Respondents", + "Party Name:": "S.P.G.C. METAL INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 128 = 1992 SLD 128 = 1992 PTD 837 = (1991) 187 ITR 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nScope of rectification powers under Section 154.\nConclusion:\n•\nRectification is limited to apparent mistakes. Status changes from registered firm to association of persons cannot be made under Section 154.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Bhawani Prasad Girdhari Lal & Co. (1990).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.11 of 1978, decision dated: 30-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.,4. SHANNA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBHAWANI PRASAD GIRDHART LAL & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 129 = 1992 SLD 129 = 1992 PTD 840 = (1991) 187 ITR 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nAcceptance of valuation reports and income explanations.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal’s rejection of valuer reports or explanations for income does not raise questions of law when backed by cogent reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.8 of 1987, decision dated: 10-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND RA. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "Smt. PROMILLA GROVER\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 130 = 1992 SLD 130 = 1992 PTD 842 = (1991) 187 ITR 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRejection of account books.\n2.\nIncome estimates.\nConclusions:\n•\nIncorrect statutory reference (e.g., Section 145(1) vs. 145(2)) does not raise legal questions if underlying rejection is justified.\n•\nIncome estimates based on evidence do not warrant further legal examination.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.106 of 1985, decision dated: 10-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND RA. SHANNA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "TEXTILE AGENTS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 131 = 1992 SLD 131 = 1992 PTD 844 = (1991) 187 ITR 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nDisclosure obligations for gifts to minors.\nConclusion:\n•\nNo legal obligation exists to disclose gifts to minors, and reassessment based on such non-disclosure is invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.58 of 1990, decision dated: 10-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.A. SHANNA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nRAJENDRA KUMAR KARANWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 132 = 1992 SLD 132 = 1992 PTD 845 = (1991) 187 ITR 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nComputation of penalties for losses.\n2.\nProof of concealment of income.\nConclusions:\n•\nLosses not disallowed cannot factor into penalty computation.\n•\nPenalties for unexplained credits require substantive evidence of concealment.\nCitations:\n•\nCement Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1966), C.I.T. v. India Sea Foods (1976).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.463 of 1978, decision dated: 14-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM AND THANIKKACHALAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.V. Rajan for the Commissioner. P.P.S. Janardhanaraja for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nC.R. NIRANJAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 133 = 1992 SLD 133 = 1992 PTD 857 = (1991) 187 ITR 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRecovery of taxes from dissolved partnerships.\n2.\nApplication of res judicata.\nConclusions:\n•\nRecovery proceedings against partners are valid after rectifying procedural defects.\n•\nRes judicata does not apply where defects are subsequently addressed.\nCitations:\n•\nBaladin Ram Kalwar v. I.T.O. (1966).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.1733 of 1988, decision dated: 20-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.A. SHAMIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ravi Kant for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "PADAM PRAKASH\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 134 = 1992 SLD 134 = 1992 PTD 862 = (1991) 187 ITR 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nInterest under Section 215 during fresh assessment under Section 263.\n2.\nMeaning of regular assessment. \nConclusions:\n•\nFresh assessments under Section 263 are not regular assessments and do not permit interest imposition under Section 215.\n•\nInterest erroneously charged can be rectified under Section 154.\nCitations:\n•\nAssociated Cement Co. Ltd. v. C.T.O. (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "D.B. Income-tax Reference Application No.16 of 1989, decision dated: 31st July, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " D.L. MEHTA AND FAROOQ HASAN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Singhal for the Commissioner. N.M. Ranka for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMULTIMETALS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 135 = 1992 SLD 135 = 1992 PTD 869 = (1991) 187 ITR 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nApplicability of Section 145(2) when no stock records are maintained.\nConclusions:\n•\nTribunal's application of Section 145(2) without explicit findings in the assessment order raises a legal question.\n•\nNon-maintenance of stock records warrants rejection of books under Section 145(2).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.189 of 1989, decision dated: 11-07-1990. Income-tax", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND RA. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "PURAN SUGAR WORKS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 136 = 1992 SLD 136 = 1992 PTD 870 = (1991) 187 ITR 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSuccession of firms post-partner death.\n2.\nRegistration validity of firms post-succession.\nConclusions:\n•\nAfter a partner's death, succession creates two separate firms requiring separate assessments under Section 188.\n•\nFirm retains registration until the date of succession.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.55 of 1981, decision dated: 23rd May, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.K GULATI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGANGA PRASAD PIAREY LAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 137 = 1992 SLD 137 = 1992 PTD 872 = (1991) 187 ITR 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nValidity of treating a property sale as void without hearing the purchaser.\nConclusion:\n•\nA sale cannot be declared void under Section 281 without hearing the purchaser. Violation of natural justice invalidates the action.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.149 of 1988, decision dated: 1st August, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " T.D. SUGLA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.M. Jaikar instructed by Gagrat & Co. for Petitioners. Dr. V. Balasubramanian and J.P. Devadhar for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "PALANPUR TRADERS LTD and another\nvs\nUNION OF INDIA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 138 = 1992 SLD 138 = 1992 PTD 875 = (1991) 187 ITR 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nJustification of additions based on cash credits.\nConclusion:\n•\nWithout credible evidence from the assessee, additions based on unexplained cash credits are justified and do not raise legal questions.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.51 of 1989, decision dated: 11-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, CJ AND R.A. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "GIRRAJ KISHORE KANHAIYA LAL\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 139 = 1992 SLD 139 = 1992 PTD 889 = (1992) 66 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSelection for audit under Self-Assessment Scheme.\n2.\nApplication of Article 25 of the Constitution.\nConclusions:\n•\nSelection for audit under Paragraph 4(ii) due to gross understatement of income excludes immunity provisions.\n•\nClassification under Paragraphs 4(i) and 4(ii) is valid under Article 25.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2307 of 1992, decided 14-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Ikram Zahid for Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "SHAFQAT RASOOL\nvs\nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 140 = 1992 SLD 140 = 1992 PTD 909 = (1991) 187 ITR 648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nDetermination of industrial undertaking. \nConclusion:\n•\nWhether an assessee qualifies as an industrial undertaking is a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.67 of 1990, decision dated: 10-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY C.J. AND G.K. MATJUTR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCHEEKAY ASSOCIATES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 141 = 1992 SLD 141 = 1992 PTD 910 = (1991) 187 ITR 639", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nReassessment based on failure to disclose material facts.\nConclusion:\n•\nReassessment is invalid when material facts were already disclosed and considered during the original assessment.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971), Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1634 and 2919 of 1988, decision dated: 10-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " TD. SUGLA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Soli Dastur, Jahangir Mistry and W. Menezes for Petitioner. Dr. V. Balasubramanian for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nCHEEKAY ASSOCIATES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 142 = 1992 SLD 142 = 1992 PTD 913 = (1991) 187 ITR 604", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nDefective applications for time extension.\nConclusion:\n•\nApplications for time extension not signed by authorized persons are curable irregularities and do not warrant dismissal.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Civil Case No.193 of 1985, decision dated: 29-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.C VERMA, ACTG. C.J. AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.K. Rawat for the Commissioner. B.L. Nema for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBHILAI MANILA SAMAJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 143 = 1992 SLD 143 = 1992 PTD 915 = (1991) 187 ITR 613", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nClassification of gains from transferring rights under an agreement.\nConclusion:\n•\nGains from rights held for over 36 months are long-term capital gains.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.157 of 1988, decision dated: 7-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJALA V. MANOHAR AND DHANUKA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetley, K.C. Sidhwa and Mrs. Manjula Singh for the Commissioner. K.B. Bhujale and V.H. Patil for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nVIMAL LALCHAND MUTHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 144 = 1992 SLD 144 = 1992 PTD 917 = (1991) 187 ITR 620", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nAccrual of interest when not reflected in books.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest accrues based on agreement terms, irrespective of book entries.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.18 of 1978, decision dated: 6-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND S.C VERMA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Katju for the Commissioner. Bharatji Agarwal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSWADESHI CLOTH DEALERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 145 = 1992 SLD 145 = 1992 PTD 921 = (1991) 187 ITR 637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nDeductibility of gratuity without a trust.\nConclusion:\n•\nGratuity payable under an award is deductible even without a trust if accounts are maintained on a mercantile basis.\nCitation:\n•\nMadho Mahesh Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.110 of 1978, decision dated: 6-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND S. C VERMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSARAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 146 = 1992 SLD 146 = 1992 PTD 924 = (1991) 187 ITR 515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nAddition to income for bogus purchases.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdditions justified if the assessee fails to prove purchases were genuine.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.52 of 1990, decision dated: 24-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND S.C. VERMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "MOTI LAL PADAMPAT UDYOG LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 147 = 1992 SLD 147 = 1992 PTD 926 = (1991) 187 ITR 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nApplicability of amended Section 43-B for assessment year 1984-85.\nConclusion:\n•\nAmended Section 43-B, effective from April 1, 1984, applies to the assessment year 1984-85.\nCitation:\n•\nSrikakollu Subba Rao and Co. v. Union of India (1988).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 211 to 213 of 1987, decision dated: 17-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND DJ, JAGANNADHA RAJU, Justice(s),", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K. Ravindranatha Menon, Senior Advocate and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. P. Balachandran for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGOVINDARAJA REDDIAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 148 = 1992 SLD 148 = 1992 PTD 929 = (1991) 187 ITR 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nRectification when Tribunal follows a High Court decision.\nConclusion:\n•\nFollowing one High Court's decision over another does not constitute a rectifiable mistake.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.110 of 1989, decision dated: 22-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND DR. R. R. MISTRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "SWARUP VEGETABLE=PRODUCTS- INDUSTRIES LTD. (No.2)\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 149 = 1992 SLD 149 = 1992 PTD 931 = (1991) 187 ITR 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nPenalty for income concealment.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty cannot be levied if the assessee provides evidence disproving concealment.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Anwar Ali (1970).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.832 of 1978, decision dated: 20-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND DR. R.R. MISTRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nR.K. AGARWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 150 = 1992 SLD 150 = 1992 PTD 951 = (1992) 65 TAX 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6QlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nUndisclosed income from unexplained credits.\nConclusion:\n•\nAssessee's failure to substantiate credits justifies treating them as undisclosed income.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62 ", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.25 of 1985, decision dated: 16-03-1992, hearing DATE : 16-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hasan Naqvi for Applicant. Shaik Haider for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "M/s. PARAGON SILK MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 151 = 1992 SLD 151 = 1992 PTD 954 = (1992) 66 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDeduction of interest on borrowed capital.\n2.\nApplication of res judicata principles.\nConclusions:\n•\nBorrowed capital's genuineness must be established for interest deduction.\n•\nRes judicata principles apply conditionally in tax assessments.\nCitation:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Waheeduzzaman (1965).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii),66 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.17-K, 18-K and 19-K of 1989, decision dated: 9-12-1991, hearing DATE : 27-10-1991(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sindh dated 25-11-1986 in I.T.C. Nos. nil, 55 and 56 of 1976)", + "Judge Name:": " AJMAL MIAN, SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTER, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AGENCIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 152 = 1992 SLD 152 = 1992 PTD 963 = (1992) 65 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nAppeal dismissal in default.\n2.\nProcedural compliance for appeals.\nConclusions:\n•\nAppeals cannot be dismissed for default; they must be decided on merits.\n•\nTribunal must ensure compliance with procedural rules but cannot dismiss appeals based on non-compliance alone.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=111 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=130,131,132,134,135 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.538(IB) of 1988-89, decision dated: 22-01-1991, hearing DATE : 22-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": " JUNEJO M. IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S. AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Muhammad Jehangir Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 153 = 1992 SLD 153 = 1992 PTD 971 = (1992) 66 TAX 10 = 1993 PTCL 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRefund determination and procedural aspects under Section 100.\n2.\nPowers of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) in processing refunds.\nConclusions:\n•\nRefund determined during assessment is final; no application or further verification is necessary.\n•\nRefunds arising from assessment or appellate orders are governed by Section 100, with no limitation period.\n•\nRectification under Section 156 can address oversights in determining refunds.\n•\nRepeated verifications by ITO are unwarranted and constitute harassment.\nCitations:\n•\nInayatullah v. ITO (1989) PTD 876.\n•\nC.B.R. Circular No.ITB-3(6) (1985).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=64 Income Tax Rules, 1982=193 Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=29,50,96,97,97(2),98,99,99(2),99(2)(a),99(2)(b),100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,156 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.1778/KB to 1786/KB, 1788/KB of 1985-86 and 230/KB to 233/KB of 1987-88, decision dated: 12-05-1990, hearing DATE : 12-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " PER MANZUR-UL-HAQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AGREEING-", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan, Sahid Jamal, D.R. and Khurshid Anwar, D.R. for Appellants (in ITAs Nos. 1778/KB to 1786/KB and 1988/KB of 1985-86).\nFarooq Ali, F.C.A. Rehan Naqvi, Mansoor Ahmed Khan; Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Siraj-ul-Haque, Z.H. Ansari, Mudassar Shah and Suleman Shah for Respondents (in ITAs Nos. 1778/KB to 1786/KB and 1988/KB of 198586).\nFarooq Ali, F.C.A. Rehan Naqvi, Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Siraj-ul-Haque, Z.H. Ansari, Mudassar Shah and Suleman Shah for Appellants (in ITAs Nos. 230/KB to 233/KB of 1987-88)\nNasrullah Awan, Sahid Jamal, D.R. and Khurshid Anwar, D.R. for Respondents (in ITAs Nos. 230/KB to 233/KB of 1987-88).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 154 = 1992 SLD 154 = 1992 PTD 1010 = (1991) 187 ITR 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nChange in accounting methods for business expenditure.\n2.\nDeductibility of gratuity provision under Section 40A(7).\nConclusions:\n•\nA change in accounting must be bona fide and consistently applied, not selectively adopted for specific years.\n•\nGratuity deductions require proper provision in accounts and compliance with Section 40A(7).\nCitation:\n•\nShree Saban Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1985).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.117 of 1981, decision dated: 31st May, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.L. Mukherjee for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "HADA TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 155 = 1992 SLD 155 = 1992 PTD 1013 = (1991) 187 ITR 363", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nDisallowance of interest differential under Section 36(1)(iii) for loans advanced at a lower rate to directors.\nConclusion:\n•\nInterest differential is disallowed when loans to directors serve no business purpose and burden the business with higher borrowing costs.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax References Nos. 895, 896 and 912 of 1978; decided on 31st July,1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND R.A. SHARMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bharatji Agrawal for the Commissioner. S.N. Verma and Navin Sinha for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nH.R. SUGAR FACTORY (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 156 = 1992 SLD 156 = 1992 PTD 1032 = (1991) 187 ITR 650", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDeductibility of insurance charges.\n2.\nDisallowance percentage of Kamla Retreat expenses. \nConclusions:\n•\nDeductibility depends on machinery use for business purposes, raising a question of law.\n•\nVariations in disallowance percentages for similar expenses require consistency or justification.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Case No.108 of 1987, decision dated: 13-07-1989", + "Judge Name:": " R.N. KIRPAL AND CL. CHAUDHARY, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "D.K. Jain and R.N. Verma for the Commissioner. P.N. Monga for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nJ.K. SYNTHETICS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 157 = 1992 SLD 157 = 1992 PTD 1037 = (1991) 187 ITR 394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nDeduction of guarantee commission paid to a trust.\nConclusion:\n•\nDeduction upheld when the trust is proven genuine by prior legal findings. No question of law arises.\nCitation:\n•\nCIT v. Biju Patnaik (1974).", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Jurisdiction Case No.35 of 1984, decision dated: 18-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": " R. C. PATNAIK AND S. C MOHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Standing Counsel for the Petitioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKALINGA TUBES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 158 = 1992 SLD 158 = 1992 PTD 1038 = (1991) 187 ITR 378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nReopening of assessment under Section 147(b) based on IAC's remarks.\nConclusion:\n•\nRemarks highlighting errors in an assessment do not constitute information under Section 147(b). Reassessment is invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.13 of 1978, decision dated: 12-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND S. C. VENNA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Vikram Gulati for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "MUNNA LAL and SONS\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 159 = 1992 SLD 159 = 1992 PTD 1045 = (1991) 187 ITR 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nImposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged income concealment via cash credits.\nConclusion:\n•\nPenalty cannot be imposed without evidence beyond disbelieving creditors' statements. Burden of proof lies with the Revenue.\nCitation:\n•\nCIT v. Anwar Ali (1970).", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.175 of 1980, decision dated: 3rd May, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSHREE BAJRANG TRADING AND SUPPLY COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 160 = 1992 SLD 160 = 1992 PTD 1048 = (1991) 187 ITR 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6R1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nReassessment validity based on statements from a third-party search.\nConclusion:\n•\nStatements from a third party must establish a direct nexus with the assessee's transactions to justify reassessment.\nCitations:\n•\nC.I.T. v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2316 of 1987 with Writ Petition No.1876 of 1988 and Writ Petition No.3190 of 1987, decision dated: 3rd August, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " TD. SUGLA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pradeep Jetley and Kambli for Petitioners. Dr. V. Balasubramanian and Mrs. Manjula Singh for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "NIRMALKUMAR ASHOKKUMAR and another\nvs\nK.V. GOPI, Income Tax OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 161 = 1992 SLD 161 = 1992 PTD 1051 = (1991) 187 ITR 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nClassification of profit from a solitary transaction as business income.\nConclusion:\n•\nIsolated transactions are not considered business income unless intent to trade is established. The onus lies on the Revenue.\nCitations:\n•\nJanki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT (1965).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.3 of 1989, decision dated: 9-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND TD. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.B. Dastur with Arvind Sonawne instructed by M/s. Kanga & Co. for the Assessee. G.S. Jetley with Ms. Manjula Singh and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "ASHOK KUMAR JALAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 162 = 1992 SLD 162 = 1992 PTD 1056 = (1991) 187 ITR 302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWhether an oil mill run by the assessee constituted a separate business or was part of the same business.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe oil mill, though separately accounted for, was found to have complete interlacing of funds and unity of control with the head office. It was deemed a branch, not a separate business.\n•\nRetrenchment compensation paid to workmen on the mill's closure was allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37.\nCitations:\n•\nB.R. Ltd. v. Gupta (V.P.), C.I.T. (1978).\n•\nBansidhar Pvt. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.8 of 1986, decision dated: 28-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": " K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND VARGHESE KALLIATH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.K.R. Menon and N.R.K. Nair for the Commissioner. V.M. Kurian and A.V. Thomas for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nP.I. SIMON" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 163 = 1992 SLD 163 = 1992 PTD 1061 = (1991) 187 ITR 596", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nBurden of proof regarding cash credits.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessee must prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. Merely producing confirmation letters or evidence of cheques does not discharge this burden if creditworthiness is not established.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.298 of 1980, decision dated: 10-05-1989", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bagchi for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nvs\nUNITED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CO. (P) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 164 = 1992 SLD 164 = 1992 PTD 1066 = (1991) 187 ITR 594", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nRectification of mistakes and adherence to natural justice principles.\nConclusion:\n•\nAn order passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing is a nullity.\n•\nOrders under Section 154 are bound by limitation, and appellate intervention cannot extend this statutory limit.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "S.J.C. Nos. 28 and 29 of 1980, decision dated: 19-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " S. C. MOHAPATRA AND, J.M. MAHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sovesh Ray for the Commissioner. A.C. Jena, R. Chimanka and D.P. Kanungo for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGANGARAM CHAPOLIA & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 165 = 1992 SLD 165 = 1992 PTD 1068 = (1991) 187 ITR 590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nExemption of income for charitable trusts.\n2.\nTaxability of capital gains when assessed as a gift.\nConclusions:\n•\nIncome of public charitable trusts is exempt under Section 11.\n•\nWhen the difference between the sale price and fair market value is taxed under the Gift Tax Act, it cannot also be assessed as capital gains.\nCitation:\n•\nCIT v. Surji Devi Kuji Lal Jaipuria Charitable Trust (1990).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.685 of 1977, decision dated: 10-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND GK MATHUR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSURAJI DEVI KUNJI LAL JAIPURIA CHARITABLE TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 166 = 1992 SLD 166 = 1992 PTD 1070 = (1991) 187 ITR 560 = (1985) 52 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nDeductibility of gratuity liability without an approved gratuity fund.\nConclusion:\n•\nGratuity liability is not deductible unless it is covered by an approved gratuity fund.\nCitation:\n•\nShree Saban Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1985).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.336 of 1976, decision dated: 20-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": " S.P. BHARUCHA AND T.D. SUGLA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian with S.V. Naik and K.C Sidhwa, Advocates for the Commissioner. V.J. Pandit and I.V. Pandit Advocates for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPETROLEUM AND MINERALS P. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 167 = 1992 SLD 167 = 1992 PTD 1074 = (1991) 187 ITR 446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nTaxability of additional compensation for land acquired under compulsory acquisition.\nConclusion:\n•\nAdditional compensation, even if awarded later, relates back to the year of transfer and must be assessed as capital gains in that year under Section 45.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.204 of 1980, decision dated: 9-05-1989", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K SENGUPTA AND BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nPREMCHAND SITANATH ROY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 168 = 1992 SLD 168 = 1992 PTD 1078 = (1991) 187 ITR 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nCharitable trust status.\n2.\nApplicability of Section 13 to charitable trusts.\nConclusions:\n•\nDetermination of charitable status is a factual issue, not a legal question.\n•\nApplicability of Section 13 involves a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Applications Nos. 2 to 4 of 1990, decision dated: 22-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J AND DR. R.R. MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nKAMLA TOWN TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 169 = 1992 SLD 169 = 1992 PTD 1079 = (1991) 187 ITR 543", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nRight to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Tribunal.\nConclusion:\n•\nDenial of the opportunity to cross-examine constitutes a question of law.\nCitation:\n•\nKishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980).", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Application No.88 of 1990, decision dated: 24-08-1990", + "Judge Name:": " B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, CJ AND S.C. VERMA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "MOTILAL PADAMPAT UDYOG LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 170 = 1992 SLD 170 = 1992 PTD 1086 = (1991) 187 ITR 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6SFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nReference applications by third parties or suo motu powers of High Courts and Tribunals.\nConclusion:\n•\nOnly parties to the appeal can request references. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has suo motu powers under Section 256.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "M.C. No.56 of 1990, decision dated: 20-07-1990", + "Judge Name:": " S.C. MOHAPATRA AND, J.M MAHAPATRA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Standing Counsel and A.K. Roy for the Petitioner\nB.N. Rath for the Respondent\nM.R. Mohanty, D. Mohapatra and K.K. Swain for the Intevener", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nBIJU PATNAIK (BIJOY KUMAR DAS Intervener)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 171 = 1992 SLD 171 = 1992 PTD 1107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nApplicability of the PAYE system for non-resident employers operating in designated areas.\nConclusion:\n•\nA non-resident employer with sufficient tax presence in the UK must operate the PAYE system for employees working in designated areas like the North Sea.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "AAA", + "Judge Name:": " LORD SCARMAN, LORD WILBERFORCE, LORD EDMUND-DAVIES, LORD LOWRY AND LORD ROSKILL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Lord Scarman, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Lowry and Lord Roskill", + "Party Name:": "CLARK (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nvs\nOCEANIC CONTRACTORS INC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 172 = 1992 SLD 172 = 1992 PTD 1141 = (1992) 66 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDeductibility of amounts intended for equity.\n2.\nTaxability of dividend income and related deductions.\nConclusions:\n•\nDeductions under Section 10(2)(iii) are not permissible for amounts not used in the business.\n•\nExpenses must be wholly and exclusively incurred for earning dividend income to qualify under Section 31(1)(b).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(iii),10(2)(xvi) Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=30,31,31(1)(b),134,23,23(1)(xii) ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos.1106/LB to 1108/LB of 1980-81, Nos.401/LB to 406/LB of 1982-83, 2377/LB to 2380/LB of 1985-86, Nos.130/LB to 139/LB, 284/LB to 286/LB, 1062/LB, 1063/LB of 1990-91 and 403 to 406 of 1991-92, decision dated: 20-10-1991, hearing DATE : 25-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": " A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant. Mian M. Masood, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 173 = 1992 SLD 173 = 1992 PTD 1151 = (1992) 66 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nApplicability of simplified procedure for assessment under C.B.R. Circular No.7 of 1989.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe assessee, transitioning from an individual to a registered firm while retaining the same name, nature, and place of business, was not considered an existing assessee under the circular due to lack of status changes outlined in para 3 of the circular.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59B ", + "Case #": "ITA No. 124/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 29-02-1992, hearing DATE : 23rd February, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Appellant. Rasheed Ahmed Sheikh for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 174 = 1992 SLD 174 = 1992 PTD 1155 = (1992) 66 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nClaim of rebate for preserving food items.\n2.\nTax credit and depreciation treatment.\nConclusions:\n•\nAn ice cream manufacturing company was deemed to preserve food items, qualifying it for the rebate.\n•\nTax credit is not synonymous with allowance or deduction and cannot reduce the cost of assets for depreciation purposes.\n•\nSupplying freezers to dealers for business purposes qualifies as use for business, entitling the assessee to depreciation.\nCitations:\n•\nCrescent Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. (1981).", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FirstSched.,PartII,.Cl.A(1)(v),107,ThirdSched.,Rr.8(8),ThirdSched.,Rr.1,5(1)(cc) ", + "Case #": "ITAs. Nos. 778/1-13, 779/1-13, 790/LB and 791/LB of 1990-91,, decision dated: 29-08-1991, hearing DATE : 30-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " A. A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha for Appellant. S. Roomi Shah D.R. for Respondent (in I.TA. Nos.778/LB and 779/LB of 1990-91).\nS. Roomi Shah D.R. for Appellant. I.N. Pasha for Respondent (in I.T.A. Nos.790/LB and 791/LB of 1990-91).", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 175 = 1992 SLD 175 = 1992 PTD 1161 = (1992) 65 TAX 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRule 39 applicability for tax on salaries.\n2.\nMedical expenses treated as perquisites.\nConclusions:\n•\nRule 39 benefits can be utilized by individual employees for their assessments.\n•\nWithout a direct nexus between medical expenses and employment duties, such payments are treated as perquisites under Section 10(4)(d).\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. D.R. Phatak (1975).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=10(4)(d) ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.50 of 1983, decision dated: 12-03-1992, hearing DATE : 13-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for the Applicant. Ibrahim Pishori for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI\nvs\nALGEMENCE BANK OF NEITHERLAND, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 176 = 1992 SLD 176 = 1992 PTD 1168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nRectification of mistake in the valuation of property.\nConclusion:\n•\nTribunal rectified its order to reflect the correct auction value of Rs. 27,500 per marla for a plot instead of Rs. 36,000.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=156 ", + "Case #": "MA. No. 203/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 14-05-1992, hearing DATE :11-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER NASIM SABIR SYED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fayyaz Chaudhry and Fazal Mahmood Fardosi for Applicant. F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 177 = 1992 SLD 177 = 1992 PTD 1172 = (1992) 66 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nTransition and continuity under repealed and new tax laws.\n2.\nLimitation period for reference applications.\nConclusions:\n•\nSection 136 governs transitions due to the repeal of the Income Tax Act, 1922, ensuring continuity in proceedings.\n•\nReference applications filed post-1-7-1979 are subject to the 90-day limitation under the new ordinance.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Muhammad Saeed Khan.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15C,15D,15-H Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136 ", + "Case #": "I.T.Ref. No.88 of 1984, decision dated: 13-08-1991, hearing DATE : 13-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": " SYED ABDUR REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Ahmad and Wakeel Farooqui for Petitioner. Respondent called absent", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nNOOR JEHAN S. ALI BHAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 178 = 1992 SLD 178 = 1992 PTCL 38 = 1992 PTD 1176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nGrounds of appeal under Rule 10 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981.\nConclusion:\n•\nVague grounds of appeal lacking specific details render the appeal incompetent for admission.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=134 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.1239/LB and 1240/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 18-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": " SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Appellant Basarul Islam, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 179 = 1992 SLD 179 = 1992 PTD 1177 = (1992) 66 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nDeductibility of provisions for taxation and reserves by insurance companies.\nConclusion:\n•\nProvisions for taxation, gratuity, or reserves created by insurance companies are disallowed under Rule 5(a) of the Fourth Schedule, amended by the Finance Ordinance, 1980.\nCitations:\n•\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Phoenix Assurance Co. Limited (1991).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FourthSched.R.5(a),26 ", + "Case #": "No. 47 of 1991, decision dated: 17-05-1992, hearing DATE : 5-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND S. KHURSHID HAIDER RIZVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.G. Hassan for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs HOME INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES RANGE III, KARACHI I.T.C" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 180 = 1992 SLD 180 = 1992 PTD 1199 = (1992) 65 TAX 346 = (1991) 190 ITR 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RVNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRecovery of tax from a partner’s share in the firm.\n2.\nAppeal rights of firms.\nConclusions:\n•\nTax due from a partner can be recovered from the firm only under conditions in Section 182(4), which requires irrecoverability and capped liability (30% of the partner's share).\n•\nFirms can appeal under Section 246(c) against demands for such tax.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 667 and 668 of 1979, decision dated: 20-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": " RATNARN AND SOMASUNDARAM, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner. R. Janakiraman for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSANNANNA CHETTY AND SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 181 = 1992 SLD 181 = 1992 PTD 1205 = (1992) 194 ITR 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nComputation of actual cost for depreciation.\nConclusion:\n•\nFor assets installed before the Income Tax Act, 1961, the cost met by others is excluded in depreciation computation from the assessment year 1962-63 onwards. This aligns with Section 43(1) of the new act, ensuring fairness in depreciation claims.\nCitations:\n•\nCIT v. Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (1977).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=32(1)(iii),34(2),41(2),43(1),(6),Expl.2,4,6 & 8 Income Tax Act, 1922=10(2)(vi),(5)(a) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1861 of 1977 with Civil Appeals Nos. 212, 213, 220, 221, 904 to 906 and 2440 of 1980, Nos. 217 and 812 to 817 of 1977, Nos. 23 to 25 of 1982, 197 of 1983, Nos. 4703 to 4711 of 1984; and No. 4097 of 1991 and S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15346 of 1991, decision dated: 15-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN AND N.D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Civil Appeal No. 4097 of 1991 (Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT) i3 by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 19, 1991, of the Bombay High Court in ITR No. 481 of 1976. The judgment of the High Court is reported as Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 190 ITR 413 (Bom.).\nCivil Appeal No. 197 of 1983 (Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT) is by special leave from the judgment and order, dated August 25, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in ITR No. 179 of 1971. The judgment of the High Court is reported as CIT v. Bombay Suburban Electricity Co. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 298 (Bom.).\nDr. Debi Pal, Senior Advocate D.P. Mukharji, Advocate with him for Appellants A.C. (in CA. No. 217 of 1977 and CA. Nos. 23 to 25 of 1982).\nSoli J. Dastur, Senior Advocate (Percy Pardiwalla, Dushyant Dave Cyrus Mistry Raian Kaanjawalla and Ms. Manik Karanjawalla, Advocates with him) for Appellant (in CA. No. 4097 of 1991 and.Petitioner in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15346 of 1991).", + "Party Name:": "SAHARANPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 182 = 1992 SLD 182 = 1992 PTD 1224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWhether profits from the isolated purchase and sale of land should be assessed as trading profits under Schedule D, Case I.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe General Commissioners concluded that the transaction did not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade, given the taxpayers' intention to acquire the land as an investment and not for income generation or development. The Crown's appeal was dismissed, as the commissioners' decision was reasonable based on the facts of the case.\nCitations:\n•\nInland Revenue Commissioners v. Fraser (1942), Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Reinhold (1953).", + "Court Name:": "Chancery Division", + "Law and Sections:": "Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970=108,526 ", + "Case #": "dates of hearing: 29th to 31st July, 1986", + "Judge Name:": " SIR NICOLAS, BROWNE- WILKINSON V. C", + "Lawyer Name:": "Alan Moses for the Crown Christopher Sokol for the Taxpayers", + "Party Name:": "MARSON (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nvs\nMORTON (BRIAN), MORTON (KENNETH), MORTON (FRANKLYN) AND MORTON (DENNIS)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 183 = 1992 SLD 183 = 1992 PTD 1234 = (1992) 66 TAX 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWhether the profit from the sale of land, acquired for business purposes but later developed and sold, is assessable as trading profit under Schedule D, Case I.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe General Commissioners initially found the profit assessable as trading income. However, the court ruled that the land was not acquired as trading stock, but as a capital asset for business purposes. Thus, the profit from the sale was not subject to trading tax.\nCitations:\n•\nSimmons (as liquidator of Lionel Simmons Properties Ltd.) v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1980).", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 24th and 25-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " LLOYD NOURSE AND RALPH GIBSON, L, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Giles Goodfellow for the Taxpayer. Launcelot Henderson for the Crown", + "Party Name:": "KIRKHAM\nvs\nWILLIAMS (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 184 = 1992 SLD 184 = 1992 PTD 1254 = (1992) 194 ITR 645 = (1993) 67 TAX 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRejection of firm registration application due to late submission.\n2.\nAppeal maintainability when registration is refused.\nConclusions:\n•\nAn application for registration or continuance of registration that is rejected as not in order due to late filing can still be appealed. The assessing officer must give the firm an opportunity to show sufficient cause for the delay.\n•\nThe right of appeal should be interpreted in a practical and liberal manner.\nCitations:\n•\nGrafik India v. C.I.T. (1986), CIT v. Angadi Bros. (1986).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Court is reported as Grafik India v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 528 (Delhi), Civil Appeals No. 844 to 846 of 1992 are by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 1st April, 1977 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.C. Nos. 241 to 244 of 1976, decision dated: 17th January. 1992", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND N.D. OJHA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Civil Appeals Nos. 643 and 644 of 1977, No. 5552 of 1990 and Nos. 844 to 846 of 1992, Civil Appeals Nos. 643 and 644 arc by special leave from the judgment and order, dated March, 24, 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court m C.R. No. 20 of 1975; Civil Appeal No. 5552 of 1990, is by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 10th July, 1985 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.R. No. 179 of 1977. The judgment of the High Court is reported as Grafik India v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 528 (Delhi), Civil Appeals No. 844 to 846 of 1992 are by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 1st April, 1977 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.C. Nos. 241 to 244 of 1976, decided on 17th January. 1992.\nB.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and P. Parameswaran, Advocates with him for Appellants in all the Appeals.\nA. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for Respondent (in C.As. Nos. 643 and 644 of 1977).", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nASHOKA ENGINEERING CO. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 185 = 1992 SLD 185 = 1992 PTD 1259 = (1992) 66 TAX 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWhether exchange losses from foreign currency transactions related to loans for business purposes are deductible in computing taxable profits.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Court of Appeal upheld the commissioners' decision that exchange losses arising from loans used for business purposes were deductible. However, the appeal by the revenue was allowed, stating that such losses are related to capital transactions and not deductible under regular trade expenses.\nCitations:\n•\nBritish Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd. v. Atherton (1926), Strick v. Regent Oil Co. Ltd. (1966).", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "DATE of decision: 8-06-1989. dates of hearing: 8th to 11-05-1989.", + "Judge Name:": " LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD BRANDON OF OAKBROOK, LORD TEMPLEMAN, LORD OLIVER OF AYLMERTON AND LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY", + "Lawyer Name:": "Christopher McCall Q.C. and Launcelot Henderson for the Revenue Andrew Park Q.C. and David Goy for the Tax-payer Company", + "Party Name:": "BEAUCHAMP (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nvs\nF.W. WOOLWORTH PLC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 186 = 1992 SLD 186 = 1992 PTD 1273 = (1991) 190 ITR 56 = (1992) 65 TAX 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWhether expenditure incurred for removing an encumbrance to facilitate the transfer of capital assets is deductible under Section 48 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe expenditure to remove encumbrances, which is necessary for the transfer of property, is deductible under Section 48. The assessee’s decision to substitute the fair market value of property as of 1-1-1954 was valid, and the expenditure incurred after that date was deductible.\nCitations:\n•\nIndian Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 48 & 55.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 261 of 1977, decision dated: 19-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " T.D. SUGLA AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian with J.P. Deodhar and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSHAKUNTALA KANTILAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 187 = 1992 SLD 187 = 1992 PTD 1277 = (1991) 190 ITR 144 = (1992) 65 TAX 358", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWhether income from a minor child, received through a firm, can be included in the total income of the parent under Section 155 of the Income Tax Act.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe inclusion of income from a minor child in the parent's total income was valid under Section 155, as the income from the firm was properly clubbed with the parent's income, as per the provisions of Section 64.\nCitations:\n•\nAdditional CIT v. Shree Shankar & Co. (1979), CIT v. Gotla (1985), CIT v. Thimmaiah (1968).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=35 ", + "Case #": "Tax Cases Nos. 131 to 133 of 1980 (References Nos. 99 to 101 of 1980), decision dated: 3rd September, 1990", + "Judge Name:": " RATNAM MID ABDUL HADI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. Bhaskaran for the-Assessee. N.V. Balasubramaniam for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "Smt. RADHA GAJAPATHI RAJU\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 188 = 1992 SLD 188 = 1992 PTD 1285 = (1993) 67 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWhether the selection of an assessee for a total audit under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance is lawful when based on a suspicion of gross understatement of income.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe notice issued for a total audit was deemed lawful, as it was based on valid grounds and definite information, rather than being arbitrary or unlawful. The assessee was required to provide evidence that the accounts accurately reflected the trade position.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=61,62 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6277 of 1991, heard on 29-06-1992, hearing DATE : 29-06-1992", + "Judge Name:": " KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner. Akhtar Hussain Awan for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "Messrs DAWN SPORTS\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 189 = 1992 SLD 189 = 1992 PTD 1287 = (1992) 66 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nAddition under Section 13(1)(e) for unexplained expenditures.\n2.\nAddition under Section 13(2) due to low reported expenditure.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Income-tax Officer's addition of Rs.10,000 was justified, as the assessee failed to substantiate the expenditure. It was confirmed that Section 13(1)(e) or Section 13(2) did not require prior approval from the IAC for additions made due to verification issues.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,13(1)(e),13(2) ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 1227/HQ of 1990-91, decision dated: 10-06-1992, hearing DATE : 10-06-1992", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asrar Rauf, D.R. for Appellant Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 190 = 1992 SLD 190 = 1992 PTD 1292 = (1992) 66 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6RlNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWhether a successor Income-tax Officer can revisit a case and issue a second notice under Section 65 after an initial exemption certificate has been granted.\nConclusion:\n•\nOnce the Income-tax Officer has passed a detailed order after a thorough review, the successor cannot re-open the case or issue a new notice under Section 65, unless the original order was made without proper scrutiny.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=SecondSched.R.86 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 138 of 1991, decision dated: 19-04-1992, hearing DATE : 19-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": " MAHBUB ALI KHAN AND MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Mustafa Awan for Petitioner. Eid Muhammad Khattak for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "ALIMTIAZ FOUNDATION (REGISTERED), ABBOTTABAD\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER, CIRCLE (A), ABBOTTABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 191 = 1992 SLD 191 = 1992 PTD 1294 = (1992) 66 TAX 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nDeduction for Zakat under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance despite the provisions in the Fourth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n2.\nExemption of interest income under the Second Schedule.\n3.\nDepreciation claims for insurance businesses under the Fourth Schedule.\nConclusions:\n•\nThe Zakat deduction was valid under the Zakat Ordinance despite conflicting provisions in the Fourth Schedule.\n•\nExemption for interest income under the Second Schedule applies only when income is computed according to the relevant provisions of Section 30.\n•\nDepreciation claims by insurance companies must align with the Fourth Schedule's rules, ensuring the correct adjustment of profits.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=FourthSched.Rr.5 & 8,SecondSched.,C1.72 & Ss.30 & 31,FourthSched.,Rr.5,7 & 8andSs.23 & 24 ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.693/LB of 1990-91, decision dated: 14-09-1991, hearing DATE : 8-07-1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN CHAIRMAN, A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sarfraz, CA. for Appellant. S. Roomi Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1FRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 192 = 1992 SLD 192 = 1992 PTD 1312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1FRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWhether removal expenses incurred by partners for relocating to different offices are deductible as business expenses.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe removal expenses incurred by the partners were not deductible, as they were considered to serve the personal interests of the partners, even if intended to support the business. The court ruled that such expenses could not be regarded as wholly and exclusively for business purposes.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections:": "Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970=130(a) ", + "Case #": "Appeal from the Court of Appeal, decision dated: 23rd November, 1989", + "Judge Name:": " LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH, LORD BRANDON OF OAKBROOK, LORD TEMPLEMAN, LORD OLIVER OF AYLMERTON AND LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Party Name:": "MACKINLAY (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)\nvs\nARTHUR YOUNG MCCLELLAND MOORES & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1FnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 193 = 1992 SLD 193 = 1992 PTD 1331 = (1992) 66 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1FnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nInterpretation of the definitions of person in Section 2 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\n2.\nObligation under Section 143 to furnish details of contracts, including those with government bodies.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe definitions of person in Section 2 are inclusive, not exhaustive. Government entities are not exempt from the provisions of Section 143 regarding contract disclosures.\n•\nContractors, whether dealing with private or government institutions, must furnish required details to the Income-tax Officer under Section 143, and failure to do so results in penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2,143,2(32),(16),143,108 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. Nos. 1008/LB and 1986-87, decision dated: 9-09-1991, hearing DATE : 21st August, 1991", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, A.A. ZUBAIRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND IBRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PER A.A. ZUBAIRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERFARHAT 4LI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AGREEING, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, CONTRA", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian M. Masood, D.R. for Appellant. Latif Shahid for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1F3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 194 = 1992 SLD 194 = 1992 PTD 1344 = (1992) 66 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1F3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSection 144(c) - Request for Information: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and other officers authorized under the Income Tax Ordinance (1979) have the authority to require information, statements, or accounts, including from banking companies, through written notices.\n2.\nPenalty for Non-compliance: The Income Tax Officer has powers under Sections 144 and 108 to issue penalties in case of default, but penalties should not be excessive without adequate reasoning and must provide the assessee an opportunity to explain.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal's ruling highlighted that the ITO had delayed matters and imposed excessive penalties. The ITO failed to give the assessee an adequate opportunity to offer an explanation before imposing a penalty. The Tribunal set aside the penalty and directed that the matter be reconsidered, ensuring a fair process for the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108,144(c),108,2(32) ", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 407/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 28-06-1992, hearing DATE : 2-06-1992", + "Judge Name:": " FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asrar Rauf, D.R. for Appellant. Haji Yousuf, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1JBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 195 = 1992 SLD 195 = 1992 PTD 1353 = (1992) 66 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1JBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nInterpretation of Section 15-BB of the Income Tax Act (1922): The amendment made to Section 15-BB by the Finance Ordinance, 1972, was invalid due to its lapse, and thus it could not be used to adjudicate the rights of the parties.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe amendment introduced by the Finance Ordinance of 1972 was considered invalid as it was temporary and had lapsed, rendering it ineffective for resolving disputes. The Court clarified that the amendment could not be applied retroactively.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=15BB(4AA),15BB(1),7(1) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 132/K to 144/K, 215/K of 1984, 106/K, 107/K; 127/K of 1985, 71/K, 279/K to 280/K of 1986 and 572/K of 1990 and CA. No. 617/K of 1990, decision dated: 18-11-1991, hearing DATE : 18-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND SAJustice(s)AD ALI SHAH, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan and Shaikh Haider, Advocates Supreme Court with S.M. Abbasi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.Iqbal Naeem Pasha, Usman Ghani Rashid and Naseem Farooqui, Advocates Supreme Court with Nizam Ahmad and Faizanul Haq, Advocates-on-Record for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nEBRAHIM D. AHMAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1JRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 196 = 1992 SLD 196 = 1992 PTD 1359 = (1992) 66 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1JRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nReference to High Court under Section 66: In a reference under Section 66 of the Income Tax Act (1922), the High Court typically does not question the Tribunal's factual findings unless those findings are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.\n2.\nDeduction of Expenses upon Business Closure: A non-resident company’s claim for deduction of expenses related to staff termination upon the closure of its business was examined. Such expenses, while relating to the closure, were not considered deductible under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income Tax Act.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court found that while the Tribunal's findings of fact were generally binding, questions of law, such as the applicability of specific provisions, can still be addressed. The expenses for business closure were ruled as not deductible under Section 10(2)(xvi) since they did not directly relate to the ongoing business activities.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=66,10(2)(xvi) ", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1988, decision dated: 5-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": " M.H. RAHMAN, A.T.M. AFZAL AND MUSTAFA KAMAL, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ishtiaq Ahmed, Senior Advocate instructed by Md. Aftab Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.Moksudur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Sajjadul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "MACHINNON MACKENZIE & COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF TAXES, CHITTAGONG (SOUTH) ZONE, CHITTAGONG" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1JnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 197 = 1992 SLD 197 = 1992 PTD 1364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1JnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nRejection of Account Books: The Income Tax Officer can reject incomplete or unreliable books of accounts and assess the taxpayer based on reasonable estimates or a flat profit rate.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Income Tax Officer is justified in rejecting unreliable books and making an assessment based on reasonable estimation methods. However, such rejection must be done honestly and not arbitrarily.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979= ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No. 2488/LB of 1984-85, decision dated: 10-05-1989, hearing DATE : 25-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": " FAKHARUDDIN SIDDIQUI AND MIRZA MUHAMMAD WASIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.R. Shami, I.T.P. for Appellant. Nazir Ahmad Zia, A.C./D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1J3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 198 = 1992 SLD 198 = 1992 PTD 1367 = (1992) 66 TAX 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1J3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nRetrospective Amendment under Section 26-A: The amendment made by the Finance Act (1974) to Section 26-A of the Income Tax Act is considered procedural and curative, hence applicable retrospectively.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe retrospective effect of the amendment to Section 26-A was upheld as remedial in nature, thus applying to previous cases.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=26,26A ", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.8 of 1988, decision dated: 5-05-1992, hearing DATE : 5-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND SYED KHURSHID HAIDER RIZVI, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Farooqi for Applicant. Respondent (called absent)", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, KARACHI\nvs\nM.A. GHANI & COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1NBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 199 = 1992 SLD 199 = 1992 PTD 1377 = (1992) 66 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1NBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nCapital vs Revenue Expenditure: Payments made to resolve obstacles to business trading or prevent insolvency are treated as revenue expenditures, not capital.\n2.\nNature of Payments: Expenditures made to save an existing business or to remove disadvantages are considered revenue expenses.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe payments in question, made to resolve obstacles to trading or save a business from collapse, were deemed revenue expenditures and deductible in calculating profits.", + "Court Name:": "House of Lord", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 5th and 6-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": " LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD EMSLIE, LORD TEMPLEMAN, LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELLY AND LORD, JAUNCEY OF TULLICHETTLE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Alan Moses QC and Launcelot Henderson (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) for the Crown", + "Party Name:": "LAWSON\nvs\nJOHNSON MATTHEY PLC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1NRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 200 = 1992 SLD 200 = 1992 PTD 1397 = (1992) 66 TAX 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6S1NRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nAppeal Against Workers' Welfare Fund Levy: The levy of the Workers' Welfare Fund under the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance (1971) is appealable under Section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe levy of the Workers' Welfare Fund is subject to appeal under Section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, as there is no separate appellate mechanism created under the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I.TA. No.168/KB of 1991-92, decision dated: 31st May, 1992, hearing DATE : 31st May, 1992", + "Judge Name:": " MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IQBAL M. QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. Syed Humayoon Zaidi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFFBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 201 = 1992 SLD 201 = 1992 PTD 1402 = (1992) 66 TAX 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFFBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nWorkers' Welfare Fund Calculation: The Workers' Welfare Fund is calculated at a rate of 2% of the total income. It is not an allowable expenditure for the purpose of determining total income but must be excluded when calculating taxable income.\n2.\nTwo Stages of Tax Calculation:\no\nThe total income is first determined.\no\nThe Workers' Welfare Fund is calculated and deducted from the total income to arrive at taxable income.\no\nTax is then applied to the taxable income, not the total income.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Income Tax Officer (ITO) must separately calculate the Workers' Welfare Fund and deduct it before applying tax to the taxable income, ensuring it is excluded from the total income for tax purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=49 Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971=4 ", + "Case #": "I.TAs. Nos.624/LB to 626/LB of 1991-92, decision dated: 10-05-1992, hearing DATE : 6-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": " ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NASIM SABIR SYED ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood Mirza for Appellant. F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Respondent", + "Party Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFFRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 202 = 1992 SLD 202 = 1992 PTD 1407 = (1992) 66 TAX 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFFRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nConstitutional Jurisdiction and Remedies: The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act can only be invoked after exhausting other remedies available under the relevant law. A person must first seek remedy through appeals or other processes outlined in the Income Tax Ordinance.\n2.\nLate Filing of Return under Simplified Procedure Scheme: The taxpayer's return filed after the deadline was not acceptable under the Simplified Procedure Scheme, and the Income Tax Officer was justified in amending the return. The taxpayer's suppression of income could be corrected under the provisions of the Ordinance.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court can only intervene if no other remedy is available. If the taxpayer has not followed the procedures for appeal, the Income Tax Officer can amend the return and assess the correct income.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=129,59B,61,65,66A Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974=44 ", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.82 of 1989, decision dated: 30-07-1991", + "Judge Name:": " KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Rafique Dar for Petitioner. Muhammad Afzal for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISMAIL\nvs\nIncome Tax OFFICER MIRPUR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFFnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 203 = 1992 SLD 203 = 1992 PTD 1411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFFnPT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 4992\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRecovery of Tax: The High Court intervened to restrain the department from enforcing the recovery of tax when the taxpayer had not paid the required amount under Section 92.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe High Court exercised constitutional jurisdiction to stop the department from recovering the tax until further action was taken, as per the conditions set out under Section 92.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,92 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199 ", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1045 of 1992, decision dated: 28-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": " NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, CJ AND NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Party Name:": "Messrs INTER-OCEAN CARGO SERVICES, KARACHI\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFF3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 204 = 1992 SLD 204 = 1992 PTD 1412 = (1992) 195 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFF3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nPenalty and Change in Law: A penalty was imposed based on the law effective at the time of the original return. Even though reassessment took place after a change in law, penalties should be based on the law in effect at the time of the original return filing.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe penalty for concealment of income was calculated based on the law in place when the original return was filed (prior to the 1968 amendment), not the law when the reassessment took place.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 678 and 679 of 1977, decision dated: 13-03-1992(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 21, 1975, of the Allahabad High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 492 of 1973)", + "Judge Name:": " S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND DR. A.S. ANAND, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Civil Appeals Nos. 678 and 679 of 1977, decided on 13th March, 1992 (Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 21, 1975, of the Allahabad High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 492 of 1973)\nB.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, P. Parameswaran and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him) for Appellant.Santosh Kr. Aggarwal, Vinay Vaish, B.V. Desai and Ms. Vinita Ghorpade, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nONKAR SARAN AND SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFJBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 205 = 1992 SLD 205 = 1992 PTD 1429 = (1992) 66 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFJBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSalaries Tax and Perquisites: School fees paid by an employer on behalf of an employee's child, as per the employee's contract, are taxable as perquisites under the salaries tax provisions of the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Ordinance.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe school fees paid by the employer were considered as perquisites and were taxable under the salaries tax provisions since they were part of the contractual agreement and benefited the employee.", + "Court Name:": "Privy Council", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922= ", + "Case #": "Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong, decision dated: 22-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": " LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD TEMPLEMAN, LORD GRIFFITHS, LORD ACKNER AND LORD LOWRY", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barry Pinson Q.C. for the Tax-payer. Andrew Park Q.C. and Bernard Whaley, Senior Crown Counsel, Hong Kong for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "DAVID HARDY GLYNN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFJRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 206 = 1992 SLD 206 = 1992 PTD 1436 = (1992) 195 ITR 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFJRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nCapital Gains and Compensation: The assessee’s compensation for breach of contract was assessed for tax. The breach occurred in 1958, but the right to claim compensation did not accrue until the consent decree in 1969.\n2.\nInterest on Compensation: The interest portion of the compensation was treated as a revenue receipt, subject to tax for the year in which it was accrued.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe compensation amount of Rs.2,52,000 was not taxable as capital gains since it was not related to a capital asset. The interest of Rs.1,56,030 was treated as a revenue receipt, taxable for the period from 1969 to the consent decree.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 385 of 1976, decision dated: 24-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " T.D. SUGLA AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian with J.P. Deodhar and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner. S. E. Dastur with N.A. Dalvi and Y.B. Pandya, instructed by M/s. pandya and Poonawala for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nABBASBHOY A. DEHGAMWALLA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFJnPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 207 = 1992 SLD 207 = 1992 PTD 1446 = (1992) 195 ITR 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFJnPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nWaiver of Penalty: An authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must provide reasons for its orders, especially when deciding on penalty waivers under Section 273-A (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe order rejecting the application for penalty waiver was quashed because the Commissioner failed to provide reasons for his decision. The matter was sent back for reconsideration with proper reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Special Civil Application No.2121 of 1985, decision dated: 7-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": " M.B. SHAH MID .VH. BHAIRAVIA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.H. Kaji for the Assessee. M.J Thakore instructed by Messrs R.P. Bhatt & co- for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "R. DEEPAKCHANDRA AND COMPANY\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax & and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFJ3PT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 208 = 1992 SLD 208 = 1992 PTD 1450 = (1992) 195 ITR 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFJ3PT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nCapital vs. Revenue Expenditure: The assessee incurred share issue expenses when raising additional capital after a consent decree forced the company to buy out a minority group. The expenditure was related to raising capital, not the ongoing business operations.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe share issue expenses were considered capital expenditure because they were incurred to raise funds for new projects. The assessee's claim for revenue expenditure was rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.227 of 1977, decision dated: 20-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " T.D. SUGLA AND D.R. DHANUKA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "J.D. Mistry instructed by M/s. Mulla and Mulla and Craigie, Blunt and Caroe for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian with P.S. Jetley and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner.", + "Party Name:": "SHREE RAM MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFNBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 209 = 1992 SLD 209 = 1992 PTD 1460 = (1992) 195 ITR 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFNBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nAssessment and Appeal Process: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) set aside the assessment and directed the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to give the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain its position. The Revenue argued that the AAC should have decided the appeal on its merits.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Tribunal upheld the AAC's order, finding that there was nothing wrong in remitting the case back to the ITO for a fresh opportunity. The penalty under Section 52 was also correctly deleted by the Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference NO. 303 of 1977 decided on 24-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " T. D. SUGLA MID B. N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanian with J. P. Devdhar and K.C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner. Dinesh Vyas with P.C. Tripathi for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nSmt. SATI K. SIPPY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFNRPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 210 = 1992 SLD 210 = 1992 PTD 1463 = (1992) 195 ITR 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cUV6TFNRPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nPowers of the Income Tax Officer: If the ITO makes a mistake while calculating the tax during the original assessment, they are not required to repeat the mistake when giving effect to a Tribunal's order.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe ITO was justified in correcting the tax calculation when giving effect to the Tribunal’s order. This correction did not amount to a rectification of the original order, as the mistake had been identified and addressed.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.386 of 1977, decision dated: 25-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": " T. D. SUGLA AND B. N. SRIKRISHNA, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. J. Mehta and I. M. Munim for the Assessee. Dr. V. Balasubramanian, J. P. Devdhar and K. C. Sidhwa for the Commissioner", + "Party Name:": "BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1FBPT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 211 = 1992 SLD 211 = 1992 PTD 1466 = (1990) 185 ITR 331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=cVVYQ1FBPT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issue:\n•\nBusiness Loss Deduction: The assessee-company incurred a loss when it financed a managed company through a subsidiary, and the loan was later sold at a loss.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe loss was deductible as a business loss because the financing was part of the company’s normal business operations in managing other companies, even though it was channeled through a subsidiary.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1987, decision dated: 26-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": " AJIT K. SENGUPTA AND SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, Justice(s)", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Bagchi and R.C. Prasad for the Commissioner. Dr. D. Pal and Miss M. Seal for the Assessee", + "Party Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nGILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT & CO. LTD" + } +] \ No newline at end of file